Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - ANNEX AGMT TTM EIR DEVELOPMENT (2)AGENDA REPORT City gagerA Item to be presented by: Jeffrey Lambert PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 11, 1996 SUBJECT: A PREZONE, ANNEXATION AGREEMENT, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, OAK TREE PERMIT, AND REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 377 ACRE SITE WITH A BUSINESS PARK THAT WOULD ALLOW UP TO FOUR MILLION SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF RYE CANYON ROAD AT 25100 RYE CANYON ROAD. APPLICANT: LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On May 7, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P96-14, recommending approval of Master Case 95-138 to the City Council, subject to the modifications and conditions adopted by the Commission. The Commission also recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the project, including the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations. The project includes: 1) Prezone 95-003 to allow for City zoning on the entire 377 acre site from the existing Los Angeles County M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture - five acre minimum lot size) zoning to City of Santa Clarita BP (Business Park). 2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51828 to subdivide the property into 62 industrial lots and 15 landscape maintenance and utility lots. 3) Annexation Agreement to allow for fees to be equal with Los Angeles County. 4) Oak Tree Permit 95-023 to allow for the removal of six valley oak trees (one of which is a heritage size tree). Adopted: - ► ► Agenda Item: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission conducted a total of four public hearings on the project. The item was heard by the Planning Commission on February 20, March 8, March 19 and May 7 of 1996. The Commission heard public testimony on the project at these meetings. This testimony, in addition to Commission deliberation, resulted in additional conditions being placed on the project. Significant benefits of the project include: 1) A potential for up to 10,500 new jobs. 2) Annexation of over one half square mile of land to the City's jurisdiction. 3) Participation in significant circulation improvements to benefit area -wide circulation. 4) The preservation of approximately 89 acres of land as open space including aprovision for the creation of natural habitat. 5) Creation of additional tax revenues from increased property taxes and sales tax. More detailed information related to the project is included in the attached memorandum. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 96-74, approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51828, and Oak Tree Permit 95-138 and certifying Environmental Impact Report SC 9451043, including the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations; and, 2) Introduce Ordinance No. 96-22, approving Annexation Agreement 95-001 and Prezone 95- 003, waive further reading, and pass to a second reading, ATTACHMENTS Information Memorandum Resolution No. 96-74 (including Conditions of Approval) Ordinance 96-22 Annexation Agreement Planning Commission Resolution P96-14 Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Staff Reports (in reading file in City Clerk's Office) Exhibit "C" of the Annexation Agreement (in reading file in City Clerk's Office) Rye Canyon Business Park Oak Tree Replacement Program (in readingfile in City Clerk's Office) Public Hearing Procedure 1. Mayor opens hearing *States purpose of hearing 2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice 3. Staff report 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent) •Proponent 7. Mayor closes public testimony S. Discussion by Council 9. Council decision 10. Mayor announces decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING MASTER CASE 95-138 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51838, PRE -ZONE 95-003, OAK TREE PERMIT 95-023, ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 95-001) GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN END OF RYE CANYON ROAD. THE SITE ADDRESS IS 25100 RYE CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA. THE PROJECT PROPONENT IS THE LOCKHEED CORPORATION. PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita regarding Master Case 95-138 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51838, Pre -Zone 95-003, Oak Tree Permit 95-023, Annexation Agreement 95-001) generally located at the northern end of Rye Canyon Road, north of future alignment of Newhall Ranch Road, and south and east of the Peter J. Pitchess Honor Rancho in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita boundaries, The site address is 25100 Rye Canyon Road. The project proponent is the Lockheed Corporation. The request is to allow development of a 377 acre site into a business park containing up to four million square feet with approximately 143 acres of open space. The subdivision would consist of 62 business park lots ranging from 1.0 to 9.4 acres. In addition, there would be a number of open space, landscaping and utility lots. Total construction grading would be balanced on-site. The oak tree permit would allow for the removal of up to six oak trees. The Prezone would be from the existing Los Angeles County zoning of M-1.5 and A-2-5 to City of Santa Clarita BP. The annexation Agreement would allow for increased time frames to develop the project. The hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 11th day of June, 1996, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita. If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at or prior to the public hearing. Dated: May 14, 1996 Publish Date: May 18, 1996 Donna M. Grindey, CMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 96-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING MASTER CASE 95-138, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51828, OAK TREE PERMIT 95-023, AND CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 9451043 TO SUBDIVIDE A 377 ACRE SITE INTO 62 INDUSTRIAL LOTS TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 4,000,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25100 RYE CANYON ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case 95-138 was filed by the Lockheed Martin Corporation (the applicant) with the City of Santa Clarita on July 20, 1995. The application proposes; a prezone to allow for City zoning on the 377.1 acre project site from existing Los Angeles County A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture - five acre minimum lot size) and M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) to City of Santa Clarita BP (Business Park) zoning; a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide the project site into 62 industrial lots and 14 landscape maintenance and utility lots; an annexation agreement to allow for increased time lines, fee concessions, and the development of the site with up to 4,000,000 square feet of building area; an oaktree permit to allow for the removal of up to six oak trees (one of which is of heritage size); and review and certification of the environmental impact report prepared for the project. The assessor parcel numbers for the project site are 2866-006-006 and 007.. b. The project site has been utilized by Lockheed Martin Corporation for research and development purposes since the late 1950's. Prior to this, the site was used for agricultural purposes. The project would include re -utilization of the site, which contains undeveloped and developed land. The site presently contains approximately 502,000 square feet of building area. C. The project site is located directly adjacent to the existing Valencia Industrial Center. d. The project site is transected by a segment of the San Gabriel Fault. Development restrictions in this area, in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Act, will be required. e. Site habitat has been significantly disturbed due to previous use of the property. f. The General Plan designates the project site as BP (Business Park). g. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project on July 25, 1995, which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an environmental impact report must be prepared. h. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR identifies unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, circulation, and biology. The Environmental Impact Report has been circulated for review and comment by the affected governmental agencies and all comments received have been considered. The review period was from February 2, 1996 to March 17, 1996. j: The project includes the utilization of more level areas of the site for development. Ridges and steep slopes that define Rye Canyon would generally not be disturbed by the project. Spur ridges, within the project site, would be removed. k. The project includes an extension of water and sewer service to the individual industrial lots. Other utilities would also be extended to each of the industrial lots. 1. The project proposes the development of the 377 acre site with up to 4,000,000 square feet of light industrial building area. The General Plan encourages the development of business park/light industrial uses as follows: 1) Goal 2, Policy 2.18 of the Land Use Element states: Promote the retention and provide opportunities for the expansion of existing manufacturing and industrial land uses in industrial/commercial and business park locations. 2) Goal 3, Policy 3.1 states: Promote the development of City centers where more intensive land uses will be encouraged, including the development of a regional commercial center, office/business park centers, an entertainment complex, and a civic town center. M. Existing access to the site is from Rye Canyon Road. Future access would be from the extensions of Copperhill Drive and Newhall Ranch Road. Internal access would be from interconnected public streets. n. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee met and supplied the applicant with draft conditions of approval. o. The project includes the preservation of approximately 79 acres of the project site as open space. Oak trees would be planted within this open space area. P. A duly noticed pubic hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 20, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, staff summarized the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and presented a staff report on the project. At the conclusion of this meeting, the Commission directed staff and the applicant to provide additional information related to certain issues associated with the project. These issues included analysis related to oak tree removals (including a heritage tree), wildlife habitat, visual impacts, project alternatives, project amenities, fault zones, the annexation agreement and the draft environmental impact report. q. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 8, 1996, at the project site. At this meeting, staff and the Planning Commission toured the project site. r. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 19, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, staff returned with the requested information for the Commission's review. The Commission also took public testimony on the project and continued the item to the April 16, 1996, meeting. S. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 16, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, staff recommended that the Commission continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting of May 7, 1996.. t. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 7, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P96-14, recommending approval of Master Case 95-138, including certification of the EIR, to the City Council. U. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 11, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds as follows: a. At the hearing the City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendation, the staff presentation, agenda report, the Draft EIR prepared for the project, applicant presentations and public testimony on the project. L The design of the subdivision/project and the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems, since water, sewage disposal, and fire protection are addressed in the conditions of approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. C. Conditions of approval include requirements for the on-site planting of oak trees, the on-site locating of water guzzlers, the preparation of a Transit Demand Management Plan, and the implementation of contour grading for graded hillsides. d. The project complies with the findings, requirements and performance standards of the Unified Development Code. The project will comply with the requirements of the BP (BusinessPark) zone. e. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan, The City's General Plan designation for the site is BP (Business Park). f. The project applicant will be required to complete or participate in the completion of several substantial circulation improvements. g: Benefits of the project include: the expansion of business park/industrial land uses within the City, the preservation of approximately 79 acres of the project site as open space, the creation of approximately 10,500 jobs at project buildout and the completion of several significant traffic improvements. h; The Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain significant environmental effects. The Final Environmental Impact Report identifies feasible mitigation measures for each of these impacts with the exclusion of air quality, biology; and circulation. The traffic study, incorporated within the EIR, assumes that certain levels of roadway improvements will be constructed over time until project buildout occurs. If these improvements are constructed and project related mitigation is in place, circulation impacts associated with this project would be reduced to a less than significant level. If these improvements are not constructed within this time frame and development of the project site proceeds, adverse unavoidable impacts to area circulation could occur. SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report, and determines that it is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the findings stated, the City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for Master Case 95-138. The City Council finds that the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the project. This determination is made based upon the following factors and public benefits. The factors are as follows: a. The project provides a significant expansion of the City's primary business park/light industrial area. L The project will result in the creation of approximately 10,500 jobs, substantially improving the City's existing jobs/housing balance. The City is presently housing -rich. C. The project results in the preservation, in perpetuity, of approximately 89 acres of open space. Substantial oak tree plantings will be required in this open space area. d. The annexation of a portion of the site will benefit the City of Santa Clarita by extending local government and control. Eventual buildout of the property will increase local property tax revenues obtained by the City. e. The project will complete, or participate in the completion of, several significant traffic improvements that will benefit area circulation. f. The project will result in the re -utilization of a previously used industrial property. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: a. A Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared and circulated in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. b. The project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the project conforms to the UDC and is compatible with surrounding land uses. C. The project is compatible with existing development in the area and consistent with the General Plan and complies with zoning requirements. d. The applicant has substantiated the findings for approving a vesting tentative tract map and oak tree permit. e. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65907 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any action or proceeding to attach, review, set aside, void or annul this decision, or concerning any proceedings, acts, or determinations taken, done or made prior to such decision or to determine the reasonableness, legality, or validity of any condition attached to this decision shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 90 days of the date of this resolution and the City Council is served within 120 days of the date of this resolution.. The City Clerk shall send a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant, and if any, the appellant at the address of said person set forth in the record of the proceedings and such mailing shall constitute the notice required by Civil Code Procedure 1094.6. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby approves Master Case 95-138 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51828 and Oak Tree Permit 95-023) subject to the conditions of approval, and certifies the FEIR (SC 95041049) prepared for the project, including the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 19 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Council\res9674.gea CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MASTER CASE NO., 95-138 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The approval of this project shall expire if not put into use within two years from the date of conditional approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the State of California Subdivision Map Section 66452.6 and the City's Unified Development Code, or greater expiration period as provided for by the terms and provisions of an approved annexation agreement. 2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration unless restricted by an annexation agreement.. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change. 4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context; the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify; and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Project by the City, which action is provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not "thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. 5. Details shown on the Tentative Map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies must be specifically approved. 6. The applicant is hereby advised that this project is subject to fees which may include, but are not limited to, the following as applicable: 1) Los Angeles County Residential Sewer Connection Fee; 2) Interim School Facilities Financing Fee; 3) Installation or Upgrade of Traffic Signals, Fees and/or Road Improvement Fees; and, 4) Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fees. 7. At any point in the development process on the project site, a stop -work order shall be considered in effect upon the discovery of any historic artifacts and/or remains, at Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 which time the City shall be notified. S. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures on each lot at this time, the owner, at the time of issuance of a building permit, agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit. Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code and Fire Code in effect at the time the application was deemed complete. Improvements and other requirements may be imposed pursuant to such codes and ordinances in accordance with the vested rights provided for in the Government Code. 9. The applicant shall file a map which shall be prepared by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. The map shall be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. The applicant shall note all offers of dedication by certificate on the face of the map. 10. Since the applicant wishes to file multiple final maps, the boundaries of the unit map shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. 11. The applicant shall comply with N.P.D.E.S, requirements. The applicant shall meet State General Construction site permit requirements. 12. If the signatures of record title interests appear on the map, the applicant shall submit a preliminary guarantee. If said signatures do not appear on the map, a title report/final guarantee is needed showing all fee owners and interest holders. 13. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the construction of habitable structures within open space/common lots. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 14. Applicant's street and grading plans and all construction permitted by such plans shall comply with the requirements of the approved oak tree report. 15 The applicant shall design intersections with a tangent section from "beginning of curb return' (BCR) to BCR. Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 16. Where applicable, the applicant shall pay fees for signing and striping of streets as determined by the City Traffic Engineer or shall prepare signing and striping plans for all multi -lane highways within or abutting the subdivisionto the satisfaction of the Department. 17. Prior to recordation, the subdivider shall enter an agreement with the City franchised cable T.V, operator to permit the installation of cable in a common utility trench. 18. The applicant shall place above -ground utilities outside sidewalks, or provide a minimum of four feet clear path of travel along sidewalks, 19. The applicant shall not grant or record easements within, areas proposed to be granted, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements until after the final map is recorded with the County. Recorder unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by easement holder prior to filing of the final map. 20, The applicant shall provide letter(s) of slope easement(s) and drainage acceptance; as directed by the City Engineer. 21. The applicant shall obtain approval of the City Engineer and the City Attorney for proposed property owners association maintenance agreements prior to recordation of the final map or a phase thereof, 22. The subdivider, by agreement with the City Engineer, may guarantee installation of improvements as determined by the City Engineer, through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. 23. The applicant shall provide for sight distance along extreme slopes or curves to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. 24. The applicant shall construct full -width sidewalk and wheelchair ramps at all walk returns. 25. The applicant shall design the minimum centerline radius on alocal street with an intersecting street on the concave side to comply with design speeds per the City of Santa Clarita "Requirements for Street Plans" and sight distance per the current AASHTO. 26; The applicant shall design local streets to have minimum centerline curve radii which will provide centerline curves of 100 feet minimum length. Reversing curves need not Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 exceed a radius of 1,500 feet and any curve need not exceed a radius of 3,000 feet. the length of curve outside of the BCR is used to satisfy the 100 foot minimum requirement. 27. Compound curves are preferred over broken back curves. The applicant shall design broken back curves to be separated by a minimum of 200 feet tangent (1,000 feet for multi -lane highways). 28. The central angles of the right of way radius returns shall not differ by more than ten degrees on local streets. 29. The applicant shall provide standard property line return radii of 13 feet at all local street intersections. 30. The applicant shall construct drainage improvements and offer easements needed for street drainage or slopes. 31. The applicant shall dedicate the right to restrict vehicular access on Newhall Ranch Road and Copperhill Drive, 32. The applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on streets within or abutting the subdivision. 33. The applicant shall construct a slough wall outside the street right of way when the height of slope is greater than five feet above the sidewalk and the sidewalk is adjacent to the street right of way. 34. The applicant shall provide and install street name signs prior to occupancy of any building. 35. The applicant is granted permission for street grades up to 6.7 percent on "E" Street. and up to five percent on all other streets depicted on the tentative map . 36. The applicant shall dedicate and construct the following required road improvements: Street R/W Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewalk Name Width Gutter Paving Lights Trees One Side A -H Streets 88' X X X X X *Copperhill Drive 116' X X X X X *Newhall Ranch Road 180' X X X X X *The applicant shall construct complete half street improvements along the project's Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 frontage plus full medians and one lane of pavement and shoulder in the opposing direction: 37. The subdivider shall install and dedicate main line sewers and serve each lot/parcel with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded sewer plans on file with the City Engineer prior to approval of the final map. All existing structures and sewer connections shall be transferred to new public: lines in interior streets as soon as physicallyfeasible. Old sewer lines shall be abandoned per the appropriate codes. 38. The subdivider shall send a print of the land division map to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, with the request for annexation.. If applicable, such annexation must be assured in writing. 39. For new construction, the applicant shall pay sewer reimbursement charges as determined by the City Engineer or the County of Los Angeles before recording the map. 40. The applicant shall grant easements to the City, appropriate agency or entity for the purpose of ingress, egress, construction and 'maintenance of all infrastructure: constructed for this land division to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: 41, Easements are tentatively required, subject to review by the City Engineer to determine the final locations and requirements, 42. The applicant shall pay a deposit as required to review documents and plans for final map clearance with section 16.36.010 (c) of the: Unified Development Code. GRADING, DRAINAGE & GEOLOGY 43. The applicant shall submit a grading plan which must be approved prior to approval of the final map. 44. The applicant's grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report which must be specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree with the tentative map and conditions as approved by the Advisory Agency: 45. The applicant shall mitigate and/or eliminate all geologic hazards associated with the proposed development, or delineate a restricted use area approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree with the tentative map and conditions approved by the Advisory Agency. Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 46. The applicant shall comply with all State and City requirements for construction within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. A geology report must be submitted and approved. Copies of the report must be sent to the State Geologist for review. 47. The applicant shall submit drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with Engineering Department requirements. These must be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to filing of the map. 48. If applicable, the applicant shall note that portions of the site are lying in and adjacent to natural drainage courses are subject to flood hazard because of overflow; inundation and debris flow. 49. If applicable, the applicant shall provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard and dedicate and show necessary easements and/or rights-of-way on the final map. 50. If applicable, the applicant shall place a note of flood hazard on the final map and delineate the areas subject to flood hazard. Dedicate to the City the right to restrict the erection of buildings in the flood hazard areas. 51. If applicable, The applicant shall show on the map the City's/Flood Control District's right-of-way for the proposed storm drains. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the right-of-way or facilities. 52. The applicant shall provide for the proper distribution of drainage. 53. If applicable, the applicant shall show and label all natural drainage courses on lots where a note of flood hazard is allowed. 54. If applicable, the applicant shall provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties and return drainage to its natural conditions or secure off-site drainage acceptance letters from affected property owners. 55. Additional drainage requirements for each lot may be required at building permit stage. 56. The applicant shall adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, easements, grading, geo-technical protective devices, and/or physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application complete all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 57. Prior to final map approval, unless superseded by terms and conditions of an annexation and development agreement, the applicant shall enter into a written Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 agreement with the City of Santa Clarita whereby the subdivider agrees to pay to the City a sum (to be determined by the City Council) times the factor per development unit for the purpose of contributing to the proposed Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District to implement the highway element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this and other projects in the area. The form of security for performance of said agreement shall be approved by the City. The agreement shall include the following provisions: Upon establishment of the District and the area of benefit, the fee shall be paid to the appropriate fund. In the event funds are required for work prior to the formation of the district, The City Engineer may demand a sum of $5,300.00 for greater as determined by the City Council), times the factor per development unit to be credited toward the final fee established under the district. The subdivider may construct identified off-site improvement of equivalent value in lieu of paying fees established for the District subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The City Engineer may require the developer to submit a traffic report periodically that addresses traffic congestion and the need to mitigate the problems prior to the issuance of building permits.. Factors for development units are as follows: Development Units Factors Industrial Per Acre The project is in the proposed Valencia City Bridge and Thoroughfare District. 