Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL WHITE CYN MC 97 147 (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be February 24, 1998 APPEAL OF A PLANNING Fred Follstad DENIAL OF MASTER CASE 97-147 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR 47863), TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WHITES CANYON ROAD BETWEEN NADAL STREET AND WILDWIND ROAD IN THE CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY. THE APPELLANT IS THE WHITES CANYON ASSOCIATES LTD. AND CANYON VIEW PARTNERS DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council open the public hearing, receive testimony and adopt Resolution 98-U upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the project. On May 22, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution 9044 which approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863. This allowed for the construction of 80 single family homes on 32 acres in the RL (Residential Low) zone. On October 22, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance 91-41 which granted a 10 year development agreement for VTTM 47863. In exchange for allowing the extended expiration date of the map, the applicant agreed to provide additional public benefits including: the dedication of a 28 acre parksite and a seven acre.library site within two months of the approval of the development agreement (this has occurred); payment of fees towards the grading of the park/library site; increased Bridge and Thoroughfare fees and a fee towards the construction of bike lanes in the City. In August of 1997, the applicant submitted a request to modify two sections of the approved development agreement. The first section is to remove the required payment of fees that were identified for partial grading of the joint park/library site northerly of Canyon High School. Staff estimates that fee is currently at $239,400 if the building permits are issued this year. The second section relates to the removal of a condition that required fees be paid towards the construction of bike lanes throughout the City. These fees are currently estimated to be Adopted: 2— Agenda ltem:_x $95,659. In addition, the applicant submitted a request to remove one existing oak tree, but has subsequently withdrawn the request. In lieu of providing these funds (which total $335,059) for the identified uses, the applicant is requesting that these funds be used in conjunction with funds from Tract Map 46626, to fund landscape improvements along Whites Canyon Road from Steinway Street to Soledad Canyon Road. The improvements would include creating uniform sidewalk widths, installing landscaping and irrigation adjacent to the sidewalks and placing six foot tall concrete panels or concrete split rail fence along the right of way. In addition, if all the funds are not expended, the applicant is proposing to construct landscaped median improvements along Whites Canyon Road beginning at Soledad Canyon Road moving northward. The applicant feels that the remaining funds will only construct about half the distance to Steinway Street. On January 6, 1998, after two previous hearings on the project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution.P98-03, denying the applicant's request. In denying the applicant's proposal, the Planning Commission found that the loss of the funds for the park/library site and bike lanes out weighed any community gain from the median improvements. In addition, the Planning Commission agreed with the William S. Hart High School District in saying that redirecting funds away from the partial development of the library site may be sending a wrong message to the community especially since these uses are oriented towards the City's youth. The applicant submitted a request to modify the proposal that the Planning Commission reviewed. This request includes that only the fees identified for bike lanes be used to remove a portion of the existing private walls and replace them with concrete panel walls in limited areas along Whites Canyon Road between Soledad Canyon Road and the project entrance. No other improvements are proposed. Attached to this report is a transmittal submitted by the residents in the area. The transmittal highlights their concerns regarding the project. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impacts associated with this project would be the cost to maintain the new medians. Staff anticipates the cost of the yearly maintenance of these medians to be approximately $30,000. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Staff has prepared a list of alternative actions the City Council could take at this evening's meeting: 1. Uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the project leaving the identified funding for the park/library site and bike lanes in place. 2. Accept the applicant's original proposal which directs the funds identified for the grading of the park/library site and for construction of bike lanes and redirects the funds towards landscaping, walls, irrigation and partial median improvements along Whites Canyon Road. 3. Accept the applicant's modified proposal which uses only the bike lanes funding towards limited improvements on Whites Canyon Road. 4. Any other alternative the City Council desires. ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Resolution No. P98-03 November 4, 1997, Planning Commission Staff Report December 2, 1997, Planning Commission Staff Report January 6, 1998, Planning Commission Staff Report Minutes from Planning Commission Meetings Previous Staff Reports for VTTM 47863 (see City Clerk's reading file) Previous Staff Reports for Approved Development Agreement (see City Clerk's reading file) Approved Development Agreement for VTTM 47863 (seeCityClerk's reading file) Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (see City Clerk's reading file) Correspondences Received by the Planning Commission for the Modifications (see City Clerk's reading file) sApbs\current\a weston. N' CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY MASTER CASE NUMBERS 97-146 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 46626), AND 97-147 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 47863). THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. THE APPELLANT IS WHITE'S CANYON ASSOCIATES LTD, AND CANYON VIEW PARTNERS. PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: Notice of Public Hearing regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Master Case Numbers 97-146 (Revised Development Agreement for Tract No.46626), and 97- 147 (Revised Development Agreement for Tract No. 47863). This project is located in the Canyon Country Community of the City of Santa Clarita. The appellant is White's Canyon Associates LTD, and Canyon View Partners. The applicant currently has Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and Development Agreements which allow construction of 281 single family residential units on two separate project areas. The applicant is requesting to modify the approved Development Agreements to remove the requirements for cash payments towards the improvement of a park site and library site adjacent to Canyon High School and cash payments towards the development of bike trails. In exchange the applicant would construct landscaping improvements and some median improvements along White's Canyon Road of.equal value to the waived cash payments. The landscaping improvements would include the planting of trees and shrubs adjacent to the sidewalk and in some of the medians, the construction of a six foot tall concrete panel wall along existing residences with Whites Canyon Road frontages, concrete split rail fences in some parkway areas and sidewalks with uniform widths. The zoning and general plan category for the site is RL (Residential Low). The location of the units to be developed is on the east side of Whites Canyon Road north of Nadel Street and south of Wildwind Road and northerly of the terminus of Foxlane Drive and Bakerton Avenue. The oak tree is located near the western terminus of Nearview Drive. The improvements are to occur along White's Canyon Road from Soledad Canyon Road to Steinway Street. This project is located in the Canyon Country community of the City of Santa Clarita. The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 24th day of February, 1998, 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, California. If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to raising only.those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to the public hearing. Dated: January 28, 1998 Sharon L. Dawson, CMC City Clerk Publish Date: February 1, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 98-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING MASTER CASE 97-147 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91.004 AND REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47863) AND MASTER CASE 96-241 (OAK TREE PERMIT 96-026) TO ALLOW FOR THE MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE REMOVAL OF ONE OAK TREE FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WHITES CANYON BETWEEN NADAL STREET AND WILDWIND ROAD IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. 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. On May 22, 1990, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita adopted Resolution 90-74, approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863 to allow for the development of 32 acres with 80 single family homes. b. On October 22, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance 91-41 which approved a Development Agreement 91-004 approving an additional ten year period to record the approved map. In exchange for the increased time lines to record the map, the applicant provided public benefits including the dedication of a 28 acre park/library site, increased Bridge and Thoroughfare fees, payment of funds towards the grading and development of the park/library site, and payment of fees towards the development of bike lanes in the community. C. On November 26, 1996, Whites Canyon Associates LTD. submitted a request to remove one oak tree on the project site. Staff determined that this request required a modification to the conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract 47863. Since these conditions were included within Development Agreement 91- 004, a revision to this document was also required. d. On August 18, 1997, Whites Canyon Associates LTD. and Canyon View Partners (the applicant) submitted a request to modify the development agreement to allow funds that were identified for bike lanes and park construction to be used for median and landscape improvements. In addition, the request included provisions to remove one oak tree. e. On November 20, 1997, the applicant submitted a letter withdrawing the request to remove the oak tree thereby withdrawing the oak tree permit and the revisions to VTTM 47863. f. Duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on November 4, 1997 and December 2, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. Page 2 g. On January 6, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted resolution P98-02 which denied the applicant's request. h. On January 12, 1998, the applicant submitted an appeal to the City Clerk appealing the Planning Commission's denial of the project. i. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on February 24, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds as follows: a. At the hearings conducted on the project, the Planning Commission considered the staff report prepared for the project and received testimony on the proposal. b. The modifications to the approved development agreement requested by the applicant requires a public hearing. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. The request is not consistent with the following policies of the City's adopted General Plan: 1. Policy 1.14 of the Public Services, Facilities and Utilities Element of the City's General Plan encourages the evaluation of the existing and future library system in the planning area to ensure sufficient facility and book volumes per person ratios. The loss of funds to partially develop the library site would be contrary to the goals identified in the City's General Plan. 2. Policy 1.1 of the Parks and Recreation Element of the City's General Plan encourages the provision of a combination of local park acreage, park facilities, and recreation programs to serve neighborhood needs. In addition, the General Plan identifies this area as part of a zone which lacks 700 acres of park land to serve the area. The loss of funds to partially develop the park site would be contrary to the goals identified in the City's General Plan. b. The request does not meet the required findings for a development agreement as established in the City's Unified Development Code and the City's previous zoning code (County of Los Angeles Title 22) to the satisfaction of the City Page 3 Council including the following: 1. Section 17.03.010 of the of the Unified Development Code states "That construction of public facilities required in conjunction with such development, including but not limited to vehicular and pedestrian rights- of-way, drainage and flood control facilities, parks and recreational facilities, and sewers and sewer treatment facilities and road improvements are adequate to serve the development". 2. Section 22.16.330.13 of the City's previous Zoning Code states "The construction of public facilities required in conjunction with such development, including but not limited to vehicular and pedestrian rights- of-way, drainage and flood control facilities, parks and other recreational facilities, and sewers and sewage treatment facilities". SECTION 4.The City Council hereby denies Master Case 97-147. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of '19--. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon Dawson, CMC, 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 mu nUcae9833.f1f February 9, 1998 Ms. Sharon Dawson, City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, FEB 11 4 zi PH '98 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE Re: Opposition to the Appeal of Planuing Commission Recommendations on the Requested Modification to the Existing DevelopmentAerMments with Canyon View Partners and Whites Associates Ltd Master Case 97-146 and 97-147. Dear Ms. Dawson: This letter and its attachments are being forwarded to you in Opposition to the Proposed Appeal to Reverse the Planning Corrunission's Recommendations not to Modify the Development Agreement of Canyon View Partners and Whites' Associates, Ltd As you will note, the residents of this area strongly opposed the modifying of the Development Agreement. The portion of the Agreement which the developer seeks to modify was the main selling point approximately eight years ago when this project was first brought up. 'Ihe developers used the gift of the 28 acres of land and approximately $1,500,000.00 which they would be paying in fees constantly and continuously throughout the initial hearings, stating that the aforementioned would be used to provide the residents with a park/library site. The developer insisted that these items were so desperately needed and would probably not occur without their generous monetary contribution and land contribution. The Planning Commission and the City Council were so excited to be able to provide their residents with something that would be used by residents for years to come that the Development Agreement was approved with the City Council. Now, eight years later, the developer comes before you and is asking that you allow him to be released from that portion of his obligation. The developer states that he is looking for an immediate amenity to provide the local residents. however, it is the feeling of this neighborhood that the developer is merely looking for an immediate amenity to help him sell his new homes. The cost to the local residents would be the loss of the park and library for an unknown time, a cost of $3D0,000 from the City to complete the project that is currently being proposed by the developers and approximately $30,000 per year from the City/Residents to maintain the proposed project before you known as the "Beautification of White's Canyon". The residents, as stated during hearings at the Planning Commission level, suggested that the initial $1,500,000 in funds be placed in an escrow account until such time as additional funds were found. Additionally, it was suggested that the $30,000 it would cost to maintain the "White's Canyon Beautification" be placed in the same escrow fund, thereby helping the residents reach their goal that much faster. The Planning Commission thought that flus was a good idea provided it was within the City's power to do so. As you will see in the attached minutes, all of the Planning Commissioners felt that a promise had been made to the residents in 1990 and that a park and library were desperately needed and that the original Development Agreement should be kept. (See the attached minutes) Residents present at the hearings willingly accepted and agreed to work on a committee with the appropriate stats' member to do whatever work might be required to seek out additional funding, such as grants and private donations, and to move the proposed site up the priority ladder thereby making it a reality within the next five years. It should be noted that although this particular park site is not on the priority list at this time, it is one ofthe only sites where land and money are currently available and therefore, should be worked up through the priority February 9, 1998 Page Two system rather quickly. Although working with residents on a project of this nature has never taken place before, it was felt that it would be beneficial ground breaking work to include residents who were more than Willing to do whatever it took to accomplish the building of parkllibrary, thereby frceing up the staff members for other projects. The Commission felt that the City was built on the premise that the residents should be able to help aid in the accomplishment of tasks such as that before us and this might set a precedent for future projects. (See the attached minutes) The residents who agreed to be part of this Committee are excited and anxious to get started and are merely waiting for the final word to come from the City Council that the request for the modification is denied and for the appropriate staffperson to contact them so that they can begin work The issue before you is not just a question of modifying a Development Agreement, but is an issue in which promises were made and on which initial decisions were based. It is hoped that you will take the Planning Commission's lead and deny the developers' Request to Modify the Development Agreement and order a staff member of the Parks and Recreation Department (or whatever department would be appropriate) to work with the residents by overseeing and pointing them in the right direction to begin the process of obtain plans and funds for the completion of this project within the next five years. Additionally, we would request that you require all funds relating to this project, collected and to be collected, be placed in an escrow account earmarked specifically for this project Perhaps, given the trend setting nature of this matter, it might be a good idea if a member of the City Council were to act as the Chairperson and receive regular updates regarding the resident's progress. We sincerely hope that you will give this matter your utmost attention and take a chance on the residents, rather than the developer and let us show you what we are capable of doing when we all work together as a City. It is our belief that together we can accomplish the building of the park4ibrary site as originally promised within the next five years or sooner. We respectfully request that you deny the Developer's Request to Modify the Development Agreement Sincerely, THE RESIDENTS OF OAK GROVE TRACT 27493 cc: Fred, City Planning Commission Staff City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 January 12, 1998 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805)259-8125 Dear Chairperson Stigle and Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission: This letter is being written to the Parks and Recreation Commission on behalf of the Planning Commission. At a recent Planning Commission hearing, a developer requested modifications to two existing development agreements in the Canyon Country area. The applicant was requesting removal of conditions that required the payment of fees that would allow for partial grading of the park/library site adjacent to Canyon High School and for construction of bike lanes in the City. The applicant would instead construct partial -median and landscape improvements along Whites Canyon Road from Soledad Canyon Road to Steinway Street. On January 6, 1998, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request. During the hearings on this matter, a number of residents spoke in opposition to the proposed modifications. They were concerned with the possible loss of these funds for the partial grading of the site. _ In addition, more concerns were raised when it.was found there were no funds earmarked for this facility in the next five years. They felt that this was sending a wrong message to the community. The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the residents in an effort to find additional funds for the library and park and to prepare this letter to transmit to the Park and Recreation Commission highlighting the concerns . brought forth during public testimony. Thank you for reviewing this letter. If the Planning Commission can be of any assistance, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Darla Hoback Chairperson, Planning Commission FLF:lep cc: City Council Planning Commission Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager Fred Follstad, Associate Planner Rick Putnam, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services Vublic'.Speakeri`f p1ngcomm\ltrprc.f1f PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER OPPOSITION TO REQUEST TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS RELATING TO TRACTS 46626 AND 47863 Hearing Date: November 4, 1997 Time: 7;00 p.m. Location: City Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Rather than overwhelming the City Council with numerous letters all attempting, in varying degrees, to make the same points, the undersigned residents of the Oak Grove Tract 27493, directly abutting Tracts 46626 and 47863, have agreed to submit one letter in opposition to the proposed amendments before you. We strongly oppose the requested modifications and it is our wish that this letter be included in the materials that the Planning Commission and City Council will review with regard to its decision to either deny or approve the proposed amendments. To release the developers, White's Canyon Associates, LTD and Canyon View Partners, from previous commitments to the City of Santa Clarita and to the residents would be a detriment to this community. The developers are requesting that they be released from their prior obligation to the City and to the residents of this tract to provide the City with cash payments to be used in the development of a park and library site adjacent to Canyon High School. The Community of Canyon Country is, by the developers' own admission, "seriously deficient in parks and recreation facilities for everyone's enjoyment." The developers used this land and the monetary donation to sell its residential housing tracts to the City of Santa Clarita and to its residents. The whole idea behind the monetary donation was so that the park would be constructed immediately and not years down the road. In reviewing several hours of previously held hearings it is quite obvious that this park site, the amenities it would provide and the cash payments were a major factor in the Planning Commission's, the City Council's and the local residents initial approval of this development. The City Council was so excited with the prospect of having this park and the immediate development of it, that a call went out from the City Council to form a Citizen's Advisory Committee to begin the initial planning and development of the park. To allow the developers to renege on what was such a crucial point in the approval of this residential project would be an error. In doing so the City of Santa Clarita would have this fantastic land site and absolutely no funds whatsoever to develop it within the next five to ten years and the residents would be left empty handed. By requiring the developers to satisfy their previously agreed to commitments, the City of Santa Clarita would be able to provide its residents with a much needed and long overdue park site in an area where parks are scarce. In return for being relieved of its monetary obligation the developers offer up a poor substitute by stating that they would construct landscaping improvements from Soledad Canyon Road to Steinway. The only real contribution the developers would be making here would be from Soledad Canyon to Nadel. From Nadel on up to Steinway consists of the new housing development which already requires that certain landscaping needs be meet from the developers. The winners here would be the developers. Their substitution only will aid the in the appearance and the sales of their property. Additionally, throughout numerous conversations and meetings with the developers in the past, the local residents had already been promised lush landscaping and fully maintained and watered slopes to be maintained by a special maintenance district. So in essence, nothing new is being offered by the developers. They are only offering that which had already been promised_ In recent years trees have been planted along the parkways of Whites Canyon from Soledad Canyon by the City of Santa Clarita and, residents have, on their own, been making improvements over the last several years. Construction of a "six foot tall concrete panel wall" from Soledad Canyon to Steinway would take away from the rural charm for which Canyon Country is noted for and one of its most desirable features. Additionally, because of its close proximity to a Junior High and High School, this wall would provide an ever increasing temptation for graffiti which would have to be continually removed, thereby giving Canyon Country an undesirable affect. If the developers desire to construct a panel wall to help sell their project to potential buyers, then so be it. However, to release them from their previous commitment to the community to create what will only become a nuisance with its maintenance would be a step backwards in progress. The residents are not willing to release the developers from their prior commitments. Lastly, if the landscaping improvements are of equal value to the cash payments, as stated by the developers, then what real difference would it make to keep with the plan at hand and as a result have a beautiful and much needed park for the local residents? As you can see by the information provided in this letter, a park and possible library site are of much more importance at this time than anything else the developers might provide. It is for the reasons stated above that the local