58. Driveways shall be constructed using the City of Santa Clarita alley intersection design #110-01 "C". Applicant shall obtain approval from the traffic engineer for the location of all driveways. 59. The applicant shall construct and install landscaped medians along Newhall Ranch Road and Copperhill Drive, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 60. The applicant shall acquire an N.P.D.E.S. permit. 61. The applicant shall acquire permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 California Department of Fish and Game if required prior to any work within any natural drainage course. 62 If not within an existing landscape district, the area included within the project shall be annexed to an existing landscape district or, a new district may be formed to finance the cost of annual maintenance of the median landscape. If within five years the City does not form an area -wide landscape maintenance district for median improvements, the district will be abandoned and the project will not longer be responsible for financing the annual maintenance of the median landscaping. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 63. Unless modified by an annexation agreement, prior to any building Occupancy Permit, all indicated roads with required number of lanes, as shown on Figure III -5 of the traffic study (future setting roadway system) to be in place. 64. Unless modified by an annexation agreement, prior to any building Occupancy Permit, all indicated intersections, with required number of lanes; as shown on Figure III -6 of the traffic study (intersection lane configurations future setting) to be in place necessary for such building space as indicated by a subsequent traffic study, signalized and operational. 65. Prior to a building Occupancy Permit for any unit of this project which increases the historical trip generation more than 1,500 trips per day, the following two access roads are to be constructed, and available: a. Extension of Boskovich Drive north of Copper Hill Road and "G" Street to the project site with secondary roadway design. Extension of Avenue Chandler north of Copper Hill Road to project site or, "A" Street north of Newhall Ranch Road to project site with secondary roadway design. 66. Applicant is obligated to signalize the following intersections at the time that the traffic warrants are met: a. Copper Hill Drive and Boskovich Road with the listed lane configuration: Copper Hill Drive with three through lanes each in the north/south direction. Copper Hill Drive with one exclusive right -turn lane in the southbound direction. Copper Hill Drive with two left -turn lanes in the northbound direction. Boskovich Road with two through lanes each in the east/west direction. Boskovich Road with two right -turn lanes in the eastbound direction. Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 Boskovich Road with one left -turn lane in the eastbound direction. K Copper Hill Drive and Avenue Chandler with the listed lane configuration: Copper Hill Drive with three through lanes each in the north/south direction. Copper Hill Drive with one exclusive right -turn lane in the southbound direction. Copper Hill Drive with two left -turn lanes in the northbound direction. Avenue Chandler with two through lanes each in the east/west direction. Avenue Chandler with two right -turn lanes in the eastbound direction. Avenue Chandler with one left -turn lane in the eastbound direction. 67. The intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and "A" Street to have adequate right-of-way on the following listed legs: Newhall Ranch Road with four lanes each in the nortb/south direction. Newhall Ranch Road with two right -turn lanes in the northbound direction. Newhall Ranch Road with two left -turn lanes in the southbound direction. "A" Street with two left -turn lanes in the westbound direction. "A" Street with two right -turn lanes in the westbound direction. 68. The intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and "A" Street when it is utilized as access road, to have minimum of two lanes inbound and two lanes outbound. 69. At any event that Newhall Ranch Road is extended beyond "A" Street, the intersection may require signalization to accommodate the lane configuration indicated in Conidtion 67 above. 70. The applicant shall be responsible for all improvements (shown on attached Figure III -6) and signalization of the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Rye Canyon Road and also reserve the adequate right-of-way on all legs to accommodate two left -turn lanes, one right -turn lane, and also six through lanes on Rye Canyon Road and eight through lanes on Newhall Ranch Road. 71. The applicant is to pay the calculated fair -share to improve and mitigate the impacted intersections and roadways by this project contained in the Traffic Study Appendix to the FEIR and Rye Canyon Business Park Traffic Share Evaluation dated April 4, 1996). OAK TREE MITIGATIONS 72. During the grading plan design process, the applicant shall analyze potential direct impacts for each oak tree to remain to determine whether encroachment into the protected zone can be avoided through redesign, construction of retaining walls or Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 other measures. Also, drainage patterns will be designed to avoid conditions which may create direct impacts. The City Oak Tree Consultant shall review all proposed plans. 73. The applicant shall provide for a monitoring program to insure the continued health of the trees to the satisfaction of the City's Oak Tree Consultant. Any trees which do not survive shall be replaced per the process identified in the following condition. 74 The value of each oak tree to be removed or relocated shall be established in accordance with Section 17.17.090 of the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance and according to the most current valuation methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture. This value may be substituted by an equivalent dedication of land/habitat including the planting of new oak trees, to the satisfaction of the Director. Prior to the issuance of the oak tree permit, the applicant shall deposit a refundable security deposit in an amount equal to the value of the oak trees, with the City of Santa Clarita. The City Oak Tree Consultant shall review and approve the value of each oak tree according to the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. The applicant shall develop a habitat replacement plan to the satisfaction of the City's Oak Tree Consultant and shall include provisions for perpetual maintenance. 75. The applicant shall notify the Department of Community Development in writing within five (5) days of any changes of their oak tree consultant of record. 76: Any work that is approved to be performed within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be performed in the presence of the applicant's oak tree consultant. 77. The applicant shall provide a forty-eight (48) hour notice to the applicant's oak tree consultant and to the Department of Community Development before beginning any work within the protected zone of an oak tree. 78. Unless otherwise approved by the applicant's oak tree consultant and the Department of Community Development, all work conducted within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be accomplished with the use of hand tools. The use of tractors, backhoes and other equipment is prohibited. 79. Within ten (10) days of the completion of work, the applicant's oak tree consultant shall submit a certification letter to the Department of Community Development, stating whether or not all work was performed in accordance with this permit and the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. 80, The City Oak Tree Consultant shall review the proposed landscape plans for the project. No planting or irrigation shall be placed within the protected zone of any Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 existing oak tree. The area within the protected zone shall be covered with a three (3) inch layer of organic mulch. 81. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit a proposed fencing plan for review by the City Oak Tree Consultant. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. 82. Unless otherwise approved, all activities shall be performed in accordance with the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 83. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved site plan and elevations on file at the Department of Community Development. The applicant shall submit final building plans to ensure consistency with such plans. 84. Unless specifically approved, the project shall be developed in conformance with the City's Unified Development Code_ 85 All private drives shall have a minimum width of 26 feet. 86. The applicant shall provide for Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) which include provisions for the architectural review of all new construction, The applicants review shall insure compatibility with existing structures in the Valencia Industrial Park. There shall also be a review of the compatibility of the building colors to the natural setting, The use of earth tones shall be encouraged. PUBLIC WORKS/TRANSIT DIVISION 87. The applicant shall provide bus stops at locations within the project as determined by the Director of Public Works. The bus stops shall include the appropriate signage, a concrete pad with a sidewalk to the nearest intersection, and seating facilities. FIRE DEPARTMENT 88. The applicant shall provide or construct any requirement set forth by the Fire Department. The could include, but is not limited to, public and private fire hydrants, fire lanes, access, building heights, construction practices, street identifications, sprinklers and fire mitigation fees. PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 89. A property owner's association shall be formed to have responsibility of all slope maintenance, including, but not limited to, landscaping, irrigation, private trails, wildlife improvements and trees, 90. A special landscape maintenance assessment district (LMD) shall be formed having the responsibility and authority of all maintenance, including but not limited to, landscaping; irrigation, street trees, and medians within the City right of way. The LMD shall be annexed into the Citywide Major Arterial Landscape Maintenance District, if not previously annexed, at such time as the City forms a district or assumes an existing citywide district. 91. The applicant shall provide access to, and egress from, slopes which are maintained by a property owner's Association by the dedication of easements or other legal means satisfactory to the City Attorney, 92. Street trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department. Use trees from the City's approved Master Tree list, which can be obtained from the City's Arborist. The irrigation and maintenance of these trees shall be per City Ordinance 90-15. 93. Private trees shall not be placed in the public right-of-way. Trees planted within the right-of-way will be subject to City Ordinance 90-15. 94. Provide final landscape and irrigation plans for review and to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department. Drought resistant plant material and water efficient irrigation systems shall be utilized in the design. 95. At the building permit stage, the applicant shall provide bicycle accommodations on each new building to encourage bicycle transportation. The requirement for bicycle lockers shall be two percent of the required number of automobile spaces. These lockers, which come in multiples of two, shall be required for any building exceeding 10,000 square feet. This all subject to the approval of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. 96. Consistent with the design of the approved tentative tract map, the applicant shall provide for an on-site recreational trail to create a system that encircles the subdivision. The trail should follow the site's topography and may use the sidewalk in areas too steep for the trail to be constructed. 97. Prior to building occupancy, the applicant shall provide for passive recreation facilities on-site. These facilities shall include a picnic table with two benches for each 50,000 square feet of building area or major portion thereof, Conditions of Approval Master Case 95-138 June 11, 1996 98. The applicant shall make available, at a fair market price, a lot or a portion of a lot for a childcare facility.. The facility shall be in place prior to the occupancy of the 2,000,OOOth square foot of building space. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 99. The applicant is responsible for all mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report which includes the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. current\ mccon95 138.flf CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: George Caravalho, City Manager FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager DATE: June 11, 1996 SUBJECT: INFORMATION MEMORANDUM REGARDING MASTER CASE 95-138 BACKGROUND On July 20, 1995, the applicant submitted Master Case 95-138 to develop a 377 acre site into a business park with up to four million square feet of floor space. The project required the annexation of the property to the City. A number of previous uses have historically occurred on the site. The northern portion of the site was first developed by Lockheed in the 1950's for defense related research and development uses. At the corporation's peak, there was approximately 502,000 square feet of building space on-site. However, due to defense industry cut-backs, a number of the buildings have been removed. The southern portion of the site contains a number of different uses. The flat valley portion of the site has been dry -farmed since the 1920's. There are four natural gas injection wells on-site that serve a large underground natural storage facility. In addition, there are high voltage electrical transmission lines traversing the site. The applicant has recently completed a lot line adjustment with the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning to match the configuration detailed in the application.. This land swap with the adjacent property owner was initiated to accommodate the alignments of Copperhill Drive and Newhall Ranch Road. The project was originally submitted to the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning in 1994.. The County determined that an environmental impact report would be required, and suspended the processing of the case. Subsequently, City staff contacted the applicant about the benefits of annexing to the City. The original processing of the case through the County of Los Angeles ceased and the applicant resubmitted the project to the City in July of 1995. The proposed project includes the development of a 377 acre site into 62 industrial lots and 15 Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) and utility lots. The site would contain 201 acres of industrial lots, 143 acres of open space and LMD lots, and 33 acres of roads. The project proposes to retain four of the existing buildings on-site. The remaining lots would be developed as tenants are obtained. The total square footage for the site is not to exceed four million square feet, including the existing construction. The applicant would also be constructing an additional water storage tank in conjunction with the proposal. Access to the site would be provided from the proposed extensions of Rye Canyon Road/Copperhill Drive, and Newhall Ranch Road. There would be three access points to these road extensions. The first would be "A" Street which intersects Newhall Ranch Road 1,100 feet west of Copperhill Drive. The second would be the extension of the proposed off-site street of Avenue Chandler (labeled "B" Street on the project's tentative map) at Copperhill Drive. The third point would be "G" Street which would intersect Boskovich Drive, a proposed street within an adjacent subdivision. The internal street system would consist of a number of 84 foot wide streets to service the project site and remaining structures. All streets within the subdivision will be public and will have sidewalks on one side.. The submitted soils report identified a number of areas on the project site in which remedial grading is required for the development. There is 2.1 million cubic yards of grading required for buttress stabilization, landslide removal and over -excavation. For removal and recompaction of the alluvium/colluvium on-site, 6.2 million cubic yards of grading would occur. The development of the project site would require grading of approximately 3.9 million cubic yards. Therefore, the total amount of grading associated with the project would equal 10.1 million cubic yards. All grading would be balanced on-site. The tallest cut slope would be approximately 128', while the tallest fill slope would be approximately 92'. All graded slopes would be at a minimum slope ratio of 2:1. The site is located at the end of a box canyon with the site draining towards the south. The site both contains and abuts a major ridgeline along the northern property line, and contains/abuts secondary ridgelines along the western and eastern property lines. The ridgelines and slopes which define Rye Canyon will generally not be disturbed by the proposed project. There will be grading on the eastern ridgeline to accommodate an additional water storage tank adjacent to the existing facility. The, site is dissected by the existing San Gabriel earthquake fault zone. The zone travels from the southeast corner to the northwest corner of the site. The width of the zone varies from 300 to 500 feet. The applicant is not proposing any new buildings used for human habitation within this area. However, one of the buildings to remain (#261) is within this zone... The applicant states that this area is only used for record keeping and limited office uses and therefore, would continue operation. A total of 12 Valley Oak trees were referenced in the Environmental Impact Report, (EIR), with only three of the trees referenced located on the Lockheed property. Of the three trees on-site, only one is to remain (Tree #12). Among the nine off-site trees, one is located within the Southern California Gas Company site (labeled "not a part" on the tentative map), four are located in the adopted alignment of Newhall Ranch Road (which the project will be required to construct); and four are located on an adjacent site not affected by the development. The four trees located in the Newhall Ranch Road alignment will be removed. Thus, a total of six of the 12 trees referenced in the EIR are scheduled for removal. One of the trees scheduled for removal is a Heritage tree (#2). This tree, which has a high ISA rating, is located in an area where grading would occur to create building pads and Newhall Ranch Road. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts of the project. It was determined that the project may have a significant effect upon the environment, and that a focused environmental impact report be prepared. The document has completed its public review period and certain sections of the text have been expanded to address certain comments. Staff has forwarded a'copy of the Draft Final EIR to the City Council. Areas of focus included geo-technical hazards, seismic hazards, grading, hydrology, drainage, water quality, population, employment and housing, land use, air quality, biology, traffic and circulation, public services and utilities, views and aesthetics, and risk of upset/man-made hazards. The Draft Final EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each of the project impacts with the exclusion of air quality, biota, and circulation. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval/mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The Council would have to adopt a statement of overriding considerations to approve the project. ANALYSIS General Plan/Develonment Code Consistent The project site currently has a Los Angeles County General Plan designation of Industrial and two different zoning categories, A-2-5 and M-1.5. The City's General Plan designates the site as Business Park (BP), The proposed prezone of the site is also BP, thereby zoning the site in conformance with the general plan. Under the general plan and the proposed zoning, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is 1:1. The maximum allowable floor area would be 16.4 million square feet. The applicant is proposing a maximum of four million square feet or 24 percent of the maximum allowed. View -Shed Analvsis At the first Planning Commission hearing on the project a request was made for different viewshed analyses than those included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Staff provided the applicant with examples that the Commission had reviewed on previous projects. After looking for the best vantage points to use for the analyses, staff selected two different areas. The first vantage point is from Interstate 5 near the northbound truck scales, and the second vantage point is near the intersection of Magic Mountain Parkway and Mc Bean Parkway. At the hearing the full size exhibits will be available for the Council's review. Oak Tree Removals The project as designed would remove six oak trees including one heritage tree. Two trees within the project site would remain as well as four trees located southerly of the site. The Commission orginally had voiced concern with the removal of the two larger oak trees on the subject site (#2 and #3). One of the trees is an "A" rated heritage tree. As proposed, the trees if not removed, would be under approximately 40 feet of fill, At the March 19, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission received testimony from the City's Oak Tree Consultant, and various members of the community requesting modifications to the plan, The Oak Tree Consultant believes that the two trees (#2 and #3) could be saved with a revision to the site plan. The Consultant felt the trees .in the Newhall: Ranch Road alignment could be removed with proper mitigation, due to the fact that the alignment is in place and moving the alignment in either direction would effect other trees. Additional comments regarding the trees are contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in Comment Letter 12. The applicant feels that the loss of the trees will create an economic hardship, since the soil conditions in the project area require the over -excavation of the site, and the over -excavation of the alignment of Newhall Ranch Road. The over -excavation of Newhall Ranch Road would probably require the removal of tree number three, The applicant has submitted information regarding the realignment of Newhall Ranch Road and the concerns associated with it. The Planning Commission recommended, after reviewing the information contained in the environmental documentation and public testimonies, that the applicant could remove the six trees including the heritage. The Commission directed the applicant to prepare an enhanced mitigation plan for the loss of the trees which replants oak trees and establishes a habitat replacement area. This area will include several different types of indigenous trees and shrubs. In addition, wildlife water "guzzlers" are also to be installed. A copy of the Rye Canyon Business Park Oak Tree Replacement Program is available in the City Council reading file. Recommended Conditions of Approval Attached to this report are recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. These conditions are in addition to -those identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the FEIR. 1) The Commission requested that there be provisions for amenities for the future employees within the development. The Conditions of Approval include provisions for an on-site trail system (#96), child care facilities (#98), bicycle lockers (#95), and passive recreation (#97), 2) A request was made to place private architectural controls on the development to ensure that the buildings be built compatible to the existing areas (#86).. 3) As noted above, a condition is included to establish an oak tree and habitat mitigation area to replace the oak tree removals (#74). Annexation Aereement Staff has worked with the applicant, and the negotiated document is ready for the Council's review. A copy of the document is attached to this staff report. When the City approached the applicant regarding the annexation of the site, the applicant stated concerns with the possibility of increased fees in the City. Staff suggested that an annexation agreement would ensure the fees would be equal to County fees, Other points within the document include a 20 year effective period, Bridge and Thoroughfare fees payable at the building permit stage, and the City's superior processing times in the Building and Engineering Services Department. The benefits to the City include the annexation itself, creation of new jobs, and development of the site to City standards. Final Environmental Impact Report On March 17, 1996 the review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report closed, The City received 14 different written comments regarding the project, including two which were received after the cut off date. All of the comments and the appropriate responses are included within the FEIR, which the Commission received with their packet. Of these comments, two of those received were critical of the project. The comment letter received from the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (#10 and 14) commented on processing, sewer, water availability, DMS, law enforcement, traffic and access. The letter received from SCOPE (#12) included Biota, water, sewer, circulation and fire prevention. The FEIR contains the Mitigation Monitoring Program which implements the findings contained within each individual section. It includesprovisions for mitigation implementation and monitoring, and identifies a responsible agency for each of the mitigation measures identified. Lastly, the document contains a list of additions and corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Statement of Overriding Consideration Staff has included within the Resolution of approval for the project a statement of overriding consideration in three areas. These are required to approve the project based on the findings of the FEIR. The first area is air quality, as the project exceeds mandated thresholds. The second area is circulation, which is based on the size of the project. The traffic study, incorporated within the FEIR, assumes that certain levels of roadway improvements will be constructed over time until project build -out occurs, If these improvements are constructed and project -related mitigation is in place, circulation impacts associated with this project would be reduced to a less than significant level. If these improvements are not constructed within this time frame and development of the project site proceeds, adverse unavoidable impacts to area circulation could occur. The last area is that of Biota. The project will be removing a number of oak trees, habitat area; and natural open space. These unavoidable environmental impacts may be seen as acceptable when compared to the benefits of the project. The benefits include the creation of 10,500 jobs, area -wide traffic improvements, open space, th& re -utilization of a previous industrial area, and the annexation of over one-half square miles of property to the City. counci1\ar95138.flf ORDINANCE NO. 96-17 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (PREZONE 95-001) AND ENTERING INTO AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT (95-001) FOR THE AREA LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF RYE CANYON ROAD, AT 25100 RYE CANYON ROAD (LOCKHEED'S RYE CANYON BUSINESS PARK, MASTER CASE 95-138) WHEREAS, the Lockheed Martin Corporation (the applicant) has proposed and initiated prezoning of approximately 377 acres of land currently containing limited industrial and agricultural uses located adjacent to the existing City limits, in the Valencia Industrial Park/ Rye Canyon area prior to annexation to the City of Santa Clarita (proposed Annexation No. 1995-03) and an annexation agreement between the applicant and the City to allow establish development parameters for the site; and WHEREAS, such prezoning, as described in the legal description and mapped on Exhibit A, would become effective upon annexation and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated within and made a part of the City's Unified Development Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita City Council set June 11, 1996, at the hour of 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said City Council, and notice of said public hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, testimony was received, if any, for, and/or against the proposed prezone; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said prezone and zone change was duly heard and considered. THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows: A. The prezone is a change from Los Angeles County A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture, Five Acre Minimum Lot Size) and M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) to City of Santa Clarita BP (Business Park) for the purpose of annexation to the City. B, The annexation agreement between the applicant and the City to establish development requirements, fees and criteria. C. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received have been considered. Ordinance No. 96-22 D. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65351 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed_ SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on their behalf; the City Council further finds and determines that the project is consistent with the General Plan and complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance. SECTION 3. In acting on the prezoning application, the City Council has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows: A. That a need for the prezone classification to BP exists within the project area. B. That the subject property is a proper location for the BP designation. C. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice justify the prezoning designation of BP, D. That the proposed prezoning designation of BP is consistent with existing land uses in the area and would not result in a substantive change to the existing zoning of the subject site. E. The proposed change is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code, the General Plan and development policies of the of the City F. That the proposed Annexation No. 1995-03 prezoning area consists of 377.1 acres of land located adjacent to and outside of the existing City limits, in the Valencia Industrial Park/Rye Canyon area, as identified in the attached exhibit. SECTION 4. In acting on the zone change application, the City Council has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows: A. That the proposed annexation agreement is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. B. That the proposed annexation agreement complies with the Unified Development Code and other applicable ordinances; standards; policies, and regulations. C. That the proposed annexation agreement will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. Ordinance No. 96-22 D. That the proposed annexation agreement will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site. E. That the proposed annexation agreement will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. F. That the proposed annexation agreement provides for clear and substantial public benefit to the City and/or residents along with a schedule of delivery of the benefit. G. All other applicable findings identified in Section 17.03.010 of the Unified Development Code. SECTION 5. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental documentation for the project and has adopted City Council Resolution 96-74 which included Prezone 95-003 and Annexation Agreement 95-001. SECTION 6. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby ordain that the application for a prezone is approved, and that the Official Zoning Map of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby amended to designate the subject property BP. In addition, the City shall enter in to an annexation agreement with the applicant on the subject site.. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after adoption, or in the case of the prezone, upon the effective date of the annexation (proposed Annexation No. 1995-03) of the subject property to the City of Santa Clarita, whichever occurs last. SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law: Ordinance No. 96-22 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1996. Mayor ATTEST:: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 1996. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 1996, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS. City Clerk councftro &22.N RESOLUTION NO. P96-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MASTER CASE 95-138, PREZONE 95-003, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51828, OAK TREE PERMIT 95-023, AND RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IDIPACT REPORT SC 9451043 TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO SUBDIVIDE A 377 ACRE SITE INTO 62 INDUSTRIAL LOTS TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 4,000,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25100 RYE CANYON ROAD THE PLANNING COMMISSION Of THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case 95-138 was filed by the Lockheed Martin Corporation (the applicant) with the City of Santa Clarita on July 20, 1995. The application proposes: a prezone to allow for City zoning on the 377.1 acre project site from existing Los Angeles County A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture - five acre minimum lot size) and M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) to City of Santa Clarita BP (Business Park) zoning; a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide the project site into 62 industrial lots and 14 landscape maintenance and utility lots; an annexation agreement to allow for increased time lines, fee concessions, and the development of the site with up to 4,000,000 square feet of building area; an oak tree permit to allow for the removal of up to six oak trees (one of which is of heritage size); and review and certification of the environmental impact report prepared for the project. The assessor parcel numbers for the project site are 2866-006-006 and 007. b. The project site has been utilized by Lockheed Martin Corporation for research and development purposes since the late 1950's. Prior to this, the site was used for agricultural purposes. The project would include re -utilization of the site, which contains undeveloped and developed land. The site presently contains approximately 502,000 square feet of building area. C. The project site is located directly adjacent to the existing Valencia Industrial Center. d. Project site is transected by a segment of the San Gabriel Fault. Development restrictions in this area , in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Act, will be required. e. Site habitat has been significantly disturbed due to previous use of the property. f. The General Plan designates the project site as BP (Business Park). g. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project on July 25, 1995, which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an environmental impact report must be prepared. h. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR identifies unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, circulation, and biology. L The Environmental Impact Report has been circulated for review and comment by the affected governmental agencies and all comments received have been considered. The review period was from February 2, 1996 to March 17, 1996. j. The project includes the utilization of more level areas of the site for development. Ridges and steep slopes that define Rye Canyon would generally not be disturbed by the project. Spur ridges, within the project site, would be removed. k. The project includes an extension of water and sewer service to the individual industrial lots. Other utilities would also be extended to each of the industrial lots. 1. The project proposes the development of the 377 acre site with up to 4,000,000 square feet of light industrial building area. The General Plan encourages the development of business park/light industrial uses as follows: 1) Goal 2, Policy 2.18 of the Land Use Element states: Promote the retention and provide opportunities for the expansion of existing manufacturing and industrial land uses in industrial/commercial and business park locations. 2) Goal 3, Policy 3.1 states: Promote the development of City centers where more intensive land uses will be encouraged, including the development of a regional commercial center, office/business park centers, an entertainment complex, and a civic town center. in. Existing access to the site is from Rye Canyon Road. Future access would be from the extensions of Copperhill Drive and Newhall Ranch Road. Internal access would be from interconnected public streets. n. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee met and supplied the applicant with draft conditions of approval. o. The project includes the preservation of approximately 79 acres of the project site as open space. Oak trees would be planted within this open space area. p. A duly noticed pubic hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 20, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting , staff summarized the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and presented a staff report on the project. At the conclusion of this meeting, the Commission directed staff and the applicant to provide additional information related to certain issues associated with the project. These issues included analysis related to oak tree removals, wildlife habitat, visual impacts, project alternatives, project amenities, fault zones, the annexation agreement and the draft environmental impact report. q. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 8, 1996, at the project site. At this meeting, staff and the Planning Commission toured the project site. r. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 19, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, staff returned with the requested information for the Commission's review. The Commission also took public testimony on the project and continued the item to the April 16, 1996, meeting. S. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 16, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, staff recommended that the Commission continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting of May 7, 1996. t. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 7, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds as follows: a. At the above referenced hearings the Planning Commission considered staff presentations, staff reports, the Draft EIR prepared for the project, applicant presentations and public testimony on the project. b. The design of the subdivision/project and the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems, since water, sewage disposal, and fire protection are addressed in the conditions of approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. C. Conditions of approval include requirements for the on-site planting of oak trees, the on-site locating of water guzzlers, the preparation of a Transit Demand Management Plan, and the implementation of contour grading for graded hillsides. d. The project complies with the findings, requirements and performance standards of the Unified Development Code, The project would comply with the requirements of the BP (Business Park) zone. e. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan, The City's General Plan designation for the site is BP (Business Park). f. The project applicant would be required to complete or participate in the completion of several substantial circulation improvements. g. Benefits of the project include; the expansion of business park/industrial land uses within the City, the preservation of approximately 79 acres of the project site as open space, the creation of approximately 10,500 jobs at project buildout and the completion of several significant traffic improvements. h. The Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain significant environmental effects. The Final Environmental Impact Report identifies feasible mitigation measures for each of these impacts with the exclusion of air quality, biology, and circulation. The traffic study, incorporated within the EIR, assumes that certain levels of roadway improvements will be constructed over time until project buildout occurs. If these improvements are constructed and project related mitigation is in place, circulation impacts associated with this project would be reduced to a less than significant level. If these improvements are not constructed within this time frame and development of the project site proceeds, adverse unavoidable impacts to area circulation could occur, SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report, and determines that it is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the findings stated, the Planning Commission hereby recommends certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for Master Case 95-138. The Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the project. This determination is made based upon the following factors and public benefits. The factors are as follows: a. The project provides a significant expansion of the City's primary business park/light industrial area. b. The project will result in the creation of approximately 10,500 jobs, substantially improving the City's existing jobs/housing balance. The City is presently housing -rich. C. The project results in the preservation, in perpetuity, of approximately 89 acres of open space. Oak tree plantings will be required in this open space area. d. The annexation of a portion of the site will benefit the City of Santa Clarita by extending local government and control. Eventual buildout of the property will increase local property tax revenues obtained by the City. e. The project will complete, or participate in the completion of, several significant traffic improvements that will benefit area circulation. f. The project will result in the re -utilization of a previously used industrial property. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: a. A Draft Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared and circulated in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. b. The project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the project conforms to the UDC and is compatible with surrounding land uses. C. The project is compatible with existing development in the area and consistent with the General Plan and complies with zoning requirements. d. The applicant has substantiated the findings for recommending approval of a pre -zone, vesting tentative tract map, and oak tree permit. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Master Case 95-138 (Prezone 95-003, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51828, Annexation Agreement 95-001, and Oak Tree Permit 95-023) and recommends certification of the EIR (SC 9451043) prepared for the project to the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED AND May —,19 96. ATTEST: 'Ken Palsy Secretary, STATE OF CALIFORNIA j COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) ADOPTED this 7th day of L Lin Townsley, Chairperson— Pla Hing Commission I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of May , 1596 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS Townsley, Brathwaite; Cherrington, Doughman and Modugno NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None p1ng\res9614.gea MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday February 20, 1996 7.00 P.M. ITEM 6 MASTER CASE NUMBER 95-138 (PREZONE 95-003, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51828, ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 95-001, OAK TREE PERMIT 95-023, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 9451043) The staff report was given by Associate Planner, Fred Follstad, along with a slide presentation. The site is located at the end of Rye Canyon. Mr. Follstad said: the site is 377 acres and was originally a research and development facility for Lockheed in the 1950's. The applicant is proposing a large amount of grading for the site, 10.1 million cubic yards; Mr. Follstad said the site has the San Gabriel earthquake fault going through it. It travels from the southeast corner to the northeast corner. The width is from three to five hundred feet. There is one Heritage Oak tree scheduled for removal. The City's oak tree consultant is working with the EIR consultant and developer to see if the tree can be saved. Mr. Follstad said there are four natural gas injection wells on the site. All the wells would remain intact on the project site. An EIR was prepared on the project and given to the Commissioners approximately three weeks ago. No negative comments have been received on the EIR. Mr. Follstad said the annexation agreement is still being reviewed by the City Attorney. It should be coming in within the next few weeks. Mr. Follstad said if the Commission wishes, a field trip to the site could be scheduled. Commissioner Brathwaite asked if there was any activity going on in the canyon now or was everything shut down., Mr. Follstad said some of the facilities have been rented out to a local company, there is also a warehouse and records keeping facility. Commissioner Modugno had a question regarding a triangle shaped area on the map. He wanted to know if this was going to remain an unincorporated area. Mr. Follstad said staff has had some negotiations with the owner of the property, Newhall Land and Farming. A lot line adjustment would have to be made. It will be pursued separately. Commissioner Doughman had a question on the underground gas storage. He wanted to know how much was stored there. Mr. Follstad said it was one of the largest storage fields, it was very large. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:26 p.m. The first speaker was Ken Philbrick, representing Lockheed Martin, Baltimore, Maryland. He is the Executive Vice -President of LMC Companies and responsible for the project. The property is being converted to a business park. It will create 12,000 jobs for Santa Clarita and increase the City's tax base by more than 200 million dollars. Joel Miller, Psomas and Associates, 3420 Ocean Park Blvd., Santa Monica. Mr. Miller gave a history of the property site. Lockheed would like to develop the site as a business park. The northern half of the site would retain four existing buildings and one water tank. Mr. Miller said there are three primary access sites for the planned business park - Newhall Ranch Road, Copperhill and Boscovich. The property will be divided into 77 lots. Fifteen are designated as landscape maintenance districts for permanent open space. Mr. Miller stated of the 377 acres, approximately 38% of the property will be open space. An oak tree permit has been requested for removal of 6 of the 12 oak trees near or on the property. Mr. Miller said an EIR was prepared for the project and there were 18 environmental issues that were investigated. Only one significant impact could not be fully mitigated and that issue concerned the impacts related to air quality during construction. All other impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance as a result of the 150 mitigation measures which are recommended in the EIR. These mitigation measures will become conditions of approval. Mr. Miller pointed out benefits of the project. He said the project protects the primary and secondary ridgelines by retaining them as open space. Commissioner Doughman wanted to know what types of businesses would be going in. Mr. Miller said the businesses would be similar to those in the Valencia Industrial Park. Commissioner Modugno stated at times the City imposes certain conditions, such as for recreational purposes for employees, public transportation and child care on site. Mr. Miller said he saw no reason not to include some of the things suggested by Commissioner Modugno in their conditions. Mr. Miller said there would be CC&R's and design guidelines that would be incorporated to run with the property. He said at the City's request, sidewalks will be put in on one side of the street. Commissioner Brathwaite had several 'questions which were answered by Mr. Follstad. Commissioner Brathwaite asked if there would be a development agreement. Mr. Follstad said there would be an annexation agreement which would also act as the development agreement. The agreement is being reviewed by the attorneys. Commissioner Cherrington had a concern with the amount of grading that would take place. He wanted the applicant's economic analyst to address the issue of economic viability of a reduced intensity alternative. Commissioner Doughman's concern was the major fault line going through the property and what mitigation measures will be in place for this, Mr. Miller said the EIR had approximately 30 to 50 mitigation measures that address the issue of seismicity. Commissioner'Brathwaite asked Mr. Miller if there would be any wildlife corridors. Mr. Miller said the EIR identifies the property as an insignificant linkage in terms of habitat. There were no threatened or endangered species on the property. Mr. Miller said there would be no wildlife corridors as a result of the implementation of the project. Sam Reed, from Planning Consultants Research, Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica, further addressed this issue. He said the primary ridgeline and secondary ridgeline to the rear and the secondary ridgelines on the east and west side of the property will continue to be utilized by wildlife. Commissioner Cherrington told Mr. Miller that anything that could be done to help him visualize the visual impact of the grading would be helpful. Chairperson Townsleyconcurred with the request. Commissioner Cherrington said he could support a field trip on this project. Chairperson Townsley asked Mr. Follstad.if he could arrange a field trip for the Commission. After a discussion, a consensus was reached to have the field trip on Friday, March 8, 1996 at 3:30 p.m. Participants would meet at the site. This was acceptable with Mr. Miller. Mr. Follstad suggested meeting at the guard house. A motion was made by Commissioner Modugno and seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite to continue this matter to the March 8, 1996 field trip. Said motion was carried by a vote of 5-0. MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Friday March 8, 1996 3:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order by Chairperson Townsley at 3:35 p.m. at 25100 Rye Canyon Road. ATTENDANCE Those present were Chairperson Townley and Commissioners Brathwaite, Cherrington and Modugno. Commissioner Doughman did not attend. Also present were Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager; Fred Follstad, Associate Planner, Chris Price, Associate Engineer; and representatives from Lockheed Martin. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 1 MASTER CASE NUMBER 95-138 (PREZONE 95-003, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51828, ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 95.001, OAK TREE PERMIT 95-023, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 9451043) A field tour of the site was given. A motion was made by Commissioner Modugno to continue the matter to March 19, 1996, the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Cherrington and carried by a vote of 4-0. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Cherrington to adjourn the meeting. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Modugno and carried by a vote of 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m. Linda Townsley, Chairperson Planning Commission Ken Pulskamp, Secretary Planning Commission pingcom\3-8min.lep MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday March 19, 1996 7:00 P.M. ITEM 6 MASTER CASE NUMBER 95-138 (PREZONE 95-003, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51828, ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 95-001, OAK TREE PERMIT 95-023, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 9451043) Fred Follstad, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and a slide presentation. This item was continued from February 20, 1996. The Commission also took a site tour of the project on March 8, 1996. Mr. Follstad addressed the oaks on the subject site. As proposed, if the trees are not removed, they will be under 40 feet of fill soil. The applicants are removing the trees due to the remedial soils work which is required and due to the proximity of the alignment of Newhall Ranch Road. Mr. Follstad said another issue that was raised was the San Gabriel Fault which runs through the site.. A viewshed analysis was done for the project site. Mr. Follstad showed before and after photographs of the project site. Mr. Follstad said staff does not have the annexation agreement as yet. It is still being worked on. The Draft Environmental Impact Report has just finished up its 45 day circulation period. Approximately 10 comments have been received. Kay Carlson, the City's Oak Tree Consultant, answered questions asked by the Commission. Commissioner Brathwaite said that in the staff report, Ms. Carlson has suggested redesigning the project to save tree #2, the Heritage Oak, and tree 43. She explained how this would be done. Commissioner Cherrington inquired about other trees on the property. Ms. Carlson stated she had only looked at the oak trees on the site. The. Public Hearing was opened at 9:14 p.m. Ken Philbrick, of Lockheed Martin Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Philbrick introduced his staff and he said they were available to answer questions the Commission might have. He also introduced Joel Miller of Psomas and Associates, who would be making the presentation. Joel Miller, 3420 Ocean Park Blvd., #1040, Santa Monica. Mr. Miller addressed items previously raised at the February 20, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Miller said a meeting would be set between the applicant and City staff to discuss the annexation agreement. Mr. Miller spoke about the Heritage Oak. ,He said it was the goal of Lockheed to create a development that minimizes the impacts on the environment within Rye Canyon. He felt this was adequately demonstrated by the fact that the ridgelines are being preserved. Mr. Miller said that primarily due to the unstable soil conditions, it was necessary to remediate the soils condition and unfortunately the Heritage Oak and the adjacent oak need to be removed, Mr. Miller said if the project were redesigned, acreage would be lost and it would be quite an economic compromise in order to salvage the Heritage Oak., He said Lockheed would gather acorns from existing trees and raise seedlings to replace the oaks that would be lost. Mr. Miller said another mitigation measure would be for Lockheed to plant new oak trees. He also suggested a condition be added obligating the master association to have the responsibility for monitoring and maintaining any of the new oaks for a minimum of five years. Mr, Miller said Lockheed is willing to accept as a condition of project approval a provision that would ensure child care facilities for the employees of the industrial park. He said Lockheed would also accept a condition that would require the construction of outdoor benches and eating areas for the employees and an internal walking path through the proposed greenbelt of the project. Mr. Miller addressed the issue of lower density, He said a 30% reduction in development would reduce the net present value of the property by 57%. He said this would be economically infeasible. Mr. Miller said Lockheed remains very interested in annexing the site to the City of Santa Clarita. Time is of the essence and Lockheed is hopeful that within the next four to six weeks this item will be before the Council for their consideration on annexation. Commissioner Doughman had seismic questions and asked about the fault history on the site. These questions were answered by Dave Ginner, Pacific Soils Engineering, and by Mr. Miller. Lynne Plambeck, SCOPE, P. O. Box 1182, Santa Clarita. Ms. Plambeck said it was up to the Commission to let the applicant know that certain resources are to be saved. She asked if there was away to realign Newhall Ranch Road to save three of the four Valley Oaks. She also commented on the Sanitation portions of the EIR. Ms. Plambeck said the water figures were wrong. Cynthia Neal Harris, P. O. Box 800520, Santa Clarita, Ms. Harris spoke on behalf of the Santa Clarita Oak Conservancy. She urged the Commission to listen to Kay Carlson, the City's Oak Tree Consultant. She is concerned about the removal of the oak trees. Mr. Miller addressed some of the issues brought up by Ms. Plambeck. He said the alignment of Newhall Ranch Road had been set by the County of Los Angeles. Commissioner Modugno said some textural limitations or color limitations should be placed on the project so that it will better blend in with the hillside. Chairperson Townsley agreed with him. Commissioner Brathwaite wanted to discuss the oak tree mitigation and what can be done to save the trees at the next meeting. Commissioner Cherrington expressed his appreciation to the applicant for the viewshed analysis. He mentioned some non-native trees that he saw on the project site. He would like to revisit the work that is going to be done there, find out what kind of trees they are, and how rapidly they would be replaced with native or non-native trees. Commissioner Cherrington also wanted to further review the possibility of reducing the number of pads at the southernmost point of the site in an effort to save the oaks. Commissioner Doughman concurred with Commissioner Cherrington about the oaks. He felt the project was nicely designed and it would be a valuable asset to the community. Commissioner Modugno made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to April 16, 1996. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite and carried by a vote of 5-0. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday April 16, 1996 7:00 P.M. CONTINUED PUBLIC BEARINGS ITEM 3 MASTER CASE NUMBER 95-138 (PREZONE 95.003, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51828, ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 95-001, OAK TREE PERMIT 95-023, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 9451043) A motion was made by Commissioner Modugno and seconded by Commissioner Doughman to continue the item to the May 7, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Said motion was carried by a vote of 5-0. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday May 7, 1996 7.00 PAL CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 6 MASTER CASE NUMBER 95-138 (PREZONE 95-003, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51828, ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 95-001, OAK TREE PERMIT 95.023, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 9451043) The staff report was given by Fred Follstad, Associate Planner. There have been two other meetings before the Commission and a field trip to the proposed site. Mr. Follstad addressed some of the issues that were outstanding from the last meeting. Fourteen different written comments were received regarding the final EIR. All the comments were included in the final EIR. Mr. Follstad said the final EIR contains three parts: the mitigation monitoring program, the additions and corrections, and the response to comments. A letter was received from UCLA regarding the archeological portion of the EIR. They asked that stronger language be used. Therefore, a minor change would be made on page 185 of the final EIR. It should read: "That during the initial grading should construction activities result in the discovery of archeological sites, that a qualified archeologist shall be retained and shall be invested with the authority to halt or redirect all earth moving activities." Mr. Follstad said the proposed conditions of approval contained suggestions from the Commission such as an on-site trails system, child care facilities, bicycle lockers, passive recreation facilities and architectural controls. Mr. Follstad clarified changes that would be made on conditions 63 and 64. Ken Pulskamp spoke to the Commission about the annexation and development agreement. He gave several highlights of the agreement. Mr. Follstad spoke about the oak trees on the property, particularly Heritage Oak #2. He said the applicant has stated it would be an economic hardship if they were not able to remove the tree. The last item Mr. Follstad wanted to discuss was the Statement of Overriding Consideration. Based upon the EIR, staff felt there were three areas in which Statement of Overriding Considerations should be considered for the project. Those areas were air quality, traffic and biota. Commissioner Doughman said he was concerned with SCOPE's comments on fire safety. He asked how these issues might be mitigated. Sam Reed of Planning Consultants Research, the EIR preparers for the City, addressed this issue. He said there are three points of access to the tentative tract map - Newhall Ranch Road, Boskovich Drive and Copperhill. He said the concern about a single access is relative to the existing condition rather than to the proposed condition of the, project. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m. Joel Miller, Psomas and Associates, 3420 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 1040, Santa Monica. Mr. Miller represented Lockheed Corporation. He addressed questions that were raised at the last Planning Commission meeting. Those included the potential for liquefaction at the site, the preservation of the site's Heritage Oak tree; sewer capacity and water availability, and the proposed annexation agreement_ Mr. Miller said 12 oak trees have been identified in the oak tree report including two Heritage Oaks. Four offsite oak trees, including one Heritage Oak, will not be disturbed. The four oak trees within the Newhall Ranch right-of-way will be removed. There are four additional oak trees including one Heritage Oak. They have requested removal of these trees because of the need to remove and re -compact alluvial soil to the depth of 10 to 60 feet throughout the property. If Heritage Oak #2 is preserved, there would be a total loss of 4 acres of property valued at 1.7 million dollars. Mr. Miller showed a chart of Lockheed's intended replacement ratio of oak trees along Newhall Ranch Road. There are over 200 oak trees being proposed. He said the figure could go as high as 1,250 oak trees. He believes; Lockheed's proposal to replace the 'oaks would vastly enhance the oak tree value and the ecology of Rye Canyon. Mr. Miller addressed the proposed conditions of approval. He said they are in agreement with the changes for conditions 63 and 64 and the change in the archeology measure. On condition 45 they would like it to read "The applicant shall mitigate all geologic hazards" With reference to condition 71, they would like to have the exact title of the traffic study specified. Mr. Miller wanted to acknowledge the people they have worked with over the number of years including City Manager; George Caravalho, Tony Nisich, City Engineer; Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager; Fred Follstad, Associate Planner and Don Williams. He thanked them for their participation in the project. Commissioner Doughman asked what size oak trees would be planted. Mr. Miller said whatever size the oak tree consultant determines. They would probably be in the 5 to 15 gallon range. Commissioner Brathwaite asked what the survival rate would be. Sam Reed said the survival rate might be lower than what they hoped for but all trees would be replaced on site if they are lost. Mr. Miller said there is a condition that the trees will be monitored for five years. Chairperson Townsley asked if the monitoring could be extended. Mr. Miller said if the Commission would like to see an annual reporting on the oak tree status, that would be an acceptable condition. Commissioner Brathwaite asked if the trees could be tagged. Mr. Miller said this was fine, if the oak tree consultant would like to have the trees tagged, they could do it. Mr. Follstad said the condition could be modified to increase the time frame and to have the applicant pay for the City's oak tree consultant to go out and look at the trees annually. Mr. Follstad thought that a 10 year time frame would be sufficient. Chairperson Townsley asked if the consultant could come back with a plan for the trees. Mr. Follstad said this could be done. Mr. Follstad reviewed the suggestions made by the Commissioners: add a condition for increased monitoring of the trees, a plan for the replacement of the oak trees would be submitted and reviewed by the oak tree consultant and a report would be made to the Commission. Chairperson Townsley added she would like to see a plan for the monitoring. It was agreed by the Commissioners that the oak tree consultant could decide on the time frame for monitoring the trees. Mr. Miller asked for clarification of what the Commission was asking and this was given by Mr. Pulskamp. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:56 p.m.. A motion was made by Commissioner Doughman to adopt Resolution P96-14 which recommends to the City Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopts a Statement of Overriding Consideration in the areas of air quality, traffic and biota, approves Master Case 95-138 which consists of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51828, Prezone 95-003, Annexation Agreement 95-001 and Oak Tree Permit 95-023, that an oak tree plan be prepared subject to the approval by the oak tree consultant, that the specified changes to the EIR as requested by UCLA be done; that conditions 45, 63, 64 and 71 be modified. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite and carried by a vote of 5-0. RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO.- City O: City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 (Space above dw LOCKHEED RYE CANYON BUSINESS PARK .PRE -ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 96- 133r��.�t .t THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA 0 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION 4121196 I. Interest of Developer. . ........... . , , i , - . .... ............. 3 1 Binding Effect, . . ......... ............ .......................... .... 3 3. Negation of Agency . ........... ......... .......... ....... .......... 3 4. Annexations. .. z .................................. .......... _ 3 5, EIA Consultant.. ; ......... .......... 1 4 6. Development of the Project. ........ ................... 4 a. Applicable Rules. ... < ...... .......................... ...... 4 b. Permitted Density, Height and Uses ........................... ...... 4 C. No Other Required Approvals. . . .................... .......... 4 d. Existing Development. . -1-1. 11 . .1 ­. ... I ...... I I I .... . . . 5 C. Administrative Changes and Amendments- .................. 5 f Modifications to Parcels. . . - - , . .............. ......... 6 9. Material Project Modifications.... ......... .......... ......... 6 h. New Rules ............ .............. ................. 7 7. Exactions, Dedications, Assessments, Fees, Reservations, Dedications and Public Improvements- - - , , . .............. ......... ........ 7 a- Specified Exactions Only . ................ ..................... 7 b. Traffic Mitigation. ........... ....... .............. ...... 7 C, Reimbursement by the City. ................... ...... 9 8, Cooperation and Implementation By the City and Developer..... ........ 10 a. Processing.... _ ... , .................. ___ 10 b- Approvals: Cooperation.. ............ .......... 10 9. "Most Favored Project" Status. ..... ................................... 10 10. Term of Agreement._..... .............. .... 11 11. Vesting ........ .................................................... 11 a. Existing Rules to Govern............ ........ ........... 11 b. Subsequent "Slow/No Growth" Measures. . . . ............. ...... 12 C. Present Exercise of Police Power-, Authority . ..... .......... ....... 12 d. Benefits to the City., , ........................... ......... ........... 12 e. Benefits to the Developer: ....................................... 12 12. Review of Compliance. , , .. , ...... ........ ... ... I I I . 4 ...... I I : . . 12 4/21/96 13. Mortgagee Protection. . . ............................................. 13 a. Mortgagee Not Obligated. ....... , ................ :.......... . .. . . 13 b. Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure_ ............ 13 C. Bankruptcy. ................................................... 13 14. Enforced Delay; Extension of Time of Performance; Excused Performance.... _ . 14 a. Force Majeure..,..:............................................ 14 b. City Delays . :.....::.......................................... 14 C. Notice ............................. :.........: 15. Remedies For Default . .. . ...................... _ ....... , ............... 14 16. Entitlements Independent . ....................... , ..... e ...... - ...... 14 17, Required Actions of Parties; Further Assurances. ....... _ .......... _ ...... . _ 15 18. Assignment. . , . ....: ................ . . ............... . ........ _ . _ . 15 19. Notices- :........ ._:........................... 20, Amendment or Cancellation. ................................ . . . ... .... 16 21, Waiver . ............................. .............................. 16 22. Successor and Assigns. ........ .................................,,,.,:. 16 23. Interpretation and Governing State Law . .. ....... . ... . ................:... 16 24. Constructive Notice and Acceptance. . ....... . .. . .. _ ....... , ................: , 17 25, No Third Party Beneficiaries ..................... . . . . . ................ 17 26, Attorneys'Fees......................................... ............. 17 27. Counterparts........................................................... 17 28. Incorporation of Attachments. ............................. : ............ 17 29. Successor Statutes Incorporated. .................. . ...... . .....:::...... 17 30, Validation.,....._...................................:.............. 17 31. Determinations. .......... _ ..... . ............. , ........................ 17 2 421/96 INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS 3 4/21/96 PRE-ANNEXATIONAND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LOCKHEED RYE CANYON BUSINESS PARK This Pre -Annexation and Development Agreement (this "Agreement") is made this day of May, 1996, by and between the CITY OF SANTA. CLARITA, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the general laws of the State of California (the "City"), and LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation (the "Developer"). City and Developer are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties" and each may be referred to as a "Party". A. The Developer is the owner of certain real property consisting of approximately three hundred seventy-seven (377) gross acres located in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, California, immediately adjacent to the City's northern boundary, legally described in Exhibit A to this Agreement and diagramed in Exhibit B to this Agreement (the "Project Site"). B. The Developer desires to subdivide the Project Site into approximately seventy- seven (77) lots and develop approximately sixty-two (62) of such lots with industrial and commercial facilities (the "Project"). C. The City desires to annex the Project Site into the City in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. D_ The Developer desires to obtain the agreement of the City that the City will permit the Developer to develop the Project Site in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (hereinafter defined), without the obligation to construct public improvements or make dedications or financial contributions to the City other than the "Fees and Exactions" (hereinafter defined). E. Development of the Project will require discretionary approval by the City of various actions and land use entitlements, including an environmental impact report, this Agreement, annexation of the Project Site, pre -zoning of the Project Site to the City's "BP" business park designation, an Oak Tree Removal Permit, and the Map (hereinafter defined). 4111/96 F. On September 26, 1995, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing and considering all appropriate documentation and circumstances, the City Council of the City adopted its Resolution No. 95-107, requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") initiate annexation proceedings for the Project Site. G. Developer has applied to the City for approval of the Entitlements (hereinafter defined).. The Planning Commission and the City Council of the City have given notice of their intention to consider those applications, have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to the California Government Code and the Santa Cladta Municipal Code, and have found that the Entitlements and the Project are (I) consistent with the General Plan, adopted plans, codes, ordinances and policies (ii) consistent with all other ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, laws, plans and policies applicable to the Project Site and (iii) in the best interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the City, its residents, and the general public. H. On May 7, 1996, at a public meeting and after considering all appropriate documentation and circumstances, the Planning Commission of the City adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the following measures (collectively, the "Current Project Approvals"): 1, Resolution No. 96- certifying the environmental impact report for the Project (the "EIR" ); 2. Ordinance No. 96- prezoning the Project Site to the City's "BP" (Business Park) zoning designation in accordance with the General Plan; I Resolution No. 96-. approving Developer's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51828 (the "Map"); 4. Ordinance No. 96- approving this Agreement with the Developer; and 5. Resolution No_ 96 approving Developer's Oak Tree Removal Permit. I. On 1996, at a public meeting and after considering all appropriate documentation and circumstances, the City Council of the City adopted the Current Project Approvals. J. This Agreement will survive beyond the term or terms of the present City Council and shall bind the City and future City Councils to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and limit, to the degree specified in this Agreement and under State law, the future exercise of the City's ability to preclude development of the Project on the Project Site. By approving this Agreement, the City Council has elected to exercise certain governmental powers at the time of entering into this Agreement rather than deferring action to some undetermined 4/21196 future date. The City acknowledges that the Developer would not consent to annexation of the Project Site or develop the Project without the assurances which this Agreement provides. NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the above Recitals, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, the City and the Developer agree as follows: 1. Interest of Developer. The Developer represents to the City that, as of the date that this Agreement is adopted by the City Council, Developer owns the Project Site, in fee, subject only to encumbrances, easements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, and other matters of record. 2. Binding Effect. All of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall bind and run with the Project Site and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective assigns and other successors in interest. Nothing in this Agreement is a dedication or transfer of any right or interest in, or creating alien upon, the Project Site. 3. Negation of Agency. The development of the Project is a private and not a public sector development, neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between the City and the Developer is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property by the owner of such property. 4. Annexations. The City shall continue to take all legal actions within its control to fulfil all conditions to; (I) the annexation of the Project Site to the City; (ii) the de -annexation of the Project Site from the Wildfire Protection District and County Road District No. 5; (iii) annexation of the Project Site to the City and Consolidated Fire Protection District; and (iv) such other conforming district annexations and de -annexations as LAFCO shall deem appropriate in order to carry out the intent of this Agreement (collectively, the "Annexations"). Promptly following approval of the Annexations by LAFCO, City shall use its best efforts to approve a resolution ordering the Annexations. In consideration of City's agreements contained in this Agreement, the Developer hereby consents to, and shall continue to take all legal actions within its control to fulfill the conditions to the Annexations. 5. EIR Consultant.. City has designated Planning Consultants Research ("PCR") as its environmental impact consultant with respect to the Project and the EIR. City shall not 3 arzvve revoke such designation or designate any other entity or person to prepare or review any further environmental impact analysis that may be required with respect to the Project without the prior written consent of Developer, unless PCR is grossly negligent in the performance of its duties_ If the need for further project approvals or modifications to the Project necessitate further or supplemental environmental review, City agrees to designate PCR as its consultant: with respect thereto, except to the extent that Developer may otherwise agree. City has directed PCR in its environmental review and shall continue to direct and cooperate with PCR in the preparation of any further required environmental impact analysis and shall independently review such analysis as required under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and City's adopted guidelines for environmental impact reports. 6, Development of the Project. a. Applicable Rules. The Developer shall have the right (but not the obligation) to develop the Project in accordance with (I) the rules, regulations, and official policies of the City governing development, height, subdivisions, rules applicable to landscaping, zoning, set backs, density, permitted uses, growth management, environmental consideration, grading, construction, and design criteria applicable to the "BP" zone, in effect as of August 14, 1995, the date upon which the Developer's application for the Map was deemed complete (the "Effective Date"); (ii) the applicable rules, regulations, and official policies of the City of Santa Clarita as of the Effective Date; (iii) the terms and conditions of the Entitlements; (iv) as otherwise specifically and expressly provided for in this Agreement (collectively, the "Applicable Rules"), except for such changes as may in the future be mutually agreed upon between the City and the Developer. The foregoing notwithstanding, the fees listed on Exhibit C hereto shall be adjusted on the fifth (5th) anniversary of this Agreement and every five (5) years thereafter during the Term of this Agreement to the then -current citywide fees charged of other developers for like services. b. Permitted Density_ Height and Uses. The density and intensity of use, the general location of uses, the number and size of legal lots, the maximum height and size of proposed improvements, and other standards of development applicable to the Project Site shall be those permitted under the Applicable Rules. C. No Other Required Approvals. Except for conditional use permits currently required under the Applicable Rules for certain specified uses that may be included within the Project, development of the Project as described in the Agreement shall require no discretionary approvals other than the Entitlements, and no ministerial approvals by the City except for administrative plot plan review and plan checking, solely to evaluate proposed development for conformity to the Applicable Rules. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City shall not require "Hillside Development Review", 'Development Program" compliance, or conditional use permits other than those required by the Applicable Rules. d. Existing Development. The City acknowledges that (I) certain oil and natural gas production, storage and retrieval facilities presently exist on the Project Site on 4/21196 Parcels 10, 11, 15 through 18, 47 through 54, 62, 66 and 74 as shown on the Map, and a portion of the areas shown on the Map as "Not a Part", and (ii) certain industrial buildings and other improvements presently exist and are in use on the Project Site on Parcels 10, 11, 15 through 18, 47 through 54, and 62, as shown on the Map (the "Existing Buildings"), The City agrees that all of such improvements and uses are and shall remain permitted under the laws, rules and regulations in effect at the time the Existing Buildings were built and under the Applicable Rules throughout the term of this Agreement. e. Administrative Changs and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that further planning and development of the Project may demonstrate that refinements and changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the parties under this Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Project development and with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Agreement. If and when the parties find that "Minor Changes" (hereinafter defined) are necessary or appropriate, they shall, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes or adjustments through administrative amendments executed by the Developer and the City Manager or his or her designee, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof, and may be further changed and amended from time to time as necessary, with approval by the City Manager and the Developer. As used herein, "Minor Changes" are changes, modifications or adjustments which are consistent with the overall intent of the Entitlements and which do not materially alter the overall nature, scope, or design of the Project, including, without limitation, minor changes in locations of buildings, streets, or infrastructure, configuration of parcels or lots, or phasing of development or phasing of infrastructure or other exactions. Minor Changes shall not be deemed to be an amendment to this Agreement under Government Code Section 65868, and unless otherwise required by law, no such administrative amendments shall require prior notice or hearing. The following matters shall not be considered Minor Changes, but shall be considered substantive amendments which shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council: (1) Addition of permitted uses not substantially similar to those set forth in the Development Plan,- (2) lan; (2) Increase by more than ten percent (10%) in the density or intensity of use of any lot; (3) Increase by more than one percent (1%) in the Project's overall density or intensity of use or number of lots; (4) Increase by more than ten percent (10%) in the maximum height and size in permitted buildings: (5) Reduction by more than ten percent (10%) in the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes except for minor boundary adjustments approved by the City's City Planner or his or her designee; and 5 4/21196 (6) Any amendment or change requiring an addendum to the EIR, or a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to CEQA. Nothing contained in this Section shall permit, without Planning Commission review and City Council approval, (I) more total floor area than permitted under subsection (3) above, (ii) more lots than permitted under subsection (3) above, or (iii) a reallocation of Project uses which would cause Project traffic impacts to exceed those projected in the EIR for the Project, in each case as measured over the entire Project. f. Modifications to Parcels. The City acknowledges that any third party purchaser of a lot or parcel on the Project Site may require as a condition to, or in connection with, its purchase that the configuration or size of such lot or parcel, or improvements thereon, be modified from that shown on the Map. To facilitate development of the Project Site, the Parties agree that the size and configuration of the proposed lots or parcels and dimensions and/or locations of improvements may be so modified at the Developer's discretion, and the City shall fully cooperate therewith, subject to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and provided that the aggregate total density and intensity of the Project Site are not increased, and the permitted uses thereon are not modified from those provided in Entitlements, and the parcels and lots and improvements thereon are in accordance with the ApplicableRules, including all set -back and construction standards set forth therein. g: Material Project Modifications. The Developer reserves the right to apply to the City for permits to develop portions of the Project in a manner which may be materially inconsistent with the Project as described herein. In such event, such portions of the Project shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the rules, regulations, and procedures of the City in effect at the time the Developer makes application to the City for such development. h. New Rules. This Agreement shall not prevent the City from applying to the Project the following new rules, regulations and policies, if applied on a City-wide basis; (1) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearing, reports; recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure, provided that such changes in procedural regulations do not have the effect of materially interfering with the substantive benefits conferred by this Agreement. (2) Regulations which are not in conflict with this Agreement and which would not, alone or in the aggregate, cause development of the Project to be materially more burdensome or expensive. (3) Regulations which are necessary to avoid serious threats to the public health and safety, provided that to the maximum extent possible such regulations shall be construed and applied in a manner to preserve the substantive benefits to the Developer of this Agreement. 6 4/21/96 (4) Mandatory regulations of the State of California and the United States of America applicable to the Project, provided that to the maximum extent possible such regulations shall be construed and applied in a manner to preserve to the Developer the substantive benefits of this Agreement; 7_ Exactions, Dedications, Assessments, Fees, Reservations, Dedications and Public Improvements. a. Specified ExactionLQnly. The City agrees that no conditions, exactions, dedications, assessments, fees, reservations, dedications or public improvements whatsoever shall be imposed or required by the City in connection with the Entitlements or the development of the Project or any portion thereof except for (I) the Fees expressly set forth in Exhibit C hereto, and (ii) the conditions of approval included in the Current Project Approvals and the mitigation measures required in the EIR (collectively, the "Fees and Exactions"). The City acknowledges and agrees, after due consideration and analysis, that the Fees and Exactions will fully mitigate all adverse impacts resulting from and reasonably related to development of the Project. b. Traffic Miti ation. The Parties anticipate that Bridge and Thoroughfare. District (the "B&T District") will be created, which will include the Project Site and substantial additional property, in order to publicly finance the acquisition, development and maintenance of certain currently -proposed roadways in the vicinity of the Project Site (the "B&T Improvements"). The construction of such currently -proposed roadways will mitigate most, but not all, of the projected traffic impacts of the Project. Certain additional roadway improvements lying outside of the B&T District (as more specifically identified in the EIR) will also be required to mitigate the Project's and other projects' traffic impacts ("Non-B&T Improvements", or, together with the B&T Improvements, the "Future Roadway Improvements"). The City agrees with respect to the Future Roadway Improvements as follows: (1) The Bridge & Thoroughfare, District fees payable with respect to the Project ("B&T Fees") shall not exceed the lesser of the B&T Fees that would be charged by the City of Santa Clarita or Los Angeles County for development of the Project as of the Effective Date. Such amounts shall be increased effective as of the first day of each calendar year by multiplying such amounts as of the Effective Date by a fraction, having as its numerator the "CPI" (hereinafter defined) in effect for the thirtieth day prior to such adjustment date, and having as its denominator the CPI in effect as of the Effective Date. As used in this Agreement, "CPI" means the "Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers" specified for "All Items" for the Los Angeles/LongBeach/Anaheim area (1982-84=100), issued by, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor (or, if such bureau ceases to publish such Index, the Index shall be a comparable index selected by Developer and the City). 4!21/96 (2) Developer shall be responsible for its share of the cost of the Non- B&T Improvements as set forth in the ETR, but Developer's share of such costs shall not exceed the shares set forth in the EIR and its appendices. Developer acknowledges that the City has not guaranteed, and does not guarantee, that the funds required (in addition to Developer's contribution) in order to complete all traffic improvements contemplated under the EIR (including the Future Roadway Improvements) will be available at the time Developer is otherwise prepared to commence development which relies on the existence of such improvements for mitigation of its traffic impacts. If then -available funding for Future Roadway Improvements is inadequate to cause such improvements (or other roadway improvements anticipated in the EIR) to be completed to the degree necessary to maintain the levels of service contemplated by the ETR, then, if Developer so requests, the City and Developer shall cooperate to devise a plan to cause such roadway improvements to be completed as necessary for Developer's contemplated development. Such cooperation may include, among other things, formation of assessment districts where feasible, advances by Developer and agreements for reimbursement of such advances, and other measures reasonably acceptable to the City and Developer and consistent with the goals of facilitating the development of the Project without exposing the City to excessive traffic levels for extended periods of time. (3) No B&T Fees, nor traffic fees or improvements required as conditions of approval with respect to the Non-B&T Improvements, shall be payable or required with respect to undevelopable parcels shown as "open space" or "not a part" or similar designations on the Map, or in connection with the Existing Buildings or any replacements, restorations or. additions of less than ten percent (10%) of the floor area thereof, provided that the Existing Buildings continue to be used for industrial or warehousing purposes with no more than twenty percent (20%) of floor area used for office purposes. (4) All costs associated with any traffic improvements required to be constructed by Developer as a condition to development of the Project shall be fully credited against the B&T Fee obligation and obligations for Non-B&T Improvements if such improvements would otherwise have been made by the B&T District or the City. The full amount of fees payable on account of traffic mitigation (including B&T Fees and any fees for Non-B&T Improvements) payable with respect to the Project Site shall be fully credited against the Project's obligations to mitigate the traffic impacts of development of the Project, and all fees and exactions related thereto. (5) No B&T Fees shall be payable (or required to be secured) until the issuance of the building permit for construction of a building on such lot, and then only in proportion to such building's area compared to the Project's entitled total building area at buildout. (6) If the B&T District has not been created at the time the Developer applies for a building permit, then, as an alternative funding mechanism for such Roads, traffic fees ("Alternative B&T Road Fees") shall be payable to the City in the amounts and on the 8 4/21/96 terms and conditions described in this Section 7.b for B&T Fees, which shall constitute full mitigation of the Project's traffic impacts with respect to the B&T Roads. (7) If and to the extent that the City obtains federal, state or county funding assistance for the development of the B&T Roads and/or the Non-B&T Improvements prior to construction thereof, Developer's obligations with respect thereto shall be reduced accordingly if permitted by the grantor of such funds. (8) The City shall receive traffic study update reports at the time of each application for a building permit which would cause the amount of Project development since the last such report to exceed five hundred thousand (500,000) square feet. Such update reports shall be paid for by the property owners' association for the Project, and the Project's CC&Rs shall so provide. The sole purpose of such reports shall be to assist the City and the B&T District in prioritizing the allocation of their available funds to roadway improvements. C. Reimbursement by the City. The City acknowledges that Developer may, at its option, advance certain fees, assessments and exactions, required to be paid for certain City -regulated public improvements (including Future Roadway Improvements) and other public benefits which will benefit lands within the City outside the Project Site. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.2, the City hereby agrees that as such future development fees, assessments and exactions are imposed on future projects which have benefited from any of such advances and the improvements, fees, assessments and exactions made or paid with respect to the Project pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall promptly reimburse the Developer for the fees, assessments and exactions which have been paid by the Developer, to the extent that such fees, assessments and exactions benefitted lands outside of the Project Site. The City shall not permit other developers to utilize infrastructure created or paid for in connection with the Project unless that infrastructure has the demonstrated capacity (as reasonably determined by the City) to serve both the total projected demands of the Project at buildout, plus that of such other development. 8. Cooperation and Implementation By the City and Developer. a. Processing. Upon execution of this Agreement, the City shall commence and proceed to complete all steps required of the City necessary or appropriate for the implementation of this Agreement and the development of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the processing and checking of any and all building plans and specifications and any other plans necessary for the development of the Project and the issuance of all necessary building permits, occupancy certificates, or other required permits for the construction, use, and occupancy of the Project. The City's obligations pursuant to this provisions of this subsection are conditioned upon the Developer providing the City with all documents, plans, and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations under this Agreement, consistent with the City's application procedures. 42!/96 b_ Approvals: Cooperation. In connection with any approval which the City is permitted or has the right to make under this Agreement relating to the Project, or otherwise under its rules, regulations and official policies, the City shall exercise its discretion or take action in a manner which is as expeditious as possible and which complies and is consistent with this Agreement, and in a manner which will not interfere with the development of the Project for the uses, and with the heights, densities and intensities, specified in this Agreement or with the rate of development selected by the Developer. The City shall accept for processing and timely review and act on all applications for further land use entitlement approvals with respect to the Project called for, or required under, this Agreement in as expeditious a manner as is possible. 9. "Most Favored Project" Status.. Developer and the City acknowledge that from time to time the City extends to developers of projects similar to the Project certain incentives or benefits intended to facilitate development and marketing of such projects. The City recognizes that by extending such benefits to some developers without extending them also to Developer it would put the Project at a competitive disadvantage with such other, benefitted projects. Developer has entered into this Agreement based in material part on the City's representations that the City will not take actions which would put the Project at such a competitive disadvantage. In order to induce Developer to enter into this Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder, the City shall make available to Developer and the Project those (I) fee reductions or credits, (ii) streamlined permitting processes, and (iii) reductions or waivers of exactions, it makes available to other industrial or commercial development projects similar to the Project during the term of this Agreement, on a "going forward" basis (i.e., not retroactively applicable to any portions of the Project already developed). As used in the foregoing sentence, a project shall be deemed to be "similar to the Project" if it is (x) primarily for business park uses and (y) contains over two million square feet in permitted floor area of new construction. Any such incentive or benefit that is of a type that can be prorated shall be prorated based upon the respective building floor areas permitted to be developed with respect to each project. 10. Term of Agreement. If the Project Site is not annexed to the City of Santa Clarita prior to November 1, 1996, or such later date as may be mutually agreed to by the Parties hereto, then either Party may terminate this Agreement thereafter by sixty (60) days written notice to the other Party. This Agreement shall be binding as and when the Agreement has been approved by the City Council and has been executed by the City and Developer,, and shall remain in effect until the twentieth (20th) anniversary of such date, subject to successful approval of the annexation contemplated hereby, and provided that as to any lot or parcel on the Project Site for which a final map has been recorded but development thereunder has not then been completed, the term of this Agreement and the Applicable Rules shall remain in effect for a period of five (5) years commencing on the date that this Agreement would have otherwise expired. The rights conferred thereby shall not expire until the later of (I) the date of expiration of this Agreement, or (ii) the date that it would expire under otherwise applicable law. Expiration of this Agreement shall not affect any right arising from City approvals on the Project. Site prior to such expiration, nor shall such expiration affect any right the City may have by reason of the Developer's covenants to dedicate land or provide public improvements in conjunction with any portion of the Project Site which is under construction at such time. If this 10 4121/96 Agreement is terminated for any reason other than the Developer's default, the City shall refund to Developer all fees paid to the City by the Developer in connection with the Project except to the extent such fees have actually been applied to the costs and expenses of processing applications and approvals. Such refund shall not limit the parties' other rights and remedies. 11. Vesting. a. Existing Rules to Govern. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, no amendment to, revision of, or addition to any of the Applicable Rules without the Developer's written approval, whether adopted or approved by the City Council or any office, board, Commission or other agency of the City, or by the people of the City through charter amendment, referendum or initiative measure, shall be effective or enforceable by the City with respect to the Project, and the design, density, intensity, signage, grading, zoning, construction, remodeling, or use of the Project. b, Subsequent "Slow/No Growth" Measures._ To the fullest extent legally permissible any subsequently enacted initiatives, referenda, moratoria or amendments to the General Plan and/or ordinances which contain "slow/no growth" measures, or which by their terms are intended to or by operation have such effect, shall have no application to the Project. C. Present Exercise of Police Power; Authotity. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to, and constitutes a present exercise of, the City's police power and is in compliance with the requirements of the California Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 (the "Government Code") and Part 4 of Chapter 22.16 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (the "Santa Clarita Code") and consistent with the General Plan. The City is authorized pursuant to the Government Code and the Santa Clarita Code to enter into Pre -Annexation and Development Agreements such as this Agreement with persons or entities having legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property in order to establish certainty in the development process and to reduce the economic risk of development. d. Benefits to the City. The City has extensively reviewed the terms and conditions of this Agreement and, in particular, has specifically considered and approved the impact and benefits of the Project upon the regional welfare. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have been found by the City to be fair, just, and reasonable, and to provide appropriate benefits to the City, This Agreement and the pursuit of the Project will serve the best interests, and the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents and invitees of the City and the general public. This Agreement will help ensure a desirable and functional community environment; improve the region's jobs/housing balance; provide effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure and services in the vicinity of the Project Site; help maximize effective utilization of resources within the City; increase City tax revenues; and provide other substantial public benefits to the City and its residents by achieving the goals and purposes of the Government Code, the Santa Clarita Code and the General Plan. 11 4airo6 e. Benefits to the Developer. The Developer has expended and will continue to expend substantial amounts of time and money on the planning of the Project and the negotiation and acquisition of required land use approvals, including the annexation of the Project Site by the City. In addition, the Developer will expend substantial amounts of time and money in constructing public improvements and facilities and in providing for public services in connection with the Project. The Developer would not make such expenditures except in reliance upon this Agreement. The benefit to the Developer under this Agreement consists of the assurance that the City will preserve the right to develop the Project Site as planned and as set forth in the Entitlements. 12. Review of Compliance. This Agreement shall be reviewed annually in accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in this Agreement, the Government Code, and in the Santa Clarita Code in order to ascertain compliance by the Developer with the terms of this Agreement. 13, Mortgagee Protection. No breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage made in good faith and for value; and any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in or with respect to the Project Site or any portion thereof pursuant to a mortgage, foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and entitled to all of its benefits. The Parties agree that they will make reasonable amendments to this Agreement to meet the requirements of any lender for the Project; a. Mortgagee Not Obligated. No mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform the Developer's obligations or other affirmative covenants of either hereunder, or to guarantee such performance. b. Notice of Default to Mortgagee- Right of Mortgagee to Cur . If the City receives notice from a mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, and the said mortgagee has recorded a copy of such request in the official records of Los Angeles County in the manner required under Civil Code Section 2924b with respect to Requests for Notices of Default, then the City shall deliver to such mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to the applicable Party, any notice given to the Applicable Party with respect to any claim by such Party that it has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Agreement or has committed an event of default. Each mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) for a period of ninety (90) days after the receipt of such notice from such Party to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the claimed default or act of noncompliance set forth in such Party's notice. If the default is of a nature which can only be remedied or cured by such mortgagee upon obtaining possession, such mortgagee may (but is not obligated to) seek to obtain possession with diligence and continuity through foreclosure, a receiver or otherwise, and may (but is not obligated to) thereafter remedy or cure the default or noncompliance within thirty (30) days after obtaining possession. If any such default or noncompliance cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) day period, then such mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be reasonably necessary 12 anvvc to remedy or cure such default or noncompliance if such mortgagee commences cure during such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such cure. C. Bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section, if any mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure, or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof, by any injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving the Developer, the times specified in subsection 13.b above for commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be extended for the period of the prohibition. 14. Enforced Delay; Extension of Time of Performance; Excused Performance. a. Force Majeure_ In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by any party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or failures to perform are due to war, insurrection, strikes, walk -outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, the discovery and resolution of hazardous waste or significant geologic, hydrologic, archaeologic or paleontologic problems on the Project Site, fires, casualties, acts of God, shortages of labor or material, governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities other than the City, enactment of conflicting state or federal statutes or regulations, judicial decisions, litigation not commenced by a Party to this Agreement claiming the enforced delay, or any other basis for excused performance which is not within the reasonable control of the Party to be excused. Causes for delay as set forth above are collectively referred to as "Force Majeure." b_ CityDom. Force Majeure shall also include delays by the City in furnishing or providing any necessary inspection required by the City under this Agreement whenever the inspection occurs more than forty-eight (48) hours over two (2) or more business days after a request for inspection is made by the Developer. C. Notice. If written notice of such delay or impossibility of performance is provided to a party within thirty (30) days after the commencement of such delay or condition of impossibility, an extension of time for such cause will be granted in writing for the period of the enforced delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon by the applicable parties in writing, or the performance rendered impossible shall be excused in writing by the party so notified. 15. Remedies For Default. The Parties agree and recognize that, as a practical matter, it will not be possible physically, financially, and as a matter of land use planning, to restore the Project Site to its prior state once construction of the Project is commenced. Moreover, the Developer has already invested a considerable amount of time and financial resources in planning to arrive at the timing, intensity of use, improvements, and structure for the development of the Project Site. For these reasons, the Parties agree that it may not be possible to determine an amount of monetary damages which would adequately compensate the Developer for this work. Therefore, in addition to all other remedies afforded by applicable law for a breach of this Agreement, the Parties to this Agreement shall be entitled to specific performance and injunction. 13 4/21/96 16. Entitlements Independent. All Entitlements which may be granted pursuant to this Agreement, and all land use entitlements or approvals generally which had been issued or granted by the City with respect to the Project Site, constitute independent actions and approvals by the City. If any provision of this Agreement or the application of any provision of this Agreement to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, or if this Agreement is terminated for any reason, then such invalidity, unenforceability or termination of this Agreement, or any part hereof, shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of any such Entitlements or other land use approvals and entitlements. In such cases, such approvals and entitlements will remain in effect pursuant to their own terms, provisions, and conditions of approval. 17. Required Actions of Parties; Further Assurances. The City and the Developer shall execute all such instruments and documents and take in good faith all actions necessary or convenient to consummate the transactions herein contemplated. If reasonably requested to do so, the City shall diligently process, and use its best efforts to approve, promptly following the completion of the Annexations, resolutions and ordinances ratifying and re -adopting in all respects this Agreement and the Current Project Approvals, and such other, related land use entitlements as are reasonably requested by Developer in connection with the development of the Project, provided that the same are substantially consistent with the intent of this Agreement. 18, Assignment. The rights of the Developer under this Agreement may be transferred or assigned in whole or in part to any person acquiring all or any portion of the Project Site or the Project subject only to the City's written approval of the assignee or transferee, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Express assumption of any of the Developer's obligations under this Agreement by any such transferee or assignee shall release the Developer from such obligations. 19. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when personally delivered or upon receipt after deposit in the United States mail as registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following representatives of the Parties at the addresses indicated below or to such other addresses as one Party may provide to the other from time to time: If to City: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Attention: City Manager With a copy to: Burke, Williams & Sorensen 611 West Sixth Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, California 90017 Attention: Carl K. Newton, City Attorney Ref: 02012- 14 4rztro6 To the Developer: Lockheed Martin Corporation c/o LMC Properties, Inc. 2323 Eastern Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21220 Attn: Mr. Kendl P. Philbrick With a copy to: O'Melveny & Myers 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 90071-2899 Attn: F. Thomas Muller, Esq. Ref; 514,050-410 20. Amendment or Cancellation. Subject to meeting the notice and hearing requirements of Section 65067 of the Government Code, this Agreement may be amended from time to time, or canceled in whole or in part, by mutual consent of the City and Developer, or their respective successors in interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 65868 of the Government Code provided, however, that any amendment which does not relate to the term, permitted uses, density or intensity of use, height or size of buildings, provisions for reservation and dedication of land, conditions; terms, restrictions and requirements relating to subsequent discretionary actions, or any conditions or covenants relating to the use of the Project Site, shall not require notice or public hearing before the Parties may execute an amendment hereto. 21. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought and referring expressly to this Section.. No waiver of any right or remedy in respect of any occurrence or event shall be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect of any other occurrence or event. 22. Successor and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, and any subsequent owners of all or any portion of the Project Site and their respective successors and assigns. Any successors in interest to the City shall be subject to the provisions set forth in Sections 65865.4 and 65868.5 of the Government Code - 23. Interpretation and Governing State Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objective and purposes of the Parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, both Parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. 15 4/21196 24. Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who, now or hereafter, owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Project Site is, and shall be, conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Project Site. 25. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 26. Attorneys' Fees. If either Party commences any action for the interpretation, enforcement, termination, cancellation or rescission hereof, or for specific performance of the breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 27. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and each of which shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument when each Party signs each such counterpart.. 28.. Incorporation of Attachments. All recitals and attachments to this Agreement, including all Exhibits referenced herein, and all subparts thereto, are incorporated herein by this reference. 29. Successor Statutes Incorporated. All references to a statute or ordinance, shall incorporate any, or all, successor statute or ordinance enacted to govern the activity now governed by the statute or ordinance, noted herein to the extent, however, that incorporation of such successor statute or ordinance does not adversely affect the benefits and protections granted to the Developer under this Agreement. 30.. Validation. If so requested in writing by the Developer, the City agrees to initiate appropriate procedure under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 860 et seq. in order to validate this Agreement and the obligations thereunder. Any validation undertaken at the request of the Developer shall be at the sole cost of the Developer. 31, Determinations. Whenever in this Agreement the consent or approval of any party to this Agreement is required, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. In addition, unless a contrary standard or right is set forth herein, whenever any party hereto is granted a right to take action, exercise 16 anu96 discretion, or make an allocation, judgment or other determination, each party hereto shall act reasonably and in good faith and take no action which might result in the frustration of the expectations of the other Parties concerning the benefits to be enjoyed under this Agreement as expressed in this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have each executed this Agreement consisting of eighteen (18) pages, including all signature pages, but excluding exhibits, as of the date first written above. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA By: Mayor ATTEST: Donna Grindey, City Clerk LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation LM Kendl P. Philbrick, Authorized Agent City Manager ATTEST: Donna Grindey, City Clerk 17 921196 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT SITE Parcel 1 THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK I PAGES 521 ET SEQ., OF PATENTS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT STATION NO.8 IN THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE "WAYSIDE HONOR FARM", AS SHOWN ON COUNTY SURVEYOR'S MAP NO. B-1638, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OF SAID COUNTY, SAID STATION NO. 8 BEING ALSO THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 80 DEGREES 34 MINUTES EAST AND A LENGTH OF 387.31 FEET ON RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 27 PAGE 27 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 9 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 420,09 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST 512.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 20 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 19 SECONDS EAST 404.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 24 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 41 SECONDS WEST 620.75 FEETJHENCE SOUTH 2 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST 390.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST 698.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 20 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST 417.47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 80 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST 563.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST 397.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST 223.84 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST 512.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 48 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 52 SECONDS WEST 211.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 12 SECONDS WEST 1,428.48 FEET TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID "WAYSIDE HONOR FARM" AS SHOWN ON SAID COUNTY SURVEYOR'S MAP; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID "WAYSIDE HONOR FARM" AS FOLLOWS: NORTH 16 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST 795.74 FEET TO STATION NO. 12; NORTH 49 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 53 SECONDS WEST 981.17 FEET TO STATION NO. 11; NORTH 41 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 02 SECONDS _ EAST 2,551.20 FEET TO STATION NO. 10; SOUTH 89 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST 1,130.35 FEET TO STATION NO. 9; AND NORTH 80 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST 387.