residents are in opposition to the proposed amendment. This is a very critical amendment that the developers are seeking and we urge you to consider all of the consequences when making your decision. We are confident that once you have weighed all the pros and cons you, too, will see that the residents will benefit far more from a park than any six foot concrete wall or minimal landscaping could provide. We hope that you will not strip us of the only benefit we actually stand to reap from these development projects and that you will unanimously vote to deny their request for amendment. Secondly, the. developers are requesting permission to remove one oak tree to correct a geological problem. The geological issues of these two housing projects encompass endless hours of research and testimony and should, perhaps, be reviewed prior to the hearing on this particular amendment. After the countless hours and extensive meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council the developers stated that the oak tree would be fully preserved. Original acceptance of the projects was based on the assurances that the oak tree would remain. Now, the developers, having already been denied once permission to remove the oak tree, are here before you a second time seeking permission to remove the same tree. The developers state that removal is required to correct a geological problem. It is a well known fact that there is an underground spring on the property in question and that lowering and monitoring of the water table has always been a major concern not only to the developers, but to the residents nearest the development as well. However, it is our feeling (and originally until this point, that of the developers) that removal of the oak tree in no way prevents these things from happening. There is plenty of room around the oak tree for the developers to place any irrigation system, above or below ground, necessary to correct any geological problems. Review of previous testimony will support this finding. It is our belief that the developers are seeking removal of the oak tree so that they can come before you again and request the addition of 1 or more houses once the tree has been removed as there will be a large area of land currently not cited for use because of the presence of the oak tree. This land area had been originally slated for a common area to be lavished with trees and landscaping incorporating the oak tree and to be maintained by the developers at no cost to the residents closest to the project. Not only would this have provided the residents abutting the development a means of maintaining some privacy in their yards, but it would have also provided a beautiful scenic area rather than the building of block or brick walls to maintain that same source of privacy. Additionally, the local residents were promised by the developers that they would play a part in the selection of the landscaping to be used in the creation of this common area. It would seem that the developers have forgotten about this as well. If the oak tree is removed and the developers are granted the addition of 1 or more houses down the road, the residents closest to the location.of the oak tree in question will have absolutely no privacy whatsoever and will be forced to put up block walls, etc., in order to provide themselves with some means of privacy. It should also be mentioned that an owl currently resides in the oak tree and has for quite some time. Removal of this oak tree may result in the loss of a home for this owl. As mentioned above, the developer has already sought removal of the oak tree once prior and was denied by the City. It is our hope that you will abide by your initial decision and once again deny the request to remove this oak tree. It is important to hold developers to their initial commitments and not allow them to make promises in order to obtain their initial permits and then come in down the road once the project has been begun to make changes which have a major impact on the residents surrounding these projects and on which commitments residents based their decision to support the developers. It is respectfully requested that you, the voice of the people of the City of Santa Clarita, will make the right decision and deny the requests before you. Additionally, with the potential of El Nino we would like to remind both the City and the developers that there was a promise that there would be thousands of sand bags on hand in case of rain during the building process. We hope that this matter will not be overlooked and that these sandbags will be made available with the crews necessary to fill and stack them. In the past, even in the heaviest of rains, there have been no problems with earth migrating into the yards from the hills. However, at this time there is a lot of loose dirt over the area to be developed and if the El Nino weather pattern does in fact develop the potential for dirt to migrate into yards of residents and our streets exists. In the event this should occur please be advised that we intend to hold the developers and the City responsible. Sincerely, THE RESIDENTS OF OAK GROVE TRACT 27493 I am a resident of property whose rear property line abuts White's Canyon and I oppose the building the aforementioned block panel wall. , Numerous of us have spent thousands of dollars building block walls over the years and feel that we will have suffered an unnecessary expense if this panel wall is constructed. Additionally, there are some residents who have chosen not to place up any wails, but to use the chain link that was placed there so that they might have views out of their yards. Also, there are residents that maintain a gate which opens onto White's Canyon for access to and from their rear yards. The building of this panel wall would no longer that access. ti�/lL tLrt tdJ . •/Zi'Lri t �Ilc� GL V�7vr_ lz 6L4 -ea, cz 6IX &UX4 A c' ,Lmz �Lr� iyn 7�2. 9e �o t� Ll r'Xv �✓r,� u t/k, e -z . �4iLI ,& C t, . i`�--t e,16U 7 iyl Zc e t . la-tA Z`..f.r C.crac LL tt, u (eC J' -tit(--7' AA->~ /�+ rL gyp. iYnn cv t-U'/i ���� Cr�'�Y✓c�i c� ti�/lL tLrt tdJ . •/Zi'Lri t �Ilc� GL V�7vr_ lz 6L4 -ea, cz 6IX &UX4 A c' ,Lmz �Lr� iyn 7�2. 9e �o t� Ll r'Xv �✓r,� u t/k, e -z . �4iLI ,& C t, . i`�--t e,16U 7 iyl Zc e t . la-tA Z`..f.r C.crac LL tt, u (eC J' -tit(--7' AA->~ /�+ rL gyp. iYnn cv t-U'/i ���� Cr�'�Y✓c�i CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 97-146 REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-003 DATE: N TO: /Chairper//n Hoback and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: / JeVAbert AICP, Planning Manager CASE AICP, Associate Planner APPLICANT: l/ Canyon View Partners LOCATION: At the northerly of the terminus of Bakerton Avenue, Tambora Drive and Foxlane Drive in the Canyon Country community of the City. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a modification to an existing development agreement. The modifications would include the removal of a condition - requiring the payment of a fees toward the development of a park and library site adjacent to Canyon High School and the removal of a condition requiring the payment of a fee towards the improvement of bike lanes in the City. In lieu of these considerations, the applicant would install landscape improvements along Whites Canyon Road. BACKGROUND On May 22, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance 90-08 which approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626. This allowed for the construction of 201 sirxgle family residential units on 80 acres in the RL (Residential Low) zone. The project was initially approved by the Planning Commission and appealed to the City Council. On October 22, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance 91-40 which granted a 10 year development agreement for VTTM 46626. In exchange for allowing the extended expiration date of the map, the applicant agreed to provide additional public benefits including: the dedication of a 28 acre parkoite and a seven acre library site within two months of the approval of the development agreement (this has occurred); pay..r ent of fees towards the grading of the park site; increased Bridge and Thoroughfare fees and a fee towards the construction of bike lanes in the City. GENERliL PLANM- SURROUNDING LAND LIS NING The site is presently zoned RL (Residential Low) which allows for a density of 1.1 to 3.3 units per acre. The General Plan category for. the site is also RL. The following table sets forth information as it pertains to the project site and surrounding areas, including planning categories, zoning, and land use designations: Agendal temoval General Plan Zoning Land Use Project RL North RE South RS West RS/RE East RE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS RL a-2-1 (County) RS RS/a-2-1 a-1-10000 (County) Vacant Vacant Single Family Homes Vacant, Open Space Vacant As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts of the project. It was determined that the adverse environmental impacts could be avoided with mitigation measures. Subsequently, a draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project. Staff has not received any comments or inquiries regarding the proposed project. COMMENTS RECEIVED Staff has received one letter in opposition to the project. In addition, staff has received a petition signed by 37. residents of the adjacent Oak Grove tract who are in opposition to the request. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting to modify the existing development agreement for VTTM 46626. The modification pertains to two different sections of the agreement for this project and the adjacent project of VTTM 47863. The first section is in regards to a required payment towards the improvement of the joint park and library site of $500,500 plus an increase based on the Consumer Price Index for the time period from the approval of the tract map to the fust of January preceding the issuance. of building permits. Staff estimates that as of January 1, 1998, the CPI will be approximately 20%. Therefore, the payment would be $600, 600 if building permits were to be issued in 1998. The second modification the applicant is requesting is to remove the requirement for the payment for the development of bike trails of $1,067.62 per unit plus CPI increase from the approval of the development agreement to the first of January preceding the issuance of building permits. The approximate CPI for this improvement is 12% or $1,195.73 per unit. The total funds that are required to satisfy this requirement are approximately $240,341 if the building permits were issued in 1998. In lieu of the applicant providing these funds (which total $840,941), the applicant is requesting the funds be used in conjunction with the funds from Tract Map 47863, if approved. The funds would be used to make roadway aesthetic enhancements along Whites Canyon Road from Soledad Canyon Road to Steinway Street. This is a distance of approximately 1.8 miles. The improvements, which are described in an informational packet included in the agenda packet, include the placement of a six foot concrete panel wall or concrete split rail fence, street trees, shrubbery, irrigation systems and concrete sidewalk repair along the complete length of the roadway described above. In addition, if any funds are not completely expended, the applicant is proposing to construct landscaped median improvements along Whites Canyon Road beginning at Soledad Canyon Road and moving northward. The applicant feels that the funds proposed will only complete about half of the medians. Staff has prepared a list of benefits and disadvantages related to the applicant's request. If the applicant were to receive approval of the request as proposed, the benefits would include: The proposal would bring an aesthetic improvement to an area that the City has received many requests for street beautification. Currently, no funds are allocatedforthis improvement in the City's Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. Aesthetic enhancements would occur in the area much sooner than otherwise possible. The applicant. can construct landscape and road improvements more economically than the City since these improvements would have to be put out to bid. The disadvantages include: The City would lose funds earmarked to partially grade the site for recreation and library facilities which, according to the City's General Plan, are highly deficient within the City, especially in this area. The City would incur General fund costs since the improvements once accepted would be maintained by the City. According to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department, the improvements would cost the City $30,000 per year to maintain. Funds are currently not allocated for this maintenance. The applicant may not be able to fully construct the complete length of median improvements under the current proposal. If all the improvements are not installed, it may create a disjointed appearance. Currently, no funds are proposed to complete the improvements in the Capital Improvement Program. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission provide direction on the applicant's request. Staff has provided a number of possible alternative actions for the Commission to review. They include: 1. Recommend approval to the City Council of the project as proposed by the applicant. 2. Modify the applicant's request to require the installation of all improvements from Soledad Canyon Road to Steinway Street. 3. Same as number 2 above with the requirement that the applicant be required to maintain the improvements for a period of time, possibly ten years. a 4. Make no decision on the item and send it directly to the City Council without a recommendation. 