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel 2 A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2 OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE DATED MAY 10, 1995 EXECUTED BY LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY AND VALENCIA CORPORATION, RECORDED JUNE 22, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 95-993884, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS^ THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGES 521 AND 522 OF PATENTS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION RECORDED MAY 11, 1966 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 555 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY 170.00 FEET ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 910.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10042'13" FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THE COURSE DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED AS HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25 02717", RADIUS OF 910.00 FEET AND A LENGTH OF 404.28 FEET A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS S.54° 12'15"E.; THENCE LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY, S.26°31'00"E. 1111.16 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS 1800.00 FEET A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS N.37°24'53"W.;THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 1022.14 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32°32'09' THENCE S.20002'58"W. 188.22 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A.TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 27.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 40.17 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85 14'34" TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 2990.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 1163.13 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2201718" TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1 AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY RECORDED SEPTEMBER 30,1975 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT S.9°22'44"W. 203.63 FEET FROM THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THE COURSE DESCRIBED AS "S.9022'59"W. 439.16 FEET" A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS N.6° 59'46"W.; THENCE N.9 °23'18"E. 203.63 FEET ALONG SAID COURSE TO THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF LAST MENTIONED COURSE, SAID COURSE BEING ON THE BOUNDARY AS DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED TO LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION; THENCE EASTERLY AND NORTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPTING THEREFROM AS EXCEPTED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 94-0388, RECORDED DECEMBER 22, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94-2258317 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 19 4121/96 COMMENCING AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF THE COURSE CITED AS "N.81 °29'07"E. 635.00 FEET" IN SAID DEED TO LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SAID GRANT DEED, N.07°36'39"W. 264.33 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SAID GRANT DEED, A PORTION OF SAID BOUNDARY ALSO BEING SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 88, PAGES 87 TO 90, INCLUSIVE, OF RECORD OF SURVEYS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE N.82°48'04"E. 51.98 FEET; THENCE N.04° 50'27"W. 167.73 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,040.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12014'3 1 ", FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 222.21 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF A 10.00 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 78-285122, PARCEL F, RECORDED MARCH 17, 1978, WITH THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE AS DESCRIBED IN SAID GRANT DEED; SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF RECORD SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 88, PAGES 87 TO 90, INCLUSIVE, OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE ALSO BEING THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID GRANT DEED, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15°5733", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 289.68 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CURVE S.89°59'07"E. 15635 FEET; THENCE S.00000'52"W. 172.32 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 10.00 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION S.65 °31'07"W, 255.90 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM AS EXCEPTED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 94-0388, RECORDED DECEMBER 22, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94-2258317 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS SAID PARCEL 2 THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 10.00 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT, N.65031'07"E. 716.15 FEET; THENCE S.24°28'53"E_ 224,79 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL WITH SAID PROLONGATION S.65031'07W. 821.48 FEET TO SAID BOUNDARY OF LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION; THENCE N.04°50'27"W. 26.60 FEET ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,040.00 FEET WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12-14'3 1 " AN ARC DISTANCE OF 222.21 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM SAID LAND, ALL RIGHTS TO WATER, AQUIFERS, MINERALS, OIL, GAS, TAR, GASEOUS AND LIQUID HYDROCARBONS, AND METALLIFEROUS SUBSTANCES OF EVERY KIND, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO DRILL OR MINE FOR THE SAME, WITHOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL OR MINE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF SAID 20 4m/96 LAND, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30,1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-2006858. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM SAID LAND, THE RIGHT TO EXPLORE FOR, INJECT, STORE, WITHDRAW, CYCLE AND RECYCLE, PRODUCE AND OTHERWISE USE, ENJOY AND DISPOSE OF IN SUCH AMOUNTS AS GRANTOR MAY DEEM ADVISABLE, ALL INDIGENOUS AND FOREIGN NATURAL GAS, SUBSTITUTE NATURAL GAS, GASEOUS AND LIQUID HYDROCARBONS, BRINE AND OTHER LIQUIDS IN AND FROM THE SUBSURFACE AREA LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET OF SAID PARCEL "A" INCLUDING THE ZONE KNOWN AS THE WAYSIDE EQUIVALENT ZONE (THE "UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE FIELD), AS RESERVED IN THE DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-2006858. Parcel 3 THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK ,1 PAGES 521 AND 522 OF PATENTS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT STATION NO, 14, IN THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE WAYSIDE HONOR FARM, AS SHOWN ON COUNTY SURVEYOR'S MAP CSB 1638, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AND BEING THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 25 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST AND A LENGTH OF 1140.96 FEET ON A LICENSED SURVEYOR'S MAP FILED IN BOOK 27 PAGE 28, RECORD OR SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID WAYSIDE HONOR FARM AS SHOWN ON SAID COUNTY SURVEYOR'S MAP, NORTH 25 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 10 SECONDS WEST 1141.02 FEET TO STATION NO. 13, NORTH 17 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST 618.11 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 1, IN THE DEED TO LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, RECORDED MAY 15, 1959 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2018 IN BOOK D-468 PAGE 516, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTH 76 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 46 SECONDS EAST 1428.48 FEET, SOUTH 49 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST 211.21 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST 512.69 FEET, SOUTH 68 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST 223.84 FEET, NORTH 50 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST 397.91 FEET; AND NORTH 80 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 53 SECONDS EAST 563.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE LEAVING THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 1, SOUTH 26 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST 450.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 5 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 376.03 FEET; THENCE 21 amro6 SOUTH 23 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 53 SECONDS EAST 210.54 FEET TO A POINT IN A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 890.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 50 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 11 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 231.50 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 25 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 32 SECONDS WEST 449.99 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 910 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 17 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 404.28 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 50 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST 196.92 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1040.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 55 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 09 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 1005.33 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 4 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST 167.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST 51.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 7 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST 264.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 81 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST 635.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 23 SECONDS WEST 143.13 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 41 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST 25.92 FEET; THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 31 SECONDS WEST 74.88 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST 109.64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 7 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST 135.86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 50 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 310.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 24 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 02 SECONDS WEST 308.41 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST 351.79 FEET, THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST 186.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS, AND LIKE SUBSTANCES AND ALL MINERALS BELOW ADEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID PROPERTY PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT OF GRANTOR TO ENTER SAID PROPERTY, AND TO REMOVE THEREFROM THE SUBSTANCES AFORESAID SHALL BE LIMITED BY THE PROVISIONS, AND TO THE AREAS COVERED BY PARAGRAPH "A" ABOVE: IN ADDITION TO RIGHTS AS TO DRILL SITES AND EASEMENTS AS PROVIDED BY PARAGRAPH "A", NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL BE IN ANY WAY CONSTRUED TO PREVENT, HINDER OR DELAY DRILLING OPERATIONS UNDER SAID PROPERTY BELOW THE 500 FOOT LEVEL BY DIRECTIONAL OR SLANT DRILLING WITHOUT ENTERING UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID PROPERTY BY GRANTOR AND/OR ITS LESSEES, AS RESERVED BY THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, IN DEEDS RECORDED MAY 11, 1966 IN BOOK D-3300 PAGE 615, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 555. 22 4/21/96 EXHIBIT B DIAGRAM OF THE PROJECT SITE B-1 U _W h L ning sultants arch Seg Reqs n Hie CaNyn Prefect sue city .1 SANTA CLA «»mle Page 66 vewdm caemr aw c ca V) city .1ve�encu Toren Comer SANTA CLARITA O= BLVD FIGURE 3.2-1 VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT C FEES AND EXACTIONS C-1 Valencia Company 23823 Valencia BWevaM. Valencia. CaJdomi 91355-2194 • (805) 255-0000 805-2554069 June 6, 1996 Mayor Carl Boyer City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mayor Boyer ANr.. PART OF HE K__ T MEETING L REM Valencia Company has reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and development agreement for Lockheed's Rye Canyon Business Park and has serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the traffic analysis and mitigation measures as set forth below. Most significantly, this industrial project is piggy -backing on a future network of roads conditioned to developments in the County while avoiding responsibility for building any new roads of its own in the Citv. The primary example of this is the traffic study did not evaluate a two lane extension of Newhall Ranch Road west to I-5. This roadway is entirely within the City and is a critical link in the City's Master Plan of Highways. Lockheed's traffic will certainly use Newhall Ranch Road to get to the freeway because it is a more direct route than Rye Canyon. Like the Valencia Industrial Center, over half the employees will come from outside the Santa Clarita Valley. It has not been conditioned to be completed by the project nor even analyzed as an alternative which might improve overall traffic impacts to the City created by this large business park. Valencia Company estimates the cost of this 2 -lane bridge and thoroughfare district improvement is 5 million dollars. The development agreement and conditions of approval should be modified to reference this critical link as part of the "Future Roadway Improvements" and be required to make a fair share contribution toward construction of this roadway. The traffic study concludes there will be no significant impact on freeway volumes or interchanges but did not evaluate the project's impacts to the I-5/Magic Mountain freeway ramps. Freeway Ramps Volumes Table 5.7-5 on page 292 of the EIR wOnrNICN RMravnwltNo/u+D fv`M Ctwwn NfiaswiMwt®vnwntxa�ry contains no reference to the projects impacts to this heavily used access to the Industrial Center. The development agreement (p8; 7(b)(3)) "grandfathers" 500,000 square feet of "historical site usage" and allows that to be expanded by 10%, without having to pay B&T fees whatsoever. The site has not been intensively used for many years, several buildings have been or will be demolished and the existing buildings have limited suitability for business park use due to their age, specialized aerospace design and configuration.This clause of the development agreement allows Lockheed to avoid paying B&T fees for future traffic impacts to City roads. B&T fees should be required to be paid for the grandfathered buildings in accordance with a formula setforth in the development agreement prior to issuance of any occupancy permit. Not only is some of the development exempt from having to pay B&T fees, but the formula for calculating the amount of B&T fees due for new buildings (p8; 7(b)(5)) results in 12.5% discount on the payment of those fees. This occurs because the total project'B&T obligation is calculated on 3.5 million square feet, but the amount due for any new building is calculated as its percentage of the entitled total building area (4.0 million square feet) which includes the 500,000 square feet for which no fees are required. If any building square footage is going to be exempt from paying fees, than that area should similarly be excluded from the formula for calculating the percentage of fees owed. The development agreement(p7; 7(b)(1)) caps the B&T fees as those in effect on the "effective date" August 14, 1995, even though no bridge and thoroughfare district has yet been formed. Additional confusion is created by condition of approval #57 which says the fee should be $5300 or greater `unless superseded by the development agreement". The B&T fee currently being considered by the City and County is $5400. The language in the development agreement and conditions of approval should be consistent so the project pays the fee in effect when the district is formed. Another troubling provision of the development agreement is located on page 9 at the end of Section 7(C): The City shall not permit other developers to utilize infrastructure created or paid for in connection with the Project unless that infrastructure has the demonstrated capacity (as reasonably determined by the City) to serve both the total projected demands of the Project at buildout, plus that of such other development. This language has the effect of reserving space for Lockheed traffic on public roadways regardless of whether Lockheed ever fully builds out its project. It also creates an administrative nightmare for the City to determine whose traffic is using up Lockheed's capacity. This sentence should be removed from the development agreement altogether. The Rye Canyon Business Park will be an important addition to the growing employment and economic base for the Santa Clarita Valley and it will improve the valley's job/housing balance. The City has historically evaluated development projects and required new roadways to reverse the valley's road infrastructure deficit. This proactive approach should not be altered for this project. The City should condition Lockheed to use its fair share contribution to roadway improvements to build 2 lanes of Newhall Ranch Road to I-5 in advance of development. Clearly this project should and can stand on its own and mitigate its traffic aspects. Sincerely, Mark Subbotin Senior Vice President Planning cc: George Caravalho Ken Philbrick, Lockheed Joel Miller, PSOMAS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 95-138 PREZONE 95-003 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51828 ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 95-001 OAK TREE PERMIT 95-023 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 9451043 DATE: May 7, 1996 TO: 1, QK. AersWTgwnsley and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: en PVWMP7�ity Manager CASE PLANNERS: Fred Follstad, Associate Planner Glenn Adamick, Associate Planner APPLICANT: Lockheed Martin Corporation LOCATION: 25100 Rye Canyon Road which is generally located at the northern terminus of Rye Canyon Road, adjacent to the future alignments of Copperhill Drive and Newhall Ranch Road. REQUEST: A prezone to allow for the conversion of the 377.1 acre site from existing Los Angeles County A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture - five acre minimum lot size) and M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) zoning classifications to City of Santa Clarita BP (Business Park) zoning; A tentative tract map to subdivide the site into 62 industrial lots, and 14 landscape maintenance and utility lots; An annexation agreement to allow for increased time lines and fee concessions; An oak tree permit to allow for the removal of up to two Valley oaks on- site and four Valley Oaks for the proposed Newhall Ranch Road (one of which is a heritage tree); and, Review and certification of the EIR prepared for this project. BACKGROUND This item was first heard by the Planning Commission on February 20, 1996. During the presentation, the Commission identified a number of areas in which additional information was needed. On March 8, 1996, the Commission conducted a site tour of the project area and continued the item to the meeting of March 19, 1996. At that meeting, staff and the applicant presented information on a number of issues raised by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then continued the meeting. Agenda Item: ANALYSIS Staff has highlighted what they believe to be the only remaining issues regarding the project. They are described as followed: Annexation Agreement Staff has worked with the applicant, and the negotiated document is ready for the Commission's review. A copy of the document is attached to this staff report. When the City approached the applicant regarding the annexation of the site, the applicant stated concerns with the possibility of increased fees in the City. Staff suggested that an annexation agreement would insure the fees would be equal to County fees. Other points within the document include a 20 year effective period, Bridge and Thoroughfare fees payable at the building permit stage, and the City's superior processing times in the Building and Engineering Services Department. The benefits to the City include the annexation itself, creation of new jobs, and development of the site to City standards. Oak Trees The project as designed would remove six oak trees including one heritage tree. Two trees within the project site would remain as well as four trees located southerly of the site. At the March 19, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission received testimony from the City's Oak Tree Consultant, and various members of the community requesting modifications to the plan. The Oak Tree Consultant believes that the two trees (#2 and #3) could be saved with a revision to the site plan. The Consultant felt the trees in the Newhall Ranch Road alignment could be removed with proper mitigation, due to the fact that the alignment is in place and moving the alignment in either direction would effect other trees. Additional comments regarding the trees are contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in Comment Letter 12. The applicant feels that the loss of the trees will create an economic hardship, since the soil conditions in the project area require the over -excavation of the site, and the over -excavation of the alignment of Newhall Ranch Road. The over -excavation of Newhall Ranch Road would probably require the removal of tree number three. The applicant has submitted information regarding the realignment of Newhall Ranch Road and the concerns associated with it. Staff would recommend that the Commission direct the applicant to redesign the project in order to save the Heritage Oak Tree (#2). Staff concurs with the applicant that the realignment of Newhall Ranch Road would require the loss of other trees, would require a condemnation process on adjacent properties, and would effect the existing alignment adjacent to the site. Staff feels that tree #3 will be effected by the road construction and should be counted as a loss. Conditions of Apuroval Attached to this report are recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. These J , conditions are in addition to those identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the FEIR. The Conditions of Approval include provisions for an on-site trail system (#99), child care facilities (#101), bicycle lockers (#98), passive recreation (#100), and architectural controls (#89). Final Environmental Impact Report On March 17, 1996 the review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report closed. The City received 14 different written comments regarding the project, including two which were received after the cut off date. All of the comments and the appropriate responses are included within the FEIR, which the Commission received with their packet. Of these comments, two of those received were critical of the project. The comment letter received from the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (#10 and 14) commented on processing, sewer, water availability, DMS, law enforcement, traffic and access. The letter received from SCOPE 012) included Biota, water, sewer, circulation and fire prevention. The FEIR contains the Mitigation Monitoring Program which implements the findings contained within each individual section; It includes provisions for mitigation implementation and monitoring, and identifies a responsible agency for each of the mitigation measures identified. Lastly, the document contains a list of additions and corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Statement of Overriding Consideration Staff has included within the Resolution of approval for the project a statement of overriding consideration in three areas. These are required to approve the project based on the findings of the FEIR. The first area is air quality, as the project exceeds mandated thresholds. The second area is circulation, which is based on the size of the project. The traffic study, incorporated within the FEIR, assumes that certain levels of roadway improvements will be constructed over time until project build -out occurs. If these improvements are constructed and project -related mitigation is in place, circulation impacts associated with this project would be reduced to a less than significant level. If these improvements are not constructed within this time frame and development of the project site proceeds, adverse unavoidable impacts to area circulation could occur. The last area is that of Biota The project will be removing a number of oak trees, habitat area, and natural open space. These unavoidable environmental impacts may be seen as acceptable when compared to the benefits of the project. The benefits include the creation of 10,500 jobs, area -wide traffic improvements, open space, the re -utilization of a previous industrial area, and the annexation of over one half square mile of property to the City, RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Consider staffs presentation; 2) Receive public testimony; 3) Direct the applicant to redesign the project to save tree #2, and; 4) Adopt Resolution P96-14 which recommends to the City Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopts a Statement of Overriding Consideration in the areas of air quality, traffic and Biota and approves Master Case 95-138 which consists of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51828, Prezone 95-003, Annexation Agreement 95-001 and Oak Tree Permit 95-023. p1ngcom\sx951383.flf LI CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 95-138 PREZONE 95-003 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51828 ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 95-001 OAK TREE PERMIT 95-023 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 9451043 DATE: March 19, 1996 TO: on Townsley and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: n s amp, is ity Manager CASE PLANNER: Fred Follstad, Associate Planner APPLICANT; Lockheed Martin Corporation LOCATION: 25100 Rye Canyon Road which is generally located at the northern terminus of Rye Canyon Road, adjacent to the future alignments of Copperhill Drive and Newhall Ranch Road. REQUEST: A prezone to allow for the conversion of the 377.1 acre site from existing Los Angeles County A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture - five acre minimum lot size) and M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) zoning classifications to City of Santa Clarita BP (Business Park) zoning; A tentative tract map to subdivide the site into 62 industrial lots, and 14 landscape maintenance and utility lots; An annexation agreement to allow for increased time lines and fee concessions; An oak tree permit to allow for the removal of up to two Valley oaks on- site and four Valley Oaks for the proposed Newhall Ranch Road (one of which is a heritage tree); and, Review and certification of the EIR prepared for this project. BACKGROUND This item was first heard by the Planning Commission on February 20, 1996. During the presentation, the Commission identified a number of areas in which additional information was needed. On March 8, 1996 the Commission conducted a site tour of the project area and requested further information from the applicant. At the end of the site tour, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 19, 1996. �� Item: 6 ANALYSIS Issues that were raised during the previous two hearings are discussed below. In addition other issued related to the project are discussed. View -Shed Analysis At the first hearing on the project a request was made for different viewshed analyses than those included in the draft environmental impact report (DEIR).. Staff provided the applicant with examples that the Commission had reviewed on previous projects. After looking for the best vantage points to use for the analyses, staff selected two different areas. The first vantage point is from Interstate 5 near the northbound truck scales, and the second vantage point is near the intersection of Magic Mountain Parkway and Mc Bean Parkway. As of the time that this report was prepared, the exhibits were unavailable. Nevertheless, the applicant has stated that the exhibits will be ready for tonight's meeting. 