5. Deny the request. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive a staff presentation, open the public hearing, receive testimony, discuss the item; and, 2) Direct staff to return to the Commission at the November 18, 1997 meeting with a Resolution which includes the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. pingcom\sr97146.nf 9 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 97-146 REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-003 DATE: December 2, 1997 TO: Ci erson Hoback and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jeff y Lambert, AICP, Planning Manager CASE PLANNER: Fre ollstad, AICP, Associate Planner APPLICANT: Canyon View Partners LOCATION: At the northerly terminus of Bakerton Avenue, Tambora Drive and Foxlane Drive in the Canyon Country community of the City. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting modification to an existing development agreement. The modifications would include the removal of a condition requiring the payment of fees toward the development of a park and library site adjacent to Canyon High School and the removal of a condition requiring the payment of a fee towards the improvement of bike lanes in the City. In lieu of these considerations, the applicant would install landscape improvements along Whites Canyon Road. BACKGROUND This item was brought before the Planning Commission at the November 4, 1997 meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to return to the -Commission with additional information and continued this project to December 2, 1997. That information is contained in the next section of this report. As of this date, no additional letters regarding this project have been received. INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION The information requested at the previous hearing by the Commissioners is listed below: The Planning Commission would like additional information from previous Planning Commission meetings on the project site. Staff has included copies of previous staff reports, minutes and a copy of the approved Development Agreement. In addition, staff has included copies of previous biology and the updated oak tree report. The Planning Commission wanted to know the costs associated with the construction of. new medians. Staff contacted both the City's Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the Transportation and Engineering Departments for the City's costs associated with these improvements. The cost to construct a typical 14 foot wide median generally runs between $40 to $45 per linear foot not including landscaping. The cost of landscaping including some stamped concrete highlights, generally cost $5 to $7 per square foot. Therefore, a new 14 foot median would run from $110 to $150 per linear foot. In the areas where the median is existing, costs for improving the median would be $5 to $7 per square foot plus one additional dollar per square foot for the removal of the existing asphalt. The Planning Commission requested the costs associated with the construction of new bike lanes. The cost of bike lanes varies between different projects. The cost is based on a number of variables including: topography, existing right-of-way, under or overcrossing, on street or off street and purchase price of the land if required. The new trail connection along Soledad Canyon Road and Valencia Boulevard which includes an undercrossing and overcrossing is costing approximately 1.5 million dollars for one and one-half miles of trail with almost no land acquisition costs. The average costs for a bike trail is approximately $500,000 per mile plus land costs. The Planning Commission requested staff to contact the William S. Hart School District to discuss the impacts of this request. Staff had a discussion with the district's superintendent regarding the applicant's request. While the District has not taken a formal stance on this issue, concerns were informally raised. Although the District recognizes the fact that the landscape improvements will be an aesthetic asset to the community, the loss of the partial grading of the library and park site is of concern. The District feels that. the loss of funds towards the development of facilities oriented towards children, especially the library, is sending the "wrong message" to the community. The Planning Commission was seeking additional information on any Parks and Recreation Commission action on this item. The item was never formally brought before the Parks and Recreation Commission. However, at the November Parks and Recreation meeting a resident addressed this issue. The Parks and Recreation Commission asked staff for a quick synopsis of the project. Afterwards, the Parks and Recreation Commission had mixed reactions to the request. They felt the review of the request was in the purview of the Planning Commission and City Council and they did not act on the item. The Planning Commission requested information on when funds would be available to complete construction of the parkllibrary site. In discussions with staff from the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department, no funds are currently available to finish the construction of the facility. In addition, this site is not identified in the current five year Capitol Improvement Plan nor in the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Therefore, no funds are identified for development of the park/library site now or in the near future. Also, there are currently three undeveloped park sites awaiting funding and the Central City Park awaiting development and additional funding. The Planning Commission requested information on whether the funds must be used within a specific time frame. In reviewing the document and applicable state laws, staff feels there is no time frame in which the City is required to expend the money offered as part of the development agreement. However, the funds must be spent on the improvements identified in the approved development agreement unless modified. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive staffs presentation, open the public hearing, receive testimony, discuss the item; and, 2) Direct staff to return to the Planning Commission at the January 6, 1998 meeting with a Resolution which includes the Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council. JJL:FLF:lep p1ngcom\sr971462.flf RESOLUTION NO. P98.02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING MASTER CASE 97-146 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-003) TO ALLOW FOR TBE MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF FOXLANE DRIVE AND BAEERTON AVENUE IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. 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. On May 22,1990, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita adopted Ordinance 90-08, approving Prezone 89-002 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626 to allow for the development of 80 acres with 201 single family homes. b. On October 22, 1991 the City Council adopted Ordinance 91-40 which approved a Development Agreement 91-003 approving an additional ten year period to record the approved map. In exchange for the increased time lines to record the map, the applicant provided public benefits including the dedication of a 28 acre park/library site, increased Bridge and Thoroughfare fees, payment of funds towards the grading and development of the park/library site, and payment of fees towards the development of bike lanes in the community. C. On August 18, 1997, Whites Canyon Associates LTD. and Canyon View Partners (the applicant) submitted a request to modify the development agreement to allow funds that were identified for bike lane and park construction to be used for median and landscape improvements. d. Hearings were held by the Planning Commission on November 4, 1997 and December 2, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. A formal decision was made on January 6,1998. 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 hearings conducted on the project, the Planning Commission considered the staff report prepared for the project and received testimony on the proposal. b. The modifications to the approved development agreement requested by the applicant requires a public hearing. Page 2 SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: a. Policy 1.14 of the Public Services, Facilities and Utilities Element of the City s General Plan encourages the evaluation of the of existing and future library system in the planning area to ensure sufficient facility and book volumes per person ratios. The loss of funds to partially develop the library site would be contrary to the goals identified in the City's General Plan. b. Policy 1.1 of the Parks and Recreation Element of the City's General Plan encourages the provision of a combination of local park acreage, park facilities, and recreation programs to serve neighborhood needs. In addition, the General Plan identifies this area as part of a zone which lacks 700 acres of park land to serve the area. The loss of funds to partially develop the park site would be contrary to the goals identified in the City's General Plan. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby denies Master Case 97-146 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1998. azl obaccqLirperson A T: PlatSing Commission en Puls camp Secretary, Planning Commission Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon Dawson, CMC, 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 6th day of January, 1998, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOBACK, BERGER, BRATHWAITE, KELLAR AND KILLMEYER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE oy- CITY CLERK p1ngcom\rw9802.t1f MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday November 4,1997 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 2 MASTER CASE NO. 97-146 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91- 003) The staff report and slide presentation were given by Fred Follstad, Associate Planner. He also requested that Agenda items 2 and 3 be heard as one item. The Commission agreed. Mr. Follstad gave information regarding the oak tree on the project site. At this point it is healthy; however, with the water supply for the tree gone, it would need a supplemental system in order to stay healthy. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. John Ashkar, 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, is the applicant. Mr. Ashkar said this project would be beneficial to the residents of the area. He said it was made clear to him that the funds were not available to develop the park and library site. Mr. Ashkar said the oak tree could stay but it may not survive. If the tree is removed, other oak trees would be planted in its place. Commissioner Mllmeyer asked who owned the property for the library and park site. Mr. Ashkar said they purchased it and then dedicated it to the City. Commissioner MlImeyer requested that staff obtain a letter from the Parks Commission on if and when funds would be allocated to this park. Commissioner Brathwaite said the residents were promised a park and a library and he did not see how the Commission could change that commitment now. Mr. Ashkar said he would be happy if the park and library site could be developed now. However, the reality was that there were no funds available to do this. Chairperson Hoback wanted to be sure that the funds for the park site could not be allocated to another location. It would have to stay at the site mentioned in the development agreement. Commissioner Berger wanted clarification on how much would the applicant be able to finish with the amount of money they had available. Mr. Ashkar said would be able to take care of the rails and fencing and the parkways. There is a shortfall of approximately $300,000 with reference to the median islands. Commissioner Berger asked Mr. Ashkar if he had seen the owl that was reportedly living in the oak tree. Mr. Ashkar said he had not seen it. Commissioner Kellar had questions regarding the tree mitigation. These questions were answered by Mr. Follstad and the applicant. Chairperson Hoback asked about the height of the walls in the area. The applicant proposed walls U in height while residents have 8' to 10' walls. She did not think this would enhance the look of the area. Mr. Ashkar said if the applicant replaced the private resident walls it would be a logistical nightmare and financially it would not be feasible. Chairperson Hoback asked how many years would it take the applicant to build out this project. Mr. Ashkar said it would be approximately 3 years. She also asked if the oak tree could be transplanted. Mr. Follstad stated because of its size, this tree was not a candidate for transplantation. The Commission heard testimony from those who were in opposition to this project. Those speaking were: Glen Reeves, 28222 Bakerton, Santa Clarita; Karen Holder, 28149 Foxlane Drive, Santa Clarita; Robert Holder, 28149 Foxlane Drive, Denice Schelling,. 