30% Reduction Alternative At the February 20, 1996 hearing, there was a request from the Commission for the applicant to provide an economic analysis of Alternative Three in the DEIR, which consists of a 30 percent reduction of building space. The applicant's consultant has prepared a letter that discusses some of the economic consequences of implementing such a reduction. The response is attached to this report and the applicant will be available to answer any questions regarding this issue. Undereround Natural Gas Storaee There were some inquiries regarding the size and location of the large natural gas storage facility occurring on the project site. The applicant's soils engineer is researching the size of the storage facility and will have an exhibit available at tonight's hearing. Wildlife Habitat At the first meeting on the item, questions regarding the existing wildlife habitat were raised. The DEIR contains a biotic assessment of the property. In addition, the environmental consultant has met with the California Division of Fish and Game and has reviewed the mitigation measures for the proposal. The provisions include the retention of 143 acres of open space and landscaped land, three wildlife guzzlers, the retention of ridgelines, and the planting of native vegetation on open space areas. Oak Tree Removals The Commission has voiced concern with the removal of the two larger oak trees on the subject site (#2 and #3). One of the trees is an "A" rated heritage tree. As proposed the trees, if not removed, would be under approximately 40 feet of fill. The applicant states that the trees have to be removed due to the remedial soils work required for the site, and due to the proximity of the trees to the alignment of Newhall Ranch Road. The applicant is looking into the feasibility of transplanting the trees elsewhere on the site., �A The City's Oak nee Consultant feels that the success rate on the relocation of larger trees, especially Valley Oaks, is low. The Consultant believes that there could be a redesign of the project which could save the two trees in question, since the existing trees are at the same grade as the proposed road grade. The Consultant has suggested that the four trees in the alignment should be replaced as opposed to being relocated, and also recommends that the applicant gather acorns from the existing trees and raise seedlings to replace the lost trees. The City's Oak Tree consultant will be available at tonight's meeting to answer questions from the Commission. Amenities The Commission inquired about the availability of recreational facilities and childcare services provided by the project. The applicant has proposed sidewalks on one side of the street for both passive recreation and for the encouragement of pedestrian traffic. The City's Trail Coordinator has reviewed the proposal, has found that it is not part of the City's back- bone trail system, and has also stated that any trail would only serve the project. Staff is working with the applicant to include an on-site trail system , possibly adjacent to the roadway, which could serve as a passive trail. The requirement for bike racks, and for on-site tables and benches will be included within the conditions of approval, and will be conditioned as each building is constructed. Staff is still in discussions with the applicant on the childcare issue. San Gabriel Fault At the previous Planning Commission meeting, a short discussion was held regarding the San Gabriel fault zone which traverses the site. The DEIR Section 5.1.2 (Seismicity) discusses the presence of this geologic feature and the required mitigation measures to reduce the impacts. Among these measures are a structural setback zone, automatic utility shut -offs, and flexible underground utility connections. If the Commission would like additional information on this issue, the applicant will have a representative available at tonight's meeting for questioning. Furthermore, staff can provide a copy of the fault -zone investigations, which is part of the technical appendices of the DEIR. Annexation Aereement As of the time that this report was being prepared, the final draft of the annexation agreement was unavailable. There are some issues that are currently still being negotiated. If the document is ready prior to tonight's meeting, staff will distribute it to the Commission. Otherwise, staff will transmit the document to the Commission as soon as it is available. Draft Environmental Impact Report The 45 day DEIR circulation period closed on March 18, 1996. Staff has received a number of comments and the applicant's environmental consultant is preparing the response to those comments. Once the response to comments is complete, a copy will be transmitted to the Commission. Due to the ten day period allowing responding agencies time to review the City's response, no final action can occur tonight. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive staff's presentation; 2) Take public testimony; 3) Provide direction to the applicant and staff of any information; and, 4) Continue the project to the Planning Commission meeting of April 2, 1996, pingcom\sr851W2.fl1 J CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 95-138 PREZONE 95-003 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51828 ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 95-001 OAK TREE PERMIT 95-023 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 9451043 DATE: February 20, 1996 TO: FROM: Members of the Planning Commission CASE PLANNER: Fred Follstad, dissociate Planner APPLICANT: Lockheed Martin Corporation LOCATION: 25100 Rye Canyon Road which is generally located at the northern terminus of Rye Canyon Road, adjacent to the future alignments of Copperhill Drive and Newhall Ranch Road. REQUEST: A prezone to allow for the conversion of the 377.1 acre site from existing Los Angeles County A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture - five acre minimum lot size) and M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) zoning classifications to City of Santa Clarita BP (Business Park) zoning; A tentative tract map to subdivide the site into 62 industrial lots, and 14 landscape maintenance and utility lots; An annexation agreement to allow for increased time lines and fee concessions; An oak tree permit to allow for the removal of up to two Valley oaks on- site and four Valley Oaks for the proposed Newhall Ranch Road (one of which is a heritage tree); and, Review and certification of the EIR prepared for this project. BACKGROUND A number of previous uses have historically occurred on the site. The northern portion of the site was first developed by Lockheed in the 1950's for defense related research and development uses. At the corporation's peak, there was approximately 502,000 square feet of building space on-site. However, due to defense industry cut-backs, a number of the buildings have been removed. >y The southern portion of the site contains a number of different uses. The flat valley portion of the site has been dry -farmed since the 1920'x. There are four natural gas injection wells on-site that serve a large underground natural storage facility. In addition, there are high voltage electrical transmission lines traversing the site. The applicant has recently completed a lot line adjustment with the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning to match the configuration detailed in the application. This land swap with the adjacent property owner was initiated to accommodate the alignments of Copperbill Drive and Newhall Ranch Road. The project was originally submitted to the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning in 1994. The County determined that an environmental impact report would be required, and suspended the processing of the case. Subsequently, City staff contacted the applicant about the benefits of annexing to the City. The original processing of the case through the County of Los Angeles ceased and the applicant resubmitted the project to the City in July of 1995. The proposed project includes the development of a 377 acre site into 62 industrial lots and 14 landscape maintenance district (LVID) and utility lots. The site would contain 201 acres of industrial lots, 143 acres of open space and LMD lots, and 33 acres of roads. The project proposes to retain four of the existing buildings on-site. The remaining lots would be developed as tenants are obtained. The total square footage for the site is not to exceed four million square feet, including the existing construction. The applicant would also be constructing an additional water storage tank in conjunction with the proposal.. Access to the site would be provided from the proposed extentions of Rye Canyon Road/Copperhill Drive and Newhall Ranch Road. There would be three access points to these road extensions. The first would be "A" Street which intersects Newhall Ranch Road 1,100 feet west of Copperhill Drive. The second would be the extension of the proposed off-site street of Avenue Chandler (labeled "B" Street on the project's tentative map) at Copperhill Drive. The third point would be "G" Street which would intersect Boskovich Drive, a proposed street within an adjacent subdivision. The internal street system would consist of a number of 84 foot wide streets to service the project site and remaining structures. All streets within the subdivision will be public and will have sidewalks on one side. The submitted soils report identified a number of areas on the project site in which remedial grading is required for the development. There is 2.1 million cubic yards of grading required for buttress stabilization, landslide removal and over -excavation. For removal and recompaction of the alluvium/colluvium on-site, 6.2 million cubic yards of grading would occur. The development of the project site would require grading of approximately 3.9 million cubic yards. Therefore, the total amount of grading associated with the project would equal 10.1 million cubic yards. All grading would be balanced on-site. The tallest cut slope would be approximately 128', while the tallest fill slope would be approximately 92'. All graded slopes would be at a minimum slope ratio of 2:1. The site is located at the end of a box canyon with the site draining towards the south. The site both contains and abuts a major ridgeline along the northern property line, and contains/abuts secondary ridgelines along the western and eastern property lines. The J5 ridgelines and slopes which define Rye Canyon will generally not be disturbed by the proposed project. There will be grading on the eastern ridgeline to accommodate an additional water storage tank adjacent to the existing facility. The site is dissected by the existing San Gabrial earthquake fault zone. The zone travels from the southeast corner to the northwest corner of the site. The width of the zone varies from 300 to 500 feet in width. The applicant is not proposing any new buildings used for human habitation within this area, however, one of the buildings to remain (#261) is within this zone. The applicant states that this area is only used for record keeping and limited office uses and therefore would continue operation. A total of 12 Valley Oak trees were referenced in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), with only three of the trees referenced located on the Lockheed property. Of the three trees on-site, only one is to remain (Tree #12). Among the nine off-site trees, one is located within the Southern California Gas Company site (labeled `hot a part" on the tentative map), four are located in the adopted alignment of Newhall Ranch Road (which the project will be required to construct), and four are located on an adjacent site not affected by the development. The four trees located in the Newhall Ranch Road alignment will be removed, thus, a total of sig of the 12 trees referenced in the EIR are scheduled for removal. One of the trees scheduled for removal is a heritage tree (#2). This tree, which has a high ISA rating, is located in an area where grading would occur to create building pads and Newhall Ranch Road. The City's Oak Tree Consultant is still reviewing the proposal in an effort to see if there are any design modifications that would allow the tree to be saved. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING The site is presently zoned Los Angeles County A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture - five acre minimum lot size) and M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing). The applicant is requesting to prezone the site to City of Santa Clarita BP (Business Park) zoning. The City's General Plan designates this area as BP (Business Park). The following table sets forth information as it pertains to the project site and surrounding areas, including planning categories, zoning, and land use designations: General Plan Project BP North OS South BP West OS East RE/RS ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Zoning Land Use M1.5/A-2-5 (County) Research and Development Buildings/Farming/Utilities A-2-5 (County) Wayside Honor Rancho Property BP(City)/ Industrial Uses/Vacant A-2-5 (County) A-2-5 (County) Wayside Honor Rancho Property/ Natural Gas Storage Facility A-2-5 (County) Vacant As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts of the project. It was determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and that an environmental impact report was required. Areas of focus included 3� geo-technical hazards, seismic hazards, grading, hydrology, drainage, water quality, population, employment and housing, land,use, air quality, biology, traffic and circulation, public services and utilities, views and aesthetics, and risk of upset/man made hazards. The draft document was released on February 2, 1996, thereby beginning the 45 day public review period. Planning Consultants Research (PCR) prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City on the subject project. A representative from this firm will provide a presentation to the Planning Commission, providing information and answering any questions on the DEIR. PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING As stated above, the draft EIR has just begun the 45 day public review period. No action can be taken on the project until the `review period" is closed and the subsequent "response to comment" period is completed. The draft document is available to the public and has been distributed to affected public agencies. The intent of this meeting is to provide the Commission with an overview of the project and the environmental process (including the draft EIR), and to provide a forum in which the Commission can hear preliminary comments from the community and the applicant. Staff has not received any correspondence regarding the project since the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was transmitted. Furthermore, the annexation agreement is still being reviewed by staff, and therefore a copy will be transmitted to the Commission at a later date, prior to the project's next hearing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive staff's presentation; 2) Take public testimony; 3) Provide direction to the applicant and staff of any information that would allow the Commission to make a future decision; and, 4) Continue the project to the Planning Commission meeting of March 19, 1996. pingeamW IUI.A1 37 03/06/1996 09:43 14068627267 STEVENSON PAGE 02 March 5, 1996. Mr. Fred Follstad Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 VIA: FAX 805-259-8125 Dear Fred: At our public hearing on February 20, the planning commission expressed interest in the economic consequences of developing the Lockheed Martin Rye Canyon Business Park project to a density that would be 30 percent below that proposed in the development plan submitted to The City, (Alternative 3 in the draft EIR). Accordingly, I have conferred with our Engineering Consultant Hunsaker & Associates to determine the degree and extent to which development costs might be reduced, and have incorporated these cost reductions into our valuation model to assess the impact on project economics. Based on these calculations, a 30 percent reduction in development density would reduce the net present value of the land by 57 percent. This would make the project economically infeasible, because entitled land values would fall to a fraction of the raw entitled industrial land value prevailing elsewhere in The Santa Clarita Valley. Alternatively, if Lockheed Martin were to seek the current fair market price for its entitled land at a 30 percent reduced density, the development margin would be wiped out, and there would be no buyers. The essential difficulty is that development costs would remain high for a scaled down project, since much of the grading cost is attributable to remedial grading in the flatland portion of the project to ameliorate alluvial soils. Further, infrastructure costs could not be reduced significantly for the smaller development, since road and utility systems would be about the same size for a project with 30 percent less development density as they are for the proposed project. The net result is that revenue drops sharply but costs do not follow proportionately. Development margins are eliminated, and the land becomes unmarketable in a reduced density development format. Consequently, a density reduction of 30 percent would freeze the land in its current usage. 3Q i 7 Telephone (310) 521-1300 Fax (310) 521-1305 222 West 6th Sheet, Suite 1000, San Pedro, California 90 31 T p 03/06/1996 09:43 14068627267 STEVENSON PAGE 03 1 trust that this provides the information The Planning Commission needs, but if there are other questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very trul urs, - William H. Stevenson Rye Canyon Business Project Manager cc; George Caravalho Ken Philbrick Tom Muller March 28, 1996 Mr. Fred Follstad CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard, #300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Psomas and Associates 3420 Ocean Park Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90405 3101450-1217 Subject: Rye Canyon Annexation/Re-alignment of Newhall Ranch Road OLOC1001) Dear Fred_ At our last Planning Commission public hearing held on March 19, 1996, to consider the Rye Canyon annexation, a comment was made that perhaps the loss of four oak trees due to the construction of Newhall Ranch Road could be avoided if the alignment of the future right-of-way can be adjusted. I mentioned at the hearing that the alignment of Newhall Ranch Road has already been established by the County of Los Angeles, and the current construction of this street to the east at San Francisquito Creek is predicated on the proposed alignment to the west. I have since talked with Barry Witler of the County Public Works Department, and I would like to pass along to you some information I learned in talking with Barry as well as some other facts that would help clarify this issue. • The proposed alignment of Newhall Ranch Road at this location came about through a dedication of property owned by the Valencia Company. Shifting the alignment at this time would require County condemnation of other property which could involve multiple property owners and prove to be a contentious process. • By moving the alignment to the south, the current dedicated alignment would revert back to Valencia Company, but the strip of land would be virtually worthless because it would be a narrow island between Lockheed's site and the future Newhall Ranch Road. JBM.558 Engineers Surveyors Planners Costa Mesa Riverside Sacramento 0 Santa Monica Mr. Fred Follstad PS®MAS Page 2 March 28,1996 1LOC1001 • Moving the alignment to the south will certainly cause the loss of other oak trees and a heritage oak. Put another way, moving the alignment merely exchanges the loss of four oaks (of which there are no oaks) for the loss of four oaks (one of which is a heritage oak). The southward move may also impact the existing detention basin owned by the Valencia Company. • Moving the planned right-of-way to the north will have a number of negative effects: (1) It will necessitate the removal of other oak trees (including a heritage oak); (2) it may interfere with the Southern California Edison right-of-way and stanchions; and (3) it will leave an narrow island of property owned by Lockheed with limited value. • Finally, any proposed re -alignment will necessitate months of engineering studies and designs which will all need to be reviewed and approved by the County's Interdepartmental Engineering Committee, a process that could take months or even years. If you have any questions, Fred, please give me a call. Sincerely, PSOMAS AND ASSOCIATES oel B. Miller Vice President JBM:htn CC. Bill Stevenson Terry Austin Doug Snyder David Price Sam Reed/Greg Broughton JBM.558 a5 ©PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 10653 PROGRESS WAY, P.O. BOX 2249, CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 90630 TELEPHONE: (714) 220-0770, FAX: (714) 2209569 (Corporate Headquarters) Lockheed Martin c/o HARRISON PRICE COMPANY 2141 Paseo Del Mar San Pedro, CA 90737 April 1, 1996 Work Order 101822-H Attention: Mr. Bill Stevenson Subject: RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Planning Commission Concerning Liquefaction Potential Within The Rye Canyon Development Site Gentlemen: The Planning Commission meeting at the City of Santa Clarita on March 19, 1996 indicated that the geologic/geotechnical consultant for Lockheed Martin's Rye Canyon Development Project review the recently published reconnaissance seismic hazard maps by the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) with respect to liquefaction potential on the subject site. This firm has reviewed these maps and a portion of the map for the Newhall Quadrangle is attached with this transmittal showing the subject site and the designated areas that may contain liquefiable materials. The Rye Canyon development site is not within the areas delineated by the CDMG as containing liquefiable materials. It should be noted that our recommendations outlined in the DEIR and our Tentative Grading Plan Review report include the removal of all alluvium, colluvium and other possibly liquefiable materials and replacement with compacted artificial fill. Thus, the potential for liquefaction on-site will be reduced to a level which will be insignificant. If there are any questions, or you require additional information, please contact the undersigned at our Cypress Corporate Headquarters. Respecty submitted, PACIF C SOILS E RING, INC. Reviewed by: QpOFESS10 � �y4� By T �:'/ D VID H. INTER S B. ASTL S/RGE 192 Jh uc En ineerin Geolo Associate g BY 30280/Re Ex 3-31-96 g• P s,°FOrer "4Tf OFC 4/•F� fOperations Officer Distr.: (1) Addressee DHG/JBC jp-1822H03 LOS ANGELES COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TEL: (310) 325-7272 or (213) 7756771 TEL: (714) 358-0154 TEL: (619) 3601713 TEL: (714) 730-2122 FAX: (714) 220-9569 FAX: (714) 358-0592 FAX: (619) 560-0380 �6 :(714)730-5191 EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT FEES FEES POTENTIALLY REQUIRED BY PROJECT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Grading Permit Fee (greater than 100,000 y3): Plan check fee (greater than 500,000 y3): Erosion control plans Drainage improvements Plan check fee Inspection fee (if estimated construction cost is greater than $325,000) Street improvements Plan check fee Inspection fee Water main improvements Plan check fee and deposit Sewer Plan check fee; inspection and record plan fee Subdivision processing Map analysis for tracts Easement checking for tracts Monument inspection, each Verification of conditions Agreement and/or improvement security, each -1- $2,528.75 plus $50/10,000 y3 or fraction thereof in excess of 100,000 y3 $6,200 plus $71.25/10,000 y' or fraction thereof in excess of 500,000 y3 10% of grading plan check fee above $500 plus actual cost of performing the work, as determined by the City Engineer $10,000 +.25% over $325,000 Attachment C-1, Attachment C-2 Attachment C-3 Attachment C-4 $3,900 $200 $150 $150 $200 ATTACHMENT C-1 STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECK FEES Estimated Construction Cost $ 0 - $ 1,000 = $ 330 1,001 - 10,000 = 330 + 5.1% over 1,000 10,001 - 100,000 = 790 + 2.2% over 10,000 above 100,000 = 2,770 + 1.2% over 100,000 Total Plan Check Fee $ -2- Fee ATTACHMENT C-2 STREET IMPROVEMENT INSPECTION FEES Estimated Construction Cost $ 0 - $ 10,000 - 10% 10,001 20,000 - 1,000 + 5.0% over 10,000 20,001 200,000 - 1,500 + 2.5% over 20,000 over 200,000 - 6,000 + 2.0% over 200,000 Total Inspection Fee $ -3- Fee ATTACHMENT C-3 WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECK FEES AND DEPOSIT Lineal Feet of Water Mains and/or Deposit per Hydrant Laterals Charge Sec. 15.08.050 B Total Fee 1 to 150 $ 245 $600 $ 845 $ 151 to 500 680 600 1,280 $ 501 to 1,000 1,230 600 1,830 $ 1,001 to 2,000 1,430 600 2,030 $ 2,001 to 3,000 1,640 600 2,240 $ 3,001 to 4,000 1,850 600 2,450 $ 4,001 to 5,000 2,050 600 2,650 $ For each 1,000 feet of water main, or fractional part thereof, in excess of 5,000 feet, an additional $160.00 shall be added. Plan Check for Booster Pump Station, Reservoirs, etc. To check the plans and specifications for the construction of water system facilities (other than for water mains, but including pumping plants and reservoirs), the charge shall be $1,200 plus a charge of 0.15 percent of the estimated construction cost thereof, provided; however, that such a charge shall not be applied to a public water district or other local agency where such a charge is pro- hibited by the provisions of Section 53091 of the Government Code Total Plan Check Fee -4- 1. 2. 3.. 4. 5. 6. 7.. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. ATTACHMENT C-4 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SEWER SYSTEMS COST ESTIMATE FOR BOND PURPOSES SANTA CLARITA P.C. NO. UNIT TOTAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST 4" V.C.P. House Lateral Sewer (1) 6" V.C.P. House Lateral Sewer (1) 8" V.C.P. Main Line Sewer (1) 10" V.C.P. Main Line Sewer (1) 12" V.C.P. Main Line Sewer (1) 15" V.C.P. Main Line Sewer (1) 18" V.C.P. Main Line Sewer (1) Manhole (1) Break into Existing Manhole Extra Depth Construction (10'-12') Extra Depth Construction (12'-14') Extra Depth Construction (14'-16') Extra Depth Construction (16'-18') Extra Depth Construction (18'-20') Cast -Iron Pipe Concrete Encasement Special Encasement or Cradle Excavation in Rock Areas Excavation in Sandy Soils Unstable Bedding Jacking Steel Casing (1) Breaking Pavement and Resurfacing - A.C. Breaking Pavement and Resurfacing - Concrete Pump Station (Provide Cost Breakdown) $ 31.50/ft $ 34.90/ft 38.92/ft 44.56/ft 53.25/ft 67.68/ft 79.94 ea 2,300.00 ea 540.00 ea 3.50/ft 6.00/ft 8.50/ft 11.00/ft 13.00/ft 7.00/in/ft 5.00/S.F. 10.00/S.F. 8.50/ft 5.00/ft 6.00/ft 500.00/ft 6.00/ft 11.00/tt L.S. 27. SUBTOTAL Contingencies: Less than $50,000-15% 50,000 to 100,000-10% 28. CONTINGENCY $ More than 100,000-5% -5- 29. Adjustment to actual cost at end of agreement period (2 hrs x 601o/yr =12%) $ 30. Sewer Improvement Performance Bond Total $ 31. Sewer Improvement Labor &Material Bond (50% of Performance Bond) Total (1) Unit cost may vary due to size, depth or construction restraints. SEWER IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECK FEES Estimated Construction Cost (See Line 30) Fee $0-$2,000 $ 160 For each $100.00 or fractional part thereof of the total valuation of the proposed work in excess of $2,000.00, and not exceeding $10,000.00, an additional $4.30; $ For each $100.00 or fractional part thereof of the total valuation of the proposed work in excess of $10,000.00, an additional $3.25; $ SUBTOTAL $ Area Study Plan Checking Fee *$120.00 (minimum) Amount Paid Total Plan Check Fee $ Amount Due *Additional fees may be required to cover the actual costs of doing the work as determined by the City Engineer. am CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DRAINAGE SYSTEMS COST ESTIMATE FOR BOND PURPOSES UNIT TOTAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST 7- Reinforced Concrete Box Size ( ) 1; Excavation (1) $ $ 2. Concrete (1) 3. Steel (1) Open Channel 4. Excavation (1) 5. Concrete (1) 6. Steel (1) Reinforced Concrete Pipe (in place at depths less than or equal to 6 feet to subgrade) (Diameter) 7. 18" (1) 77.63.ft 8. 21" (1) 80.50/ft 9. 24"(1) 83.95/ft 10. 27" (1) 87.40/ft 11. 30" (1) 91.71/ft 12. 36" (1) 102.35/ft 13. 39" (1) 109.25/ft 14. 15. Manholes 16. No.1 ea 17. No.2 ea 18. No.4 ea 19. No. 6 - 2 grates V=5'(1) 4,347.00 ea 20. 21. 22. 23. Catch Basin No. 1 - V=3'(1) 1,242.00 ea 24. Catch Basin No. 2 - V=5'(1) 2,266.00 ea 25. Catch Basin No. 3 - F=14' V=5' (1) 3,565.00 ea 26. Catch Basin No. 3 - W=21' V=5' (1) 4,698.00 ea 27. Catch Basin No. 3 - W=28' V=5' (1) 5,900.00 ea 28. Catch Basin No. 29. 30. 31. Junction Structures 32. J.S. No. 1 1,144.00 ea 33. J.S. No. 2 1,006.00 ea 7- 34. J.S. No. UNIT TOTAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST 35. J.S. No. 36. Transition Structure 37. T.S. No. 1 (1) 38. T.S. No. 3 (1) 39. T.S. No. (1) 40. T.S. No. (1) 41. Pipe Supports Subdrainage Systems 42. A.C.P. 43. Manholes 44. Gravel 45. Drain Material 46. Sand and Gravel Blanket 47. Filter Material Fencing and Gates 48. 5' Chainlink (includes gates and top rail) 49. Flat Gates (1) 50. Diameter 51. Diameter Concrete Collars (1) 52. 24"-33" Diameter 53. Diameter (pipe size) Miscellaneous Items Gunite Channel Lining (1) 54. 6" Thick 55. Concrete Backfill (C.Y.) (1) Miscellaneous Reinforced Concrete 56. Structures 57. Concrete (1) 58. Steel (1) 59. Excavation or Fill (1) 60. Crushed AGG Base (per inch thickness) 61. Rip -Rap 62. Grouted Rip -Rap 63. Velocity Control Rings 64. 65. 66. Contingencies: Less than $50,000-15% 50,000 to 100,000-10% 6.90/ft 5,658.00 ea 31.05/cy 27.60/cy 26.45/cy 27.60/cy 10.00/ft 334.00/ea 5.38/SF 0.11/SF 30.00/CY 75.00/CY 900.00 ea 67. SUBTOTAL $ More than 100,000-5% 68. CONTINGENCIES $ 69. Adjustment to actual costs at end of agree- ment period (2 yrs. x 601o/yr = 12%) $ 70. Drainage Improve- ment Performance Bond Total $ 71. Drainage Improve- ment Labor and Materials Bond (50% of Performance Bond) $ (1) Unit cost may vary due to size, quantity, depth or construction restraints. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECK FEES City of Santa Clarita'sPortion) Fee 1. Verifying easement/right-of-way requirements 2. Document Accuracy ) $500 Initial fee* 3. Compliance with mapping requirements ) *Additional fees may be required to cover the actual costs of doing the work as determined by the City Engineer. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT INSPECTION FEE Estimated Construction Costs (See Line 70 adjust as required) Less than $2,500 $ 400 $ 2,501 - $ 25,000 400 + 12.0% over $ 2,500 25,001 - 40,000 3,100 + 8.5% over 25,000 40,001 - 55,000 4,375 + 6.5% over 40,000 55,001 - 75,000 5,350 + 4.0% over 55,000 75,001 - 100,000 6,150 + 2.8% over 75,000 100,001 - 250,000 6,850 + 1.6% over 100,000 250,001 - 325,000 9,250 + 1.0% over 250,000 above 325,000 10,000 + .25% over 325,000 Total Inspection Fee W1 Fee CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WATER SYSTEMS COST ESTIMATE FOR BOND PURPOSES UNIT TOTAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST 1. 4" A.C. Pipe $ 11.00/ft 2. 6" A.C. Pipe 16.50/ft 3. 8" A.C. Pipe 22.00/ft 4. 10" A.C. Pipe 27.50/ft 5. 12" A.C. Pipe 33.00/ft 6. 14" A.C. Pipe 38.50/ft 7. 16" A.C. Pipe 44.50/ft 8. 18" A.C. Pipe 49.50/ft 9. 6" Fire Hydrant 2,750.00 ea Air Vac, Release Valve 10. Less than or equal to 1" 1,700.00 ea 11. Greater than 1" 2,400.00 ea 12. Blow -off or Flush out 1,700.00 ea 13. Master Meter (above ground) 10,000.00 ea 14. Master Meter, 6" (below ground) 24,000.00 ea 15. Pump Station and Vault 16. Pressure Regulator Station 17. Water Tank or Reservoir Service End Meter Box 18. Less than or equal to 1" 700.00 ea 19. Greater than 1" 1,000.00 ea Detector Check Meter with Vault 20. 