28219 Stanley Court, Santa Clarita; Charlotte Arthur, 28101 Foxlane Drive, Santa Clarita. Comments made included: The City not living up to its agreement for a park and library; find a solution that will be beneficial to the residents; the need for the park and library; saving the oak tree; the alteration of the spring water from the tree; the tree is a Valley Oak and not a Coast Live Oak; opposition to the walls and walkways; the owl and red-tailed hawk that roost in the oak tree; and the problem of water ponding in residents' yards. RECESS Chairperson Hoback called a recess at 9:00 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Tom Haner, representing the Pride Committee, spoke in favor of the item. They felt the new walls would enhance the area. Charles Cohen, One Boardwalk, Thousand Oaks. Mr. Cohen is an attorney. He represented the original developer on this project. He felt that something should be done to improve the neighborhood. Mr. Ashkar spoke in rebuttal to some of the comments that were made. He stated that the oak tree could stay. He felt his project would benefit the community. Mr. Ashkar stated there are 2 no funds for the library building itself. Chairperson Hoback asked how long had the oak tree been without water. Mr. Ashkar said it had been approximately one month. He also stated that it was being watered by a water truck on a regular basis. Robert Holder had additional comments. He said that now that the spring water had been diverted, it was now coming up in some of the neighbors backyards. He spoke about the oak tree. He said without proper watering and care, the tree will not survive. He felt it was the developer's responsibility to maintain the tree. Charlotte Arthur was one of the resident's whose backyard was being flooded by the diversion of the underground spring. She said her yard is marshy along with a portion of her hill. She said you could not walk on it and it is beginning to smell. She said her neighbor is also experiencing the same problems. Ms. Arthur said this has been going on for several months. Vince Bertoni, Senior Planner, said that staff could have Code Enforcement take a look at this matter. Mr. Ashkar said he had not heard about this situation until this evening. He said that it would be dealt with right away. Public participation was closed at 9:45 p.m. Chairperson Hoback felt that more information was needed before direction could be given for the resolutions. Commissioner Killmeyer agreed. Commissioner Brathwaite felt the Commission should have the previous staff reports so the Commission could see what took place when this matter was first heard. Staff said this would be provided. Commissioner Kellar also felt that more information was needed regarding the tree, owl and the hawk. Commissioner Berger said if the City does not have the funds for the park and library now, why not take the money and use it to enhance the area. He wanted staff to find out what the cost would be to have the park and library in place. Chairperson Hoback was concerned with the precedent this action would have on future development agreements. She felt that the Canyon Country community needed a park and a library. Mr. Follstad reviewed the issues that staff needed to respond to for the next meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Berger and seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite to continue this matter to December 2, 1997. Said motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 3 AEE-TUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday December 2,1997 7:00 p.m. ITEM 4 MASTER CASE 97-147 (RF.VMD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004, OAK TREE PERMIT 96-026) The Commission agreed to hear these two matters together.. Fred Follstad, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. Mr. Follstad said a letter had bben received from the applicant stating that the oak tree would not be removed Mr. Follstad reviewed documentation requested at the November 4, 1997 meeting. This documentation included staff reports from the original meetings on this project. Mr. Follstad said he had spoken to Dr. Robert Lee, Superintendent of the Hart High School District. He said Dr. Lee expressed concerns over the loss of the partial grading of the park/ library sites. Mr. Follstad also spoke with the Parks and Recreation Department regarding when funds would be available. No funds are currently available to finish the construction of the facility.' In addition, the site is not identified in the current five year Capital Improvement Plan nor in the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Chairperson Hoback inquired about the oak tree. Mr. Follstad said the City's oak tree consultant, Kay Carlson, took a look at the tree. It was her belief that the tree was getting some water. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:12 p.m. John Ashkar, the applicant, spoke first. He gave a brief history of this project. He said he is trying to get a benefit to the community and future homeowners of his project by putting in the landscaping and medians. This could take place now instead of waiting for an undetermined time for the park and library. Those speaking in opposition to this project were: Glen Reeves, 28222 Bakerston, Santa Clarita; Charlotte Arthur, 28101 Foxlane, Santa Clarita; Karen Holder, 28149 Foxlane, Santa Clarita. Some of the comments made were: the community needs a library, placing the money in an escrow fund, residents prefer the library and park over the street improvements; problems with the heavy equipment being used on the project. Mr. Ashkar addressed some of the issues that were brought up by the residents. He said the grading of the library site cannot be separated from the grading of the entire site. Wayne Weber, Park Development Coordinator, spoke with reference to the park issue. He said the money for this project might grade the park site and several acres for the library site but that would be as far as the funds would go. There are three other park sites with the same status - they are ready for development but there is no money to build them. He stated the grading of the park and library site must be done at the same time. Once this is accomplished, the two issues may be separated. Commissioner Berger wanted to know if there was any way of telling when the park might be funded. Mr. Weber said determining the timing for this was very difficult and he did not know when the funds would be available. The public hearing -was closed at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Kellar said the park and library situation in Canyon County is inadequate. He said after reviewing the documentation both old and new, he felt the City and the developer had a responsibility to accomplish certain things and the ultimate need of the community would best be served by addressing the issue of the park and library. He said he was comfortable with the original agreement. Commissioner Berger said Mr. Ashkax's proposal would be a benefit to the City and community. However, the Commission promised five years ago that the residents would have a park and library and he was in favor of keeping the original agreement. Commissioner Killmeyer felt libraries are important and essential to the City's youth. He wanted to stick with the original agreement. He urged the residents to keep the ball rolling on getting the park and library. CommissionerBrathwaite said what was promised in 1990 was a promise that should be kept. Chairperson Hoback commended the residents who spoke before the Commission in their pursuit of obtaining the park and library. She said it helped in making her decision. She also was in favor of keeping the original agreement. A motion was made by Commissioner Kellar that this project be left in accordance to what was articulated in the original agreement and that the City work with the citizens to see if some type of funding source could be found to proceed with the.park and library sites. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner. Mllmeyer. Mr. Altmayer suggested modifying the motion to add that the resolutions would be brought back at the next meeting and continuing the matter to January 6, 1998. Said motion was amended to reflect the modification. The vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 2 AM[N=S OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday January 6, 1998 7:00 p.m. LGIS)IN10181 DI 1 :1 DrA . 1 ITEM 5 MASTER CASE NO. 97-146 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-003) Fred Follstad, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. A letter had been prepared to give to the Parks and Recreation Commission which outlined issues brought up by members of the community. Chairperson Hoback requested changes to the letter to make it clearer. Mr. Follstad said changes would be made and the letter would be prepared and given to Chairperson Hoback for her signature. A motion was made by Commissioner Killmeyer and seconded by Commissioner Berger to adopt Resolution P98-02.which denies the requested amendment to Development Agreement 91-003. Said motion was passed by a vote of 5-0. February 24, 1998 The Honorable Jan Heidt Mayor, City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. City of Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mayor Heidt: RECEIVED AND rvIADE A PART OF iREC RD ti AT T � ��9F MEEnNG L REM NO , The Wm. S. Hart Union High School District and the Saugus Union School District Governing Boards wish to indicate their unified support for the action taken by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1998, in reference to Tentative Tract Map 46626. Our districts represent over 5,000 Kindergarten through high school age students,. plus adults, all of whom are currently served by limited library and recreational facilities within the Canyon Country area. It is publicly known that the financial support needed to build new libraries, parks, and trails within our City is seriously limited, and as the area continues to grow, the needs for additional facilities will increase and the financial requirement will become overwhelming. It is our understanding that Resolution 98-93 has been posted for a public hearing at the City Council's regular meeting of February 24, 1998. The Wm. S. Hart Union High School District and the Saugus Union School District Governing Boards together request the City Council's denial of this appeal. Our community cannot continue placing matters that enhance, beautify, and promote development in front of the educational, cultural, and recreational needs of its constituents. It is for this reason that we request the City Council's denial of this appeal. Sincerely, �C-, k, Robert C. Lee District Superintendent Wm. S. Hart Union High School District 21515 Redview Drive Santa Clarita, CA 91350 259-0033, Ext. 201 Gail Wickstrom, Ed.D. District Superintendent Saugus Union School District 24930 Avenue Stanford Santa Clarita, CA 91355 294-7500 IMM IME 111101 IMM IME IME WHITES CANYON RID. BEAUTIFICATION CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA DEVELOPER: WESTON COMMUNITIES s❑ ❑ L Newman Design Group, Inc .1,n" • edqul9ei.up. 31300N Wd .S.irc 10, .WVIY.WL a U9130 -3m • Pae10181991-3036. F-1010)"1.3174 WHITES CANYON BEAUTIFICATION City of Santa Clarita, CA Prepared For: Weston Communities Prepared By: L. Newman Design Group 10960 Wilshire Blvd. #1960 31300 Via Colinas, Suite 104 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Westlake Village, CA 91362 LIMITS OF BEAUTIFICATION DEVEL6PMENT Approximately 1.8 miles of Whites Canyon Road - Parkway and Median from Soledad Canyon intersection north on Whites Canyon Road to Steinway St. intersection. EXISTING CONDITIONS arkwa s) Both sides of Whites Canyon Road consist of the road with intermittent street trees.The balance is a 10' wide solid concrete walk with tree wells. The background along the private properties vary with inharmonious materials such as grey masonary block, stucco block, tan block, iron panels, chainlink fence, wood fencing (all various colors and wood types) and several combinations of the above. Some of the walls are freestanding and others are retaining. The heights vary from T to 11' in height. The majority however, are approximately 6' in height. Additional to the above, some have a back drop of a landscaped slope of which will be preserved. edian At the present time no median exists from Soledad Canyon to Nadal Street. The future median is, however, paint striped to delineate tum pockets and the ultimate buildout. A median (curb and gutter) does exist from Nadal Street to Steinway that is presently filled with asphalt paving. The medians will be improved in portions as part of the phase to give the illusion of a continuous landscaped median. The improvements will be similar to that of Soledad Canyon east of Whites Canyon Road consisting of pockets of planters utilizing drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcover with a stamped concrete stone pattern surrounding the planter areas. M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M� M WHITES CANYON BEAUTIFICATION City of Santa Clarita, CA (Landscape) The only landscape along Whites Canyon Road within the parkway that exists are the street trees either in a dirt parkway or in isolated tree wells within the full width concreie walkway without irrigation. The trees are presently being watered by a water truck from the roadway. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 1. The existing conditions demonstrate inconsistent materials and a minimum landscape consisting of only street trees. The purpose of this beautification will be to set a theme for Whites Canyon Road that has continuity creating a background tapestry utilizing a woodcrete fence material to minimize impact to the existing walls or fencing that will remain. An added parkway landscape buffer full of floral, shrubbery, yet seasonal color shall enhance the lower vehicular edge of the roadway while additional meandering tree groupings and vines that will soften the lineal appearance. In the open areas to preserve distant views or existing acceptable background slope landscape, the chainlink fence will be removed and a double -rail fence made of concrete will provide an impression of a wood rail fence consistent with the woodcrete fence material. Both rail and fence materials will be light earth tone colors (beige and brown). By combining a consistent fence material with the landscape embellishment of the parkway and medians along Whites Canyon Road the streetscape will add to the beautiful community of Santa Clarita. WHITES CANYON ROAD PLANT PALETTE Botanical Name Common Name PARKWAYS Trees: Callistemon viminalis Bottlebrush Eucalyptus nicholii Willow -Leafed Peppermint Geij era parvifolia Australian Willow Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree Ulmus parvifolia Evergreen Elm Shrubs: Agapanthus africanus Lily -of -the -Nile Cistus purpureus Rock Rose (mixed colors) Dietes iridiodes Fortnight Lily Hemerocallis hybrids Daylily (mixed colors) Lavendula Lavender Mahonia aquifolium `Compacta' Oregon Grape Muhlenbergia _ Deer Grass Nandina (dwarf) Heavenly Bamboo Phormium (dwarf varieties) New Zealand Flax Pittosporum `Wheeler's Dwarf NCN Rhamnus crocea Redberry Rhaphiolepis indica India Hawthorn Salvia (Dwarf varieties) Sage Trachelospennum jasminoides Star Jasmine Verbena Verbena Viburnum tinus Dwarf viburnum Botanical Name Vines: Clytostoma callistegioides Distictis buccinatoria Jasminum polyanthum Solanum jasminoides Rosa `Climbing' (on rail fence) Pyracantha (on rail fence) Groundcover: Artemisia caucasica Fragaria chiloensis Festuca Gazania MEDIANS Common Name Violet Trumpet Vine Blood -red Trumpet Vine Jasmine Vine Potato Vine Rose Firethorn Silver Spreader Wild Strawberry Blue Oat Grass Gazania Trees: Prunus cerasifera `Atropurpurea' Purple -Leaf Plum Quercus agrifolia ' Coast Live Oak Shrubs: Lantana montevidensis Lavender Lantana Rhaphiolepis indica India Hawthorn Groundcover: Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary OPPOSITION TO ROUEST TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS RELATING TO . TRACTS 46626 AND 47863 RECEIVED Hearing Date December 2, 1997 NOV 2 6 1997 Time: 7:00 p.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Location: City Council Chambers CITY OF SANTA C,IARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, California 91355 The residents of the Oak Grove Tract 27493, directly abutting Tracts 46626 and 47863, stand behind their original letter of opposition. A copy of that letter has been attached and is incorporated herein. . Additionally, the residents would like to make the following suggestions and ask the following questions: 1. Could the $30,000 a year it would cost to maintain the fencing and medians which are strongly opposed be set aside to be added to the monies already in hand to build the much needed and promised library and park site. �2. If the council can take $300,000 to complete the median development, as suggested by the builder, than why can't the City Council take that same $300,000 to add to the building of �0 thek and library racy site. 3. Could the park be initially built and then funds sought from the Federal or State Government to be added to existing funds to complete the library portion of the site. 4. Perhaps, if the City Council follows the citizens' lead and denies the requests for modifications, a committee of interested residents, together with park and other officials, could be comprised just for the specific purposed of seeking outside governmental aid to complete either the park and/or the library. 5. Being that there are already funds set aside for these developments, and there is such a need in the community of Canyon Country, could the priority of building these two sites be moved up the ladder and placed at a higher priority. As was mentioned before at the previous meeting, the residents of Oak Grove and other residents of the Canyon Country area do not have a problem waiting for the park and library sites to be built. We implore You to follow the promises previously made to the residents and on which the initial development was granted and deny the requests before you: With regard to the fencing there are several fences, block and wooden, along White's Canyon which are taller than six feet. If the builder is only building a six foot fence and not removing the fencing which is already in place now, how is that fencing going to improve the appearances? Now, you will a block panel wall and then within inches or a foot of that an additional fencing. The gap between the fencing will become an accumulation of trash and other debris and who knows what. Additional there will be several areas where block or wooden fencing will stand above the block panel wall giving an unsightly appearance. Again, there is the fear of additional graffiti to the fencing as there will be more available to write on. With regard to the Oak Tree, by denying the request of the developer to remove the tree, you do not have to make one person thereby responsible for the tree as stated by the developer. If the developer is required to maintain the tree during his development and runs an irrigation system to the tree, then why can't the da Remo 3 irrigation system remain in place thereby providing water to the tree long after the builder is gone. This would provide a simply solution to the problem at hand Additionally, the builder stated that the oak tree would become part of a home's front lawn area. It is difficult to believe that someone would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a brand new house and then not maintain it. The builder mentions that he will replace the trees with more trees. However, as stated by the builder, these trees would be placed in a location near the entrance to his project. How convenient. Again, we implore you to deny the builder's request and rule that the oak tree should be allowed to remain. Sincerely, THE RESIDENTS OF OAK GROVE TRACT 27493 F MEETING -OF THE PLANNING COMM; OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday November 4, 1997 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order by Chairperson Hoback at 7:08 p.m. in the Century Conference Room, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was led by Commissioner Killmeyer. ROLL CALL The secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairperson Hoback and Commissioners Berger, Brathwaite, Kellar and Killmeyer. Also present were Vince Bertoni, Senior Planner; Fred Follstad, Associate Planner; Michael Rubin, Associate Planner; Conal McNamara, Assistant Planner II; Jason Smisko, Assistant Planner II; Jeffrey Hogan, Planning Technician; Chris Price, Associate Engineer; Chris Cheleden, Assistant City Attorney and Lori Powell, secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commission Brathwaite and seconded by Commissioner Killmeyer to approve the Agenda. Said motion passed by a vote of 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 7, 1997 A motion was made by Commissioner Berger and seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite to approve the Minutes of the October 7, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting as amended. Said motion was passed by a vote of 5-0. PUBLIC ITEM 2 MASTER CASE NO. 97-146 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91- 003) ITEM 3 MASTER CASE 97.147 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004, —.OAK TREE PERMIT 96.026 The staff report and slide presentation were given by Fred Follstad, Associate Planner. He also requested that Agenda items 2 and 3 be heard as one item. The Commission agreed. Mr. Follstad gave information regarding the oak tree on the project site. At this point it is healthy, however, with the water supply for the tree gone, it would need a supplemental system in order to stay healthy. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. John Ashkar, 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, is the applicant. Mr. Ashkar said this project would be beneficial to the residents of the area. He said it was made clear to him that the funds were not available to develop the park and library site. Mr. Ashkar said the oak tree could stay but it may not survive. If the tree is removed, other oak trees would be planted in its place. Commissioner Killmeyer asked who owned the property for the library and park site. Mr. Ashkar said they purchased it and then dedicated it to the City. Commissioner Killmeyer requested that staff obtain a letter from the Parks Commission on if and when funds would be allocated to this park. Commissioner Brathwaite said the residents were promised a park and a library and he did not see how the Commission could change that commitment now. Mr. Ashkar said he would be happy if the park and library site could be developed now. However, the reality was that there were no funds available to do this. Chairperson Hoback wanted to be sure that the funds for the park site could not be allocated to another location. It would have to stay at the site mentioned in the development agreement. Commissioner Berger wanted clarification on how much would the applicant be able to finish with the amount of money they had available. Mr. Ashkar said would be able to take care of the rails and fencing and the parkways. There is a shortfall of approximately $300,000 with reference to the median islands. Commissioner Berger asked Mr. Ashkar if he had seen the owl that was reportedly living in the oak tree. Mr. Ashkar said he had not seen it. Commissioner Kellar had questions regarding the tree mitigation. These questions were answered by Mr. Follstad and the applicant. Chairperson Hoback asked about the height of the walls in the area. The applicant proposed walls Gin height while residents have 8' to 10' walls. She did not think this would enhance the look of the area. Mr. Ashkar said if the applicant replaced the private resident walls it would be a logistical nightmkre and financially it would not be feasible. Chairperson Hoback asked how many years would it take the applicant to build out this project. Mr. Ashkar said it would be approximately 3 years. She also asked if the oak tree could be transplanted. Mr. Follstad stated because of its size, this tree was not a candidate for transplantation. The Commission heard testimony from those who were in opposition to this project. Those speaking were: Glen Reeves, 28222 Bakerton, Santa Clarita; Karen Holder, 28149 Foxlane Drive, Santa Clarita; Robert Holder, 28149 Foxlane Drive, Denice Schelling, 28219 Stanley Court, Santa Clarita; Charlotte Arthur, 28101 Foxlane Drive, Santa Clarita. Comments made included: The City not living up to its agreement for a park and library; find a solution that will be beneficial to the residents; the need for the park and library; saving the oak tree; the alteration of the spring water from the tree; the tree is a Valley Oak and not a Coast Live Oak; opposition to the walls and walkways; the owl and red-tailed hawk that roost in the oak tree; and the problem of water ponding in residents' yards. RECESS Chairperson Hoback called a recess at 9:00 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Tom Haner, representing the Pride Committee, spoke in favor of the item. They felt the new walls would enhance the area. Charles Cohen, One Boardwalk, Thousand Oaks. Mr. Cohen is an attorney. He represented the original developer on this project. He felt that something should be done to improve the neighborhood. Mr. Ashkar spoke in rebuttal to some of the comments that were made. He stated that the oak tree could stay. He felt his project would benefit the community. Mr. Ashkar stated there are no funds for the library building itself. Chairperson Hoback asked how long had the oak tree been without water. Mr. Ashkar said it had been approximately one month. He also stated that it was being watered by a water truck on a regular basis. Robert Holder had additional comments. He said that now that the spring water had been diverted, it was now coming up in some of the neighbors backyards. He spoke about the oak tree. He said without proper watering and care, the tree will not survive. He felt it was the developer's responsibility to maintain the tree. Charlotte Arthur was one of the resident's whose back yard was being flooded by the diversion of the underground spring. She said her yard is marshy along with a portion of her hill. She said you could not walk on it and it is beginning to smell. She said her neighbor is also experiencing the same problems. Ms. Arthur said this has been going on for several months Vince Bertoni, Senior Planner, said that staff could have Code Enforcement take a look at this matter. Mr. Ashkar.said he had not heard about this situation until this evening. He said that it would be dealt with right away. Public participation was closed at 9:45 p.m. Chairperson Hoback felt that more information was needed before direction could be given for the resolutions. Commissioner Killmeyer agreed. Commissioner Brathwaite felt the Commission should have the previous staff reports so the Commission could see what took place when this matter was first heard. Staff said this would be provided. Commissioner Kellar also felt that more information was needed regarding the tree, owl and the hawk. Commissioner Berger said if the City does not have the funds for the park and library now, why not take the money and use it to enhance the area. He wanted staff to find out what the cost would be to have the park and library in place. Chairperson Hoback was concerned with the precedent this action would have on future development agreements. She felt that the Canyon Country community needed a park and a library. Mr. Follstad reviewed the issues that staff needed to respond to for the next meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Berger and seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite to continue this matter to December 2, 1997. Said motion passed by a vote of 5-0. CASE NO. 97-168 (MINOR USE PERMIT 97-017, RESOLUTION P97-21) The staff report and slide presentation was given by Jeff Hogan, Planning Technician. Commissioner Killmeyer asked what the height of the building would be. Mr. Hogan said it would be 35 feet in height. Commissioner Kellar asked what type of offices would be in the building. Mr. Hogan said they would be medical offices. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:15 p.m. Hughes Pope, 7825 Fay Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Landmark Healthcare Facilities. He said the office space was needed for the physicians. After two meetings with the residents in the area, revisions were made to have more landscaping to 12 A motion was made by Commissioner Berger and seconded by Commissioner Kellar to adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution P97-25 approving Master Case 97-90 which consists of Development Review Number 97-004 subject to the conditions of approval. Before the vote was taken, the Commissioners commented on the project. Commissioner Killmeyer stated he did not support the project. He felt it was an error to allow this type of business at this location since it was one of the entryways into the City. Chairperson Hoback said she agreed with most of the statements made by Commissioner Killmeyer. Commissioner Brathwaite said there was very little other kinds of uses that could be put on this piece of property. He felt this project was less obtrusive than having stores along the area. He felt it was a good use. A roll call vote was taken. Those voting yes on the project were Commissioners Berger, Brathwaite and Kellar. Those voting no were Commissioners Hoback and Killmeyer. Said motion passed by a vote of 3-2. ITEM 3 MASTER CASE NO. 97-146 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91- 003) ITEM 4 MASTER CASE 97-147 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004, OAK TREE PERMIT 96-026) The Commission agreed to hear these two matters together. Fred Follstad, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. Mr. Follstad said a letter had been received from the applicant stating that the oak tree would not be removed. Mr. Follstad reviewed documentation requested at the November 4, 1997 meeting. This documentation included staff reports from the original meetings on this project. Mr. Follstad said he had spoken to Dr. Robert Lee, Superintendent of the Hart High School District. He said Dr. Lee expressed concerns over the loss of the partial grading of the park/ library sites. Mr. Follstad also spoke with the Parks and Recreation Department regarding when funds would be available. No funds are currently available to finish the construction of the facility. In addition, the site is not identified in the current five year Capital Improvement Plan nor in the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Chairperson Hoback inquired about the oak tree. Mr. Follstad said the City's oak tree consultant, Kay Carlson, took a look at the tree. It was her belief that the tree was getting some water. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:12 p.m. John Ashkar, the applicant, spoke first. He gave a brief history of this project. He said he is trying to get a benefit to the community and future homeowners of his project by putting in the landscaping and medians. This could take place now instead of waiting for an undetermined i'a iti m� the park and library. Those speaking in opposition to this project were: Glen Reeves, 28222 Bakerston, Santa Clarita; Charlotte Arthur, 28101 Foxlane, Santa Clarita; Karen Holder, 28149 Foxlane, Santa Clarita. Some of the comments made were: the community needs a library, placing the money in an escrow fund, residents prefer the library and park over the street improvements; problems with the heavy equipment being used on the project. Mr. Ashkar addressed some of the issues that were brought up by the residents. He said the grading of the library site cannot be separated from the grading of the entire site. Wayne Weber, Park Development Coordinator, spoke with reference to the park issue. He said the money for this project might grade the park site and several acres for the library site but that would be as far as the funds would go. There are three other park sites with the same status - they are ready for development but there is no money to build them. He stated the grading of the park and library site must be done at the same time. Once this is accomplished, the two issues may be separated. Commissioner Berger wanted to know if there was any way of telling when the park might be funded. Mr. Weber said determining the timing for this was very difficult and he did not know when the funds would be available. The.public hearing was closed at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Kellar said the park and library situation in Canyon County is inadequate. He said after reviewing the documentation both old and new, he felt the City and the developer had a responsibility to accomplish certain things and the ultimate need of the community would best be served by addressing the issue of the park and library. He said he was comfortable with the original agreement. Commissioner Berger said Mr. Ashkar's proposal would be a benefit to the City and community. However, the Commission promised five years ago that the residents would have a park and library and he was in favor of keeping the original agreement. Commissioner Killmeyer felt libraries are important and essential to the City's youth. He wanted to stick with the original agreement. He urged the residents to keep the ball rolling on getting the park and library. Commissioner Brathwaite said what was promised in 1990 was a promise that should be kept. Chairperson Hoback commended the residents who spoke before the Commission in their pursuit of obtaining the park and library. She said it helped in making her decision. She also was in favor of keeping the original agreement. A motion was made by Commissioner Kellar that this project be left in accordance to what was articulated in the original agreement and that the City work with the citizens to see if some 3 type of funding source could be found to proceed with the park and library sites. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Killmeyer. Mr. Altmayer suggested modifying the motion to add that the resolutions would be brought back at the next meeting and continuing the matter to January 6, 1998. Said motion was amended to reflect the modification. The vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. RECESS Chairperson Hoback called a recess at 9:12 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. With Mr. Lambert's return, the Commission heard Item 1. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION ITEM 1 LONG TERM SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER AVAILABILITY Mr. Lambert asked the Commission to direct staff to schedule a meeting to discuss water issues in the City. This meeting would include representatives from the public and the water agencies. Commissioner Killmeyer requested that the Commission receive data before the meeting to be better prepared. Testimony was taken from the public. Those speaking were: Michael Kotch, representing SCOPE, 28701 West Sloan Canyon Road, Castaic; Bob Lathrop, 25105 Highspring, Santa Clarita; Ed Dunn, 15414 Rhododendron Drive, Santa Clarita; Lynne Plambeck, P. 0. Box 1182, Santa Clarita; and Bill Marietta of the Santa Clarita Water Company. Mr. Kotch presented a. letter from SCOPE which had information pertaining to water availability versus land use planning. Comments made by the speakers included: keeping the basics in mind, look for critical situations, having a base plan for critical scenarios; reclaimed water, the importance of having the public's voice along with the water agencies; and well -head protection. Commissioner Brathwaite said more information is needed from the water companies. A motion was made by Commissioner Brathwaite to direct staff to schedule a discussion at a Planning Commission meeting with representatives from the water companies regarding water availability and water availability with regard to land use. Said motion was seconded by Chairperson Hoback and passed by a vote of 5-0. A request was made by Mr. Lambert to hear Item 6 before Item 5. Said request was granted by Chairperson Hoback. 11 Robert Dennis, represented 24 -Hour Fitness. He said they have been working with staff to try and resolve this problem. He felt the residents of the community would be well served to have this matter heard this evening. He felt this was not their fault and they have been operating in good faith. Jeff Harmon, District Manager for 24 -Hour Fitness, spoke before the Commission: He said many phone calls had been received from members of the community expressing a desire to have this temporary work out facility. He said the use would be for approximately four months and there was ample parking. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Killmeyer and seconded by Commissioner Kellar to hear this matter on January 20, 1998. Said motion passed by a vote of 5-0. A motion was made by Commission Brathwaite and seconded by Commissioner Berger to approve the Agenda. Said motion passed by a vote of 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 30, 1997 ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4,1997 ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 1997 ITEM 4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 1997 Commissioner Killmeyer requested that the word "application" be changed to "modification" on page 5, paragraph 11 of the December 2, 1997 Minutes. A motion was made by Commissioner Berger and seconded by Commissioner Kellar to approve the Consent Calendar in its entirety as modified. Said motion was passed by a vote of 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 5 MASTER CASE NO. 97-146 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91- 003) Fred Follstad, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. A letter had been prepared to give to the Parks and Recreation Commission which outlined issues brought up by members of the community. Chairperson Hoback requested changes to the letter to make it clearer. Mr. Follstad said changes would be made and the letter would be prepared and given to Chairperson Hoback for her signature. A motion was made by Commissioner Killmeyer and seconded by Commissioner Berger to adopt Resolution P98-02 which denies the requested amendment to.Development Agreement 91-003. Said motion was passed by a vote of 5-0. a,_ ITEM 6 MASTER CASE 97-147 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004, OAK TREE PERMIT 96.026 2 E Follstad, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. tion was made by Commissioner Kellar and seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite to t Resolution P98-03 which denies the requested amendment to Development Agreement 3. Said motion was passed by a vote of 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 7 MASTER CASE NUMBER 97-223 (PREZONE NUMBER 97-002, ANNEXATION NUMBER 1997-02, RESOLUTION P98-05) The staff report and slide presentation was given by Fred Follstad. Mr. Follstad said he had spoken with a representative from the William S. Hart Union High School District and the location for the school site was acceptable to them. Commissioner Brathwaite asked what the size of the site would be. Mr. Lambert said the agreement was for 20 acre parcel and 14.2 acre parcel and the City and the School District will share 5 acres of the City's park site. Chairperson Hoback asked where the earthquake fault ran on the property. Mr. Follstad said it was located in the 14.2 acre parcel. She also wanted to know how much of the 20 acre site was part of the SEA. Mr. Follstad did not have an exact figure but he said it was approximately one acre. Chairperson Hoback asked if the State does not approve the site, would another site be provided. Mr. Follstad said yes, there were other sites in the immediate area that could.be used. Commissioner Mllmeyer asked what was the probability of having a school on this site. Mr. Follstad said pending state approval, it looked fairly good. He said there was a need for the junior high. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:06 p.m. There were no speakers speaking in favor or in opposition to this matter. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:06 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Berger and seconded by Commissioner Killmeyer to adopt Resolution Number P98-05 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution approving the Negative Declaration prepared for this project with the finding that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment and adopt the proposed ordinance approving Prezone No. 97-002 (Master Case No. 97-233, Annexation No. 1997-02). Before the vote was taken, Commissioner Killmeyer asked for clarification on two items. Clarification was given by Mr. -Follstad. Said motion was passed by a vote of 5-0. 3 w w w w w w wi w. w� w w� a� w iw w w ■rte ■� ' w w w ■� w ■� w w w �■ w w w w w w w w w i F ,� 't1 F . �� _:. v y.. j3 �a `�. -. A'sf y't` .: Y .,ai as �. s .�r _ h• s '. '� t ti K.S: A �' � , F � : � � s/:v'+ r ++.. .. � d... tt ✓ : r V iyy� Y I its }}S j 3�g € 14 p IN Iz Ir lab -u d le-------------- S^ , a 71 :. � •1 +� .. ,r r x '.s ! • � .,t� � +3 r�•yyS��i(✓T�� �t �'� ,�;1' <.• � • � -]•ter .