6" Lateral 16,000.00 ea 21. 8" Lateral 18,000.00 ea 22. 10" Lateral 24,000.00 ea 23. 36" Boring and Casing Under Highway 270.00/ft 24. 25. 26. SUBTOTAL -10- Contingencies Less than $50,000-15% $50,000 to $100,000-10% More than $100,000-5% -11- 27,. CONTINGENCY 28. Adjustment to actual costs at end of agree- ment period (2 yrs x 601o/yr = 12%) 29, Water System Improve- ment Performance Bond Total $ 30. Water System Improve- ment Labor & Material Bond Total (50% of Performance Bond) $ CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS COST ESTIMATE FOR BOND PURPOSES UNIT TOTAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST 1. Grading (Geo Hazard Removal $ $ and Hillside) 2. Traffic Signal 3. Special Items 4. 5. 6. SUBTOTAL $ Contingencies: (Less than $50,000-15%) (50,000 - 100,000-10%) (More than 100,000 - 5%) 7. CONTINGENCY $ 8. Adjustment to actual costs at end of agreement period (2 hrs x 611b/yr = 12%) $ 9. Miscellaneous improve- ments Performance Bond Subtotal $ 10. Survey Monumentation $1,000+300/monument $ 11. Survey Contingency $ 12. Adjustment to actual costs at end of agreement period (2 hrs x 601o/yr = 12%) $ 13. Miscellaneous improve- ments Performance Bond Total $ 14. Miscellaneous improve- ments Labor & Materials Bond (50% of Line 9 - Performance Bond) Total $ Monument Inspection Fee ($195 per inspection) $ -12- CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS COST ESTIMATE FOR BOND PURPOSES UNIT TOTAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST -13- Pavement Asphalt 1. A.C. Type II (2") (C2 -AR -4000) $ 0.65/S.F. (1.00) $ 2. A.C. Type I (4") (Cl -AR -4000) 1.24/S.F.. (1.49) 3. A.C. Type I (6") (Cl -AR -4000) 1.85/S.F. (2.22) 4. Cold Planing (1") 2.500 + 0.75/S.F. P.C. Concrete 5. Sidewalk (4" Thick) 2.70/S,F. (3:10) 6. Alley Intersection (6") 3.00/S.F.(3.50) 7. Cross -Gutter (8") 5.18/S.F. (6.00) 8. Local Depression (8) 8.28/S.F. (9.66) 9, Driveway (4") 2.88/S.F. (3.80) 10. Driveway (6") 4.14/S.F. (4.83) 11. Pavement (8") 3.50/S.F. (4.10) 12. Grouted Rip Rap (6"-12") 6.00/S.F.(10.00) 13, Grouted Rip Rap (12"-19") 7.00/S.F.(12.00) 14. Gunite (3") 3.50/S.F. (4.00) 15. Reinforced Concrete 420.00/C.Y.(480.00) Curb and Gutter 16, P.C.C. Curb 10.00/ft (11,50) 17. P.C.C. Curb and .1' Gutter 12.42/ft (15.42) 18. P.C.C. Curb and 2' Gutter 14.50/ft (17.50) 19. A.C. Curb Type C 7.50/ft (10.00) 20. A.C. Curb Type D 7.50/ft (10.00) 21. P.C.C. Alley Gutter 8.00/ft (9.00) Miscellaneous Items 22, Street Name Signs 150.00 ea 23. Earthwork Cut (hauling within) 2.00/C.Y: (2.50) 24. Earthwork Fill (Subdivision) 2.50/C.Y. (3.40) 25. Crushed AGG Base (per inch thickness) 0.11/S.F. (0.14) 26. Crushed AGG Base 36.00/C.Y.(47.00) 27. Crushed AGG Base (under sidewalk) 4.50/ft (6.00) 28. Street Lights 2,200.00 ea 29. Guard Rail 38.00/ft (40.00) 30. Guide Markers 12.00 ea (15.00) 31. Chainlink Fence (5') 10.00/ft (13.00) 32. Chainlink Fence (6') 15.00/ft (20.00) 33. Tree Removal (Ave. 12" D) 330.00 ea (400.00) 34. Adjust Manhole 300.00 ea (360.00) 35. Street Trees 300.00 ea -13- UNIT TOTAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST 36. Tree Well and Covers 72.00/ea (78.00) 37. Remove Temporary Turnaround 600.00 ea 38. Construct Temporary Turnaround 107.00 ea 39. Redwood Header (2" x 4") (3) 2.07/ft (2.75) (2) Cost per foot of local street - Case D (Estimate over $50,000 - Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, Pavement, Base) 40. 40' between curbs (sidewalk at property line) 104.00 41. 36' between curbs (sidewalk at property line) 98.00 42. 34' between curbs (sidewalk at property line) 95.00 43. 40' between curbs (sidewalk at curb) 120.00 44. 36' between curbs (sidewalk at curb) 114.00 45. 34' between curbs (sidewalk at curb) 111.00 (2) Cost of Local Street - Case D (Estimate over $50,000 - Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, Pavement, Base) 46. Cul-de-sac (standard) 13,000.00 47. Cul-de-sac (offset) 16,000.00 48, Knuckle (standard) 24,000.00 Intersection approach 49. with cross gutter 4,200.00 50, without cross gutter 2,100.00 Intersection approach (at existing streets) 51. with cross gutter 9,000.00 52. without cross gutter 6,000.00 Drainage Facilities 53. 18" RCP (3) 77.63/ft 54. 24" RCP (3) 80.50/ft 55. RCP /ft 56. RCP /ft 57. Manhole No. 6 (Road) 2 grate, V=5'(3) 4,347.00 ea 58. Manhole No. 1(3) ea 59. Manhole No. 2 (3) ea 60. Manhole No. 4 (3) ea 61. Junction Structure No. 1- 24" Pipe (3) 1,144.00 ea 62. Junction Structure No. 2 - 24" Pipe (3) 1,006.00 ea 63. Parkway Drain No. 1 1,600.00 ea 64. Parkway Drain No. 2 1,300.00 ea 65. Box Culvert No. 12 40.00/S.F. 66. Box Culvert No. 13 56.00/S.F. 67. Catch Basin No. 1, V=3'(3) 1,242.00 ea 68, Catch Basin No. 21 V=5'(3) 2,266.00 ea 69. Catch Basin No. 3, W=14', V=5'(3) 3,565.00 ea 70. Catch Basin No. 3, W=21', V=5'(3) 4,698.00 ea 71. Catch Basin No. 3, W=28', V=5'(3) -14- 5,900.00 ea 72. Catch Basin No. 75. SUBTOTAL Contingencies: (Less than 50,000-15%) (50,000 - 100,000-10%) (more than 100,000-5%) 76. CONTINGENCY 77. Adjustment to actual costs at end of agree- ment period (2 yrs. x 60/,/yr = 12%) 78. Street Improvement Performance Bond Total 79. Street Improvement Labor & Material Bond Total (50% of Performance Bond) (1) If estimate is less than $50,000 use unit prices shown in parenthesis. (2) Estimate improvements of the through street as if there is no intersection. Estimate improvements of the side street up to the BCR. Then add the appropriate cost of the intersection approach (that between the BCR of the side street and the theoretical E.G. of the through street). At intersection where the through street is existing, estimate improvements of the side street up to the BCR, then add the appropriate cost of the intersection approach. Cul-de-sac streets arebased on standard street improvements to B.C. of cul-de-sac plus adding on cul-de-sac cost. On knuckles, estimate up to cross section, then add knuckle cost. (3) Unit cost may vary due to size, depth or construction restraints. MJC:lkl annex%exhibiw.njc -15- BUILDING & ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION BUILDING PERMIT AND PLAN CHECKING FEES A permit issuance fee of $13.00 shall be added to all permits VALUATION FEES VALUATION FEES VALUATION FEES NOT PLAN BLDG. NOT PLAN BLDG. NOT PLAN BLDG. OVER CHECK PERMIT OVER CHECK PERMIT OVER CHECK PERMIT 700.00 25.00 20.00 31 291.61 252.60 66 545.16 440.50 1,000.00 28.75 30.00 32 299.51 258.70 67 551.62 445.00 33 307.42 264.80 68 558.09 449.50 34 315.32 270.90 69 564.55 454.00 THEN BY 35 323.22 277.00 70 571.02 458.50 THOUSANDS 36 331.12 283.10 71 577.48 463.00 2 37.71 37.75 37 339.02 289.20 72 583.44 467.50 3 46.69 45.50 38 346.92 295.30 73 590.41 472.00 4 55.67 53.25 39 354.82 301.40 74 596.87 476.50 5 64.64 61.00 40 362.72 307.50 75 603.34 481.00 6 73.62 68.75 41 370.62 313.60 76 609.80 485.50 7 82.60 76.50 42 378.52 319.70 77 616.26 490.00 8 91.57 84.25 43 386.42 325.80 78 622.74 494.50 9 100.55 92.00 44 394.32 331.90 79 629.20 499.00 10 109.53 99.75 45 402.22 338.00 80 635.66 503.50 11 118.51 107.50 46 410.13 344.10 81 642.12 508.00 12 127.49 115.25 47 418.03 350.20 82 648.59 512.50 13 136.46 123.00 48 425.93 356.30 83 655.04 517.00 14 145.44 130.75 49 433.83 362.40 84 661.52 521.50 15 154.42 138.50 50 441.73 368.50 85 667.97 526.00 16 163.40 146.25 51 448.19 373.00 86 674.45 530.50 17 172.38 154.00 52 454.66 377.50 87 680.90 535.00 18 181.36 161.75 53 461.12 382.00 88 687.37 539.50 19 190.33 169.50 54 467.59 386.50 89 693.83 544.00 20 199.31 177.25 55 474.05 391.00 90 700.30 548.50 21 208.29 185.00 56 480.52 395.50 91 706.76 553.00 22 217.27 192.75 57 486.98 400.00 92 713.23 557.50 23 226.25 200.50 58 493.44 404.50 93 719.69 562.00 24 235.22 208.25 59 499.91 409.00 94 726.16 566.50 25 244.20 216.00 60 506.37 413.50 95 732.62 571.00 26 252.10 222.10 61 512.84 418.00 96 739.09 575.50 27 260.01 228.20 62 519.30 422.50 97 745.54 580.00 28 267.91 234.30 63 525.77 427.00 98 752.02 584.50 29 275.81 240.40 64 532.23 431.50 99 758.47 589.00 30 283.71 246.50 65 538.69 436.00 100 764.94 593.50 -16- VALUATION FEES VALUATION FEES VALUATION FEES NOT PLAN BLDG. NOT PLAN BLDG. NOT PLAN BLDG. OVER CHECK PERMIT OVER CHECK PERMIT OVER CHECK PERMIT 101 769.25 596.50 131 898.54 686.50 161 1,027.82 776.50 102 773.56 599.50 132 902.85 689.50 162 1,032.13 779.50 103 777.87 602.50 133 907.16 692.50 163 1,036.44 782.50 104 782.18 605.50 134 911.47 695.50 164 1,040.75 785.50 105 786.49 608.50 135 915.78 698.50 165 1,045.06 788.50 106 790.80 611.50 136 920.09 701.50 166 1,049.37 791.50 107 795.11 614.50 137 924.40 704.50 167 1,053.68 794.50 108 799.42 617.50 138 928.71 707.50 168 1,057.99 797.50 109 803.73 620.50 139 933.01 710.50 169 1,062.30 800.50 110 808.04 623.50 140 937.32 713.50 170 1,066.61 803.50 111 812.35 626.50 141 941.63 716.50 171 1,070.92 806.50 112 816.66 629.50 142 945.94 719.50 172 1,075.23 809.50 113 820.97 632.50 143 950.25 722.50 173 1,079.53 812.50 114 825.28 635.50 144 954.56 725.50 174 1,083.85 815.50 115 829.59 638.50 145 958.87 728.50 175 1,088.16 818.50 116 833.90 641.50 146 963.18 731.50 176 1,092.47 821.50 117 838.21 644.50 147 967.49 734.50 177 1,096.78 824.50 118 842.52 647.50 148 971.80 737.50 178 1,101.09 827.50 119 846.83 650.50 149 976,11 740.50 179 1,105.40 830.50 120 851.13 653.50 150 980.42 743.50 180 1,109.71 833.50 121 855.44 656.50 151 984.73 746.50 181 1,114.02 836.50 122 859.75 659.50 152 989.04 749.50 182 1,118.33 839.50 123 864.06 662.50 153 993.35 752.50 183 1,122,64 842.50 124 868.37 665.50 154 997.66 755.50 184 1,126.95 845.50 125 872.68 668.50 155 1,001.97 758.50 185 1,131.26 848.50 126 876.99 671.50 156 1,006.28 761.50 186 1,135.57 851.50 127 881.30 674.50 157 1,010.59 764.50 187 1,139.88 854.50 128 885.61 677.50 158 1,014.89 767.50 188 1,144.19 857.50 129 889.92 680.50 159 1,019.21 770.50 189 1,148.50 860.50 130 894.23 683.50 160 1,023.51 773.50 190 1,152.81 863.50 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000 or fraction thereof OVER $190,000 (use the next full thousand for fractions), add $3.00 to the Permit Fee and add $4.31 to the Plan Check Fee. For a quick check of these large amounts OVER $190,000, 3 times the valuation in thousands plus $293.50 will equal the Permit Fee in dollars. EXAMPLE:. $299,200 (Permit Fee same as for $300,000) Permit Fee = $293.50 PLUS 300 x 3 = $1,193.50 Plan Check Fee = [$232.50 + ($300 x 3)] x 1.4365 = $1,626.84. Permit issuance fee = $13.00 -17- BUILDING & ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION OPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO BUILDING PERMIT FEES Effective August 9, 1990 1 Combination Building Permit - for Single Family Dwellings only: (includes building, electrical, plumbing and HVAC work) . , . 2. Combination swimming pool permit - for pools, spas, or hot tubs: (includes building, electrical, plumbing, heating, and excavation work) .............................. ........ 3. Site inspections ........................................ 4. Occupancy inspection or occupancy change' for: R or miscellaneous occupancy groups ...................... Other occupancy groups: Floor area less than 5,000 square feet ...................... 5,000 to 10,000 square feet .............................. 10,001 to 100,000 square feet ........................... . over 100,000 square feet ............................... . 5. Inspection of repairs or rehabilitation of a building or structure declared substandard ........................... . 6. Inspection of the demolition (including sewage system) of a building or structure ................................ ... . 7. Inspection or re -inspection of A-4 structures .................. 8. Inspection of structures or devices regulated by Chapter 66, for the 1 st inspection of the 1 st structure or device ............. For each additional structure or device ...................... FEE 1.75 x (building permit fee) 2.00 x (building permit fee) 150.00 124.60 267.00 356.00 676.00 836.60 175.00 75.00 100.00 75.00 12.00 9. Application and investigation fee for relocation of a building as regulated by Chapter 68': Floor area less than 2,500 sq. ft. 1,408.00 2,500 square feet and greater .................... . ........ 2,432.00 10. Investigation and/or permit fee for trailer coaches required by Chapter 69 ........................................... 75.00 51121 11. Inspections outside of business hours, per hour ............... 45.00 12. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, per hour ............................................. 45.00 13. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions of approved plans, per hour ..................... 45.00 14. For search of office records and a single copy of a micro filmed permit .......................................... 10.00 and for each additional copy of permit ....................... 1.25 15. For processing geology or soils engineering reports submitted pursuant to Section 308 or 309: Engineering Geology Report .............................. 180.00 Geotechnical Engineering Report .......................... 180.00 (Soils Engineering Report) Geotechnical Report ........... . ........................ 260.00 (Combination Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Reports) 16. Change of occupancy review* for: E-3 occupancies 750.00 E-2 occupancies ....................................... 860.00 H occupancies ........................................ 990.00 A-3 occupancies ....................................... 1,190.00 A-2.1 occupancies ...................................... 1,830.00 A-2 occupancies ...................•......... ......... 2,260.00 *As adopted by the City of Santa Clarita, E.O. 90-1, 1990. -19- BUILDING & ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION GRADING EROSION CONTROL PLANS 10% OF GRADING PLAN CHECK FEE $ GRADING PLANS Volume (cu. yds.) NOT OVER Fees 100 $ 170.00 200 222.25 300 274.25 400 326.75 500 379.00 600 431.25 700 483.50 800 535.75 900 588.00 1,000 640.00 THEN BY THOUSANDS 2 683.25 3 726.50 4 769.75 5 813.00 6 856.25 7 899.50 8 942.75 9 986.00 10 1,000.00 (Then every thousand,. fees increase by $25.00.) -20- BUILDING & ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Permits For issuing permits, each ...................................... ,. $13.00 SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE (Note: The following do not include permit issuing fee.) New Residential Building The following fees shall include all wiring and electrical equipment in or on each building, or other electrical equipment on the same premises constructed at the same time. For new multi -family residential buildings (apartments and condominiums) having three or more living units, not including garages, carports, and other non-commercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same time; per square foot ................................................ .035 For garages, carports, and other accessory buildings use UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. For new single- and two-family residential buildings not including garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed at the same time, per square foot ................................................ .04 For other types of residential occupancies and alterations, additions and modifications to existing residential buildings, use UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. Private Swimming Pools For new private, residential, in -ground, swimming pools for single- or multi- family occupancies including a complete system of necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, water pumping and other similar electrical equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool, each ................. .. ....................... 30.00 For other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools, spas, hot tubs, and alterations to existing swimming pools, each .................. 20.00 21 Residential Appliances For fixed residential appliance or receptacle outlets for same, including wall mounted electric ovens, counter -mounted cooking tops, electric ranges, self-contained room, console, or through wall air conditioners, space heaters, food waste grinders, dishwashers, washing machines, water heaters, clothes dryers, or other motor operated appliances, not exceeding one (1) horsepower (HP) rating, each ...... 3.50 Note: For other types of air conditioners and other motor driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. Non -Residential Appliances For residential appliances and self-contained, factory wired, non- residential appliances not exceeding one (1) horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilovolt -ampere (KVA) in rating including medical and dental devices, food, beverage, and ice-cream cabinets, illuminated showcases, drinking fountains, vending machines, laundry machines, or other similar types or equipment, each .............. 4.00 Note: For other types of air conditioners and other motor driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. Power Apparatus For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pump, cooking or baking equipment, and other apparatus, as follows`. Rating in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (KW), kilovolt -ampere (KVA), or kilovolt -ampere -reactive (KVAR). Up to and including 1, each ................................ 4.00 Over 1 and not over 10, each ................................... 7.00 Over 10 and not over 50, each .................................... 18.00 Over 50 and not over 100, each ................................... 36.00 Over 100, each ................................................ 60.00 Note: 1. For equipment or appliance having more than one motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. -22- 2. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, con- tractors, thermostats, relays and other directly related control equipment. Carnivals and Circuses Carnivals, circuses or other traveling shows or exhibitions utilizing trans- portable type rides, booths, displays, and attractions. For electric generators and electricity driven rides ............ 15.00 For mechanically driven rides and walk-through attractions or displays having electric lighting each ............. : ......................... 6.00 For a system of area and booth lighting, each ......................... 6.00 For permanently installed rides, booths, displays and attractions, use UNIT FEE SCHEDULE Temporary Power Service For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all pole or pedestal mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances, each ............ 15.00 For a temporary distribution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative lighting, Christmas tree sale lots, fireworks stands, sales booths, etc., each . ................... 5.00 UNIT FEE SCHEDULE (Note: The following do not include permit issuing fee.) Receptacle, Switch, and Lighting Outlets For receptacles, switch, lighting, or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, feeders, and meters. First 20, each ................................................. .75 Additional outlets, etc . ........................................... .50 Note: For multi -outlet assemblies, each five feet or fraction thereof, may be considered as one outlet. Lighting Fixtures For lighting fixtures, sockets, or other lamp holding devices First 20, each ................................................. ,75 Additional fixtures, each .......................... .50 -23- For pole or platform mounted lighting fixtures, each .75 For theatrical -type lighting fixtures or assemblies, each .75 Busways For trolley and plug-in type busways, each 100 feet or fraction thereof . , 10.00 Note: An additional fee will be required for lighting fixtures, motors and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug-in type busways. No fee is required for portable tools. Signs, Outline Lighting, and Marquees For signs, outline lighting systems, or marquees supplied from one branch circuit, each ............................................ .................................... 15.00 For additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting system, or marquee, each ....................................... 5.00 Services, Switchboard Sections Motor Control Centers and Panelboards For services, switchboard sections and panelboards of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating, each ............. . .............. 15.00 For services, switchboard sections MCC's and panelboards of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1,000 amperes in rating each 30.00 For services, switchboard sections MCC's and panelboards over 600 volts or over 1,000 amperes in rating, each ............................. . . 70.00 Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is herein set forth ..:................... 15.00 Note: This fee is not applicable when a fee is paid for one or more services, outlets, fixtures, appliances, power apparatus, busways, signs, or other equipment. Other Inspections For each extra inspection resulting from defective workmanship or materials, each .................................................. 12.00 For inspection of electrical equipment of which no fee is herein set forth, and for emergency inspections for the time consumed per hour 50.00 -24- With a minimum charge for 1/2 hour or less ........................... 25.00 Plan Checking Fee The plan checking fee shall be equal to 50 percent of the required electrical permit fee. ELECTRICAL PLAN CHECK REQUIREMENTS There are two types of electrical plan checks'. A. Energy plan check. B. Code plan check. A. Energy plan check is not required for lighting fixture replacements when the number of lighting fixtures is not changed. Energy plan check is not required for construction of 1,000 square feet when no electrical installation is involved. Energy plan check is required for recircuiting work and for new circuit installation. B. Code plan check is required for the following: 1. Any installation where one or more services, switchboards, motor control centers or feeders has a rating of 600 amperes or larger. 2. Any installations rated above 600 volts. 3. Theaters or motion picture theaters. 4. Assembly rooms having an occupant load over 500 people. 5. Installations in hazardous (fire or explosion) locations (flammable gas or vapors, flammable liquids, combustible dust, ignitable fibers or flyings). 6. Installation of lighting fixtures weighing over 300 lbs. -25- BUILDING & ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION PLUMBING PERMIT FEES TABLE NO. 1 For issuing each permit $13.00 In Addition: For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including drainage, vent, water piping and backflow prevention devices therefor) 7.50 For each permanent type dishwasher, whether individually trapped or not 7.50 For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps 7.50 For each swimming pool drainage trap and receptor whether connected to a building drain or a building sewer (water supply for pool not included) 7.50 For each gas piping system of one to five outlets --or alteration or retest of existing gas piping system 7.50 For each additional outlet over five 2.00 For each gas pressure regulator other than appliance regulators 7.50 For each water heater and/or vent 7.50 For each solar potable water heating system including water heater and vent 25.00 For repair or alteration of drainage and/or vent piping 7.50 For each piece of water -treating equipment and/or water piping installed without accompanying plumbing 7.50 For lawn sprinkler systems on any one meter including backflow prevention devices therefor 7.50 For backflow prevention devices on unprotected water supplied pools, tanks, vats, etc. (including incidental water piping) one to five 7.50 For each additional device over five 2.00 Each building drain installed without accompanying plumbing 7.50 -26- TABLE NO.2 For issuing each permit In addition: $13.00 For the connection of a house sewer to a public sewer or for the extension of a house lateral onto a lot for future use (separate permit required for each connection or extension) 21,50 For each house sewer manhole 21.50 For each installation of a section of a house sewer for future use 14.00 For the connection of each additional building or additional work to a house sewer 14.00 For the connection of a house sewer to a private sewage disposal system 14.00 For each private sewage disposal system (septic tank & seepage pits or pits and/or drainfield) 44.00 For each cesspool, overflow seepage pit, percolation test pit, swimming pool drywell, or drainfield extension or replacement 21.50 For disconnection, abandonment, alteration or repair of any house sewer or private sewage disposal system or part thereof 14.00 PLAN CHECK FEES Plumbing plan check fees are required only when the project (building or premises) taken as a whole has any of the following: (a) More than 216 waste fixture units; (b) Potable water supply piping required to be 2 inches or larger; or (c) Fuel gas piping required to be 2 inches or larger or containing medium or high pressure gas. -27- PLUMBING PLAN CHECK REQUIREMENTS A code plan check is required for the following: 1. A single building containing more than 216 drainage fixture units. (See Table 4-1 UPC.) 2. A potable water line serving one or more buildings with an aggregate demand of more than 180 water fixture units or 100 GPM (excluding buildings under Item 1 above and minor accessory buildings). (See Table 10-1 UPC.) 3. A fuel gas line serving one or more buildings with an aggregate demand of 2,000,000 BTU's or more (excluding buildings under Item 1 above and minor accessory buildings). (See Tables 12- . 1 and 12-2 UPC.) 4. A sewer collection system serving more than one building with an aggregate load of more than 216 drainage fixture units (excluding minor accessory buildings). M BUILDING & ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES EFFECTIVE AUGUST 9, 1990 r For the issuance of each permit._ ...................................... $13.00 For the installation, alteration or relocation of each refrigeration compressor or absorption unit, and for each fuel burning furnace, heater, boiler, and vented decorative appliance including vents attached thereto: Up to and including 100,000 BTU .... , .... 12.00 More than 100,000 BTU to and including 1,000,000 BTU ..................... 24.00 More than 1,000,000 BTU .... .................... .................. 60.00 For each air inlet and air outlet by any air conditioning system ................. 2.00 Or for each 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof of conditioned area ............ 17.00 Note: When a permit is applied for and the total number of air inlets and air outlets is unknown, the fees shall be based on the square feet of conditioned area. For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit ..................................... 6.00 For the installation or alteration of each air handling unit for air conditioning including ducts attached thereto: Up to and including 2,000 CFM Each unit up to 10 .............................................. 6.00 Each unit over 10 ............................................... 1.80 More than 2,000 CFM to and including 10,000 CFM ........................ 18.00 More than 10,000 CFM ......... .. .................... 30.00 Note: This fee shall not apply to an air handling unit which is a portion of a factory assembled air conditioned appliance for which a permit is required elsewhere in this Code. For each evaporative cooler other than portable type .............. . ......... 10.00 For required ventilation fans which serve a single register: Each fan up to 10 .,..................... ........................ 7.25 Each fan over 10 ........................................ , ......... 2.50 -29- For each required ventilation system which is not a portion of any air conditioning system for which a permit is required elsewhere in this Code .................. 15.00 For the installation of each commercial kitchen hood or spray booth served by mechanical exhaust, including the fans and ducts attached thereto ............. 30.00 For the installation of each fire damper ............................... . . 5.00 For the alteration of an existing duct system for which a permit is not required elsewhere in this Code ............. _................................ 12.00 Note: (1) For a refrigeration system rating one horsepower, one ton, or 12,000 BTU per hour shall mean the same quantity. (2) For steam boilers rated in boiler horsepower, one horsepower shall equal 50,000 BTU per hour. MECHANICAL PLAN CHECK FEES The plan check fee required is 50% of the permit fee shown above with the following exceptions: 1. Identical appliance of 100,000 BTU or less, installed in a single building: Up to and including 10 .......................... 50% of the permit fee Over 10 ......................... an additional 5% of its permit fee 2. When identical mechanical design is evident in more than one building on a single project and the Chief Mechanical Inspector so finds, plan check fees may be waived for other than the representative sample. Plan check is required for the following: 1. Installations where the aggregate BTU input capacity for either comfort heating or comfort cooling is 1,000,000 or over. 2. Installations containing a single comfort heating or comfort cooling air handling system with a capacity of 10,000 cubic feet per minute or more. 3. Food preparation or processing establishments containing a commercial type hood. -30- MECHANICAL PLAN CHECK REQUIREMENTS There are two types of mechanical plan checks. A. Energy plan check. B. Code plan check. A. See reverse side for energy plan check requirements, B. Code plan check is required for the following: Installations where the aggregate BTU input capacity for either comfort heating or comfort cooling is 1,000,000 or over. 2. Installations containing a single comfort heating or comfort cooling air handling system with a capacity of 10,000 feet per minute or more. 3. Food preparation or processing establishments containing a commercial type hood. s: \cdlnnnu\uhi6irc. K -31-