•,]•� , 1 aij lR 1 .. ill ..y'. �'�-''-'j ��'v"_'i� _ •�I •; v ,•.ri�iv�';r�g6 �,h i�'ra'a�, •ie��.,:-_�— .x�.r,� .S � ,w � r neoml5ii�l� .�, ;�' . '..r ir-:� ,.'r�i ti4,� R •,►i�';�+tet �- — f s� 4 � t G Y t w y E w uy ! t + fa � Y R '71 14 " m = m m r = = m = � m = m = � $MK��' ,..� i � 9..�',. rye•= F ".;._ a)s,,I''�ay1y�'fV•,s�. .1. f "`r e ree t .r 'r - a, l < ��'.��'','s�% 4%'4.¢r� �µ �" � ", �`F r ; # ,:-•�` Ax"�•� t��• , r Cie e; kPI krC ��� �"` � r~• � � �.( :/K`�' } 1x, ASF C'-+. 1 _ „ 4 G _ m � = m = = � � Y' •1 f i a! it � �.i:.- �f�•� � �� �,! y 1 '9 l ..t . . S Yli Ik � "�k y 1 '9 l ..t . . S m m m m m mm�mmm m so mm mm" m IN R&40�jffi mm�mmmm &am mmm"mmmm" m ♦� F� i; t -{ � r y _' r a T 'e ._ t _ y �"cF✓ ��. ems# ",�„� i _ ' �5 �7.�°� i �(6�n�.-:.�.. .moi. 't '� `� l _� .rTwr '-.4�: X - vX r r om r r r M" r MM41 lisp p .. � dad ���J '1�' t"afi .5%. • ;,j ... 1 APir is X71_ J+`L ., .`.. ' _ "'d rion p .. N i 1 a M M as M M M M" M M r Mao M M M M Im m F/ JS n A yy d T=_ 4 ^ :� :� 4r a ,w - .Y M r � M M MM "M i / M WO M M M Mon M n� W. '.i -sAA,w - �• , r _ ss 4 71, r s fyn{� CSF f r" w" r r m Ij 5 f �- •r•' _ y . 1 Y V 1 w r P' tes. 1p r" w" r r m Ij 5 �aa� aa� � rrr arr aar air � �. a� � pan ..w �■r � � � r•� urs � - .. � =a t t't !3S t �~ �...,-: ` � µ i � � e't' �} Sy �l fit^ !^r. �j� Ar Y x � �V� '"t v i " - � i� r ' a i}i� C �,� { �" ::� �tt�!c.l�itt -�Cr�n .,..� � t+..1 �.Iit, r t. `bF sv ���,.�• - Vyy � , C� t R `.. �� 4.. 5tr. � ` >, _ RM .' Y 3' Jam' I f r �-7 r t���rs�_ ��" '��,.�`,�-.... S"•+ t r� +�.-.'s �.._>,., �r .1 �'r Tt4+,w'�y�.0 ..� #sY3.� C. r �r}>i y�r F � �:. Ott ���' fr i {,s 4[..>--.� S...r � � "^^'t »`" �'` � .yr r�: �x ���� ;t ' tr ; �I ]a�s r�/�'*w�:n l}."'it `�i�:�;)' L� c r � a t t � r/ ffffff �R}t %�. - o � �. � r � ° �{� t r'h }s,r t r�tL�! t���.. s C�Ms:.t..� 4 ..� .. < ! � �) t t , 'int) nF " fi+c� l�k g�.r Y � � � • � - � '' t u,�^,C Pw I«y.. t t �I S � r. Yt ,t P ro � � rt �- ., I r ,� 1 . �y�.•s t Y t� f f�g� �� L s.y� -". - .fes ��T.. � ���V l ;f f v, ��� .- �r: %v -� . +.. a �. � ^e �, �� ' , -- .- r.,' ;W. x c� �. m .. . `� ° y � ' ® '�L .. .L. s Y..t_ b . +';i J � S .�, Y. ^ .... QV. � ` ` ` .. ... fj e..�� � r. � _ • C e t� /� ' �, . � .. �1 _ � � � � - � l � � :.. �.. ..�_. � :j � = �'� „-' .� � �. - .- , . - n14� d .. �r .� L4 ,. ,.; .. _ wY•! WO�. -rid •�. .y Y r _ .w �� -77 h? -0, IYF Ipy.�1,)I f� ' +l _ Y •i. ♦ J � r 4�~�a w... Y ,{�� s W • � _k4 ! t l I' 1 h Y lll� ZJ �, ` � f.. rte, ��, l� ,. ,�,,,,, r,• ,s+ .:1. `Y/a'�s"e a �A�{i�.� ���qe �•s Y'•Ae «� rT rb �.. F F IIjh �=. T F if ^� l •Ff� v'P4Y yrtx�},"A7� ,� �1 ax � ��) I'm ' '�. a f 'A •+�. .�-:. _ R r _�. «.�/ �` t ! .� "A4 i ��``. x « � n.i 5�" ; vi «•r •j T i { - I ,', 4 x lr"t`F..\ t I `�,�. xz s` �?°••-'fit` I kqr� . i a -�r, s [ .s, ldj ,s� �' `� Yf;v � •� r f�', IflrlY �� 1Yr JI ` �..`" rte« ��)' •� \� e f /j!' , ot; 4, pa; 7Mt r Mk; , ot; 4, pa; PLEASANTDALE STREET III � III L I STILLMOR El II i F � a PLEASANTDALE STREET III � III L I STILLMOR El II moposm x m OA ElwT fTEEET MEE ////, P -IV WHITES CANYON ROAD TYPICAL SECTION SCAU V 1'-O• R R� I y , A >; 1 1 n •� � n •E I muu CXMT W! STAT •�•••�••••. emsna s.omwcerrtcf� �� S,CA.ra.aE.rEAP4SA waxy a WAV ro..w r.aooua.E reale[ Wrtx Efwa rW4 WILL WOOD FENCE, C! CxAE rE.CE \ _ mtrcto.e.ran �ffesrfq EESmFJfaxL ^°'me"'W '�'^p1W /ri 'r �flcu 1 `r'°"h:x CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE & SITE '" ` IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR WHITES CYN. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA. DEVELOPER. WESTON COMMUNITIES 6/10/97 LNDG#2025-09 SHEET *1 ....... 5—^--111 /�1 r---- i - i 1. �"'" i yi am.. [ PLEASANTDALE II fX STREET S EiIITI NMO! M 9CXOOL IlExlx nsTu STLLM ORE STREET moposm x m OA ElwT fTEEET MEE ////, P -IV WHITES CANYON ROAD TYPICAL SECTION SCAU V 1'-O• R R� I y , A >; 1 1 n •� � n •E I muu CXMT W! STAT •�•••�••••. emsna s.omwcerrtcf� �� S,CA.ra.aE.rEAP4SA waxy a WAV ro..w r.aooua.E reale[ Wrtx Efwa rW4 WILL WOOD FENCE, C! CxAE rE.CE \ _ mtrcto.e.ran �ffesrfq EESmFJfaxL ^°'me"'W '�'^p1W /ri 'r �flcu 1 `r'°"h:x CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE & SITE '" ` IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR WHITES CYN. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA. DEVELOPER. WESTON COMMUNITIES 6/10/97 LNDG#2025-09 SHEET *1 T"4T %#O< w �•S-.IM-��Ao 1.1�_i"'+ 1 l \ ^�4.sG�{`l• % y1CC" Imo- _ IL aawmitwwu•,-.n , t L waaa�w.er NlMi �`, . TYPICAL PLAN VIEW ' :'t. -M S ✓ - f.. v / �!• _ e '/ / ti / t ' `` � '+T�Y'c� 3•cta � / os`�. � _ mw,Y•.r..waa TIACT •lento i � . F9 zc ® ? ny rK 9iC Iau�Yama iers�uw�co ��m,unx —,aan,c:•.onu, X44 \ `, t .i f f V^ Y 1 • ^< 5, .' Y I �% con �� i -__ TYPICAL SECTION eC Ale Le' -1'i' ^.•'-!' -\J ti 1 jr' 1 g 1 4� ,M•.0 v x ��a6 7tL r 4. 3 --v ..wnu •mu wm eam• mnc (•� r /,�..�J/�saus.,•�.v v w uR/ r - ^ ate a .e w+, r;..e �}at< 3 ` il�� .. 'r \_ , +.n •:f� R ;�� 35 iY i'I• .. .. ' mYs,uncaj_.uun �� ib . y <-~ t .� � � � .' 7 y >O �. e y ,' / Q ij r v, t ti r r �er TFICT =.3L1b dTy ty�' 1 - - '- .•..'. - _ V� �` tea-- aCYN. J/ ' .. i,v [ ^'Y.:.'• -.I 1 Y- ...., t R- P V H , .V Y '. - Z_ >, a �� Y.u[a.m..we t C' ..� 4 i \ ' f ' � { 4 wl•YIgY - \. m � aRYR nLYwI •.. � S Pumum r,` K 4 g / W T/P6T 3S 4B ; iX i zo v CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE 8t SITE SHEET •2 _• p IMPROVEMEN T PLAN FOR 21 TACT �541b WHITES CYN CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA. DEVELOPER WESTON COMMUNITIES 4/10797 LNDG#2025-09 _A 2-20-90 1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY February 20, 1990 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Brathwaite, at 6:45 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Worden led the Pledge of Allegiance to the'flag of the United States of America. ROLL CALL The Secretary called the roll. Those present were Commissioners. Modugno, Sharar and Worden, and Vice Chairman Brathwaite.' Chairwoman Garasi was excused. Commissioner Sharar left the meeting following the public hearing on Item 1. Also present were City Attorney Mary Gayle; Director of Community Development Mark.Scott; Director of Public Works John Medina; Principal Planner Richard Henderson; Traffic Engineer Ed Cline; Building and Engineering Services Manager Dick Kopecky; Assistant Planners Jeff Chaffin and Fred Follstad; and Secretary Stephanie Kuhn. APPROVAL OF It was moved by Worden, seconded by Modugno, MINUTES and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the meeting of February 6, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Worden, seconded by Modugno, and RESOLUTION NO. unanimously carried to approve Resolution No. P90-05 P90-05, conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map 47324; Conditional Use Permit 89-007; Oak Tree Permit 89-046; and recommending approval of Pre -zone No. 89-003. ITEM 1 This request, which was continued from January 16, VESTING TENTATIVE would allow for the -subdivision of four parcels PARCEL MAP 20795, into 18 to accommodate a regional shopping center CONDITIONAL USE and other potential retail and office space. In PERMIT 89-002, order to avoid the possibility of a conflict of OAK TREE PERMIT interest, Commissioner Worden announced her 89-013 intention to -abstain -from the vote and excused herself from -the room. Mr. Chaffin presented information contained in the staff report, and Mr. Medina discussed the traffic elements. The Director advised that the second sentence of Condition 56 would be revised to state "These measures shall be required subsequent to the occupancy of Phase I development, but within one year of notification by staff." 2-20-90 PC 2 Vice Chairman Brathwaite declared the public hearing open at 7:03 p.m. Speaking in favor of the item were: Tom Dierckman, of Valencia Company; Mark Mayers, 24854 Avenue.Tibbets; Garry Haggart, 23254 Maple Street; Tom Veloz, 15857 Beaver Run Road; Marc Aronson, 26153 Las Lanas Court; Sheila Sales, 20047 Avenue of the Oaks; Rosalie Gnam, of the Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce; and Laurene Weste, P. O. Box 921, Newhall. Speaking in opposition was Dorothy Riley, 21224 Placerita Canyon Road. Also commenting was representative of S.C.O.P.E. Michael Kotch, 28701 W. Sloan Canyon, Castaic. During a rebuttal period, speaking in favor of the item were: Gloria Glenn, of Valencia Company; and Ron Horn, Sikand Engineering, 15230 Burbank Blvd., Van Nuys. Hearing no other comments favoring or opposing the item, Vice Chairman Brathwaite closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Cline commented on traffic intersections adjacent.to the project, and Commission discussion ensued. In conclusion, it was moved by Modugno, seconded by Sharar, to approve the negative declaration; approve Tentative Parcel Map 20795, Conditional Use Permit 89-002, and Oak Tree Permit 89-013, subject to the conditions as revised; and adopt the resolution. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Brathwaite, Modugno, Sharar ABSTENTION: Worden COMMISSION Vice Chairman Brathwaite declared a recess at RECESS 7:54 p.m. COMMISSION Vice Chairman Brathwaite called the meeting back RECONVENES to order at 8:05 p.m. ITEMS 2 AND 3 These requests for proposed subdivisions into VESTING lots for single family homes were continued from TENTATIVE TRACT the meeting of January 16 for thepurpose of MAP 47863 AND addressing geologic concerns raised by nearby VESTING residents. The Director read a list of proposed TENTATIVE TRACT conditions which Weston Development has prepared MAP 46626 AND to safeguard adjacent properties during grading PREZONE 89-002 for the new construction. He noted that Condition 31 is to be revised, striking the last two sentences of the condition, to read "Where off-site grading and street improvements are required, it shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant to acquire the necessary right of way and/or easements." Previous references to "eminent domain" were removed from the condition. 2-20-90 PC 3 Mr. Kopecky recapped the informational meeting of February 19 and reported that American Landmark has also offered to,provide a monitoring system for the purpose of safeguarding.neighboring homes. The Director explained that these projects may be conditioned to require the presence of an on-site deputy inspector during critical periods in the grading process. Vice Chairman Brathwaite declared the public hearing open at 8:30 p.m. Speaking in favor of the items.were: applicants John Ashkar, Weston Development; and.Tom McFadden, American Landmark. Speaking in opposition were: Karen Holder, 28149 Foxlane Drive; and Glenn Reeves, 28222 Bakerton Avenue. Also commenting were: Jack Ancona, 29552 Abelia; and Bob Lathrop, 25105 Highspring. John Ashkar, Tom McFadden and Ross Khiabani, Leighton Associates, 25031 W..Avenue Stanford, spoke during the rebuttal period. Discussion ensued. Hearing,no.further comments or questions,. Vice Chairman Brathwaite declared the public hearing closed at 9:17 p.m. The Director stated that a telephone contact number would be established for residents to call with their concerns. Following additional discussion and relative to Item 2 (Landmark), it was moved by Modugno to: (1) approve the negative declaration, with corrections as noted, with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (2) approve modification of street grades in excess of 10% up to a maximum of 12.5%; (3) approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863 based on the required findings and subject to the conditions of approval as modified; and (4) adopt the resolution. It was further moved by Modugno, relative to Item 3 (Weston), to: (1) approve the negative declaration, with corrections as noted, with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (2) approve modification of street grades in excess of 10% up to a maximum of 12.5%; (3) approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626, based on the required findings and subject to the conditions of approval as modified; (4) recommend approval to the City Council of Pre -zone 89-002; and (5) adopt the resolution. Motion was seconded by Worden and unanimously carried. ITEM 4 Mr. Follstad reviewed this request to subdivide VESTING ± 47.4 acres into 14 condominium lots consisting TENTATIVE TRACT of 187 single family detached condominiums and a MAP 44359, request for a Conditional Use Permit and a Zone CONDITIONAL USE Change from A-2-1 to RPD -1-6U for a Residential PERMIT 85-503, Planned Development. This item was continued ZONE CHANGE from October 3, 1989. Mr. Henderson indicated 85-503 that the .applicant has, since that date, 2-20-90 PC 4 addressed areas of concern and that staff recommends approval of the item. Vice Chairman Brathwaite opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. Speaking in favor of the item and again during the rebuttal period was: Jack Shine, 18909 Soledad Canyon Road. Speaking in opposition was: Chris Peterson, 20144 Gilbert Avenue. Hearing no other comments favoring or opposing the.matter, Vice Chairman Brathwaite declared the public.hearing closed at 9:42 p.m. Following discussion, it was moved by Worden, seconded by Modugno, and unanimously carried to: (1) approve the negative declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (2) approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 44359 and Conditional Use Permit 85-503 based on the required findings and subject .to the conditions of approval; (3) recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 85-503 based on the required findings; and (4) adopt the resolution. ITEMS 5 AND 6 Mr. Follstad presented information contained in VESTING TENTATIVE the staff reports, explaining that the items.are TRACT 48108 AND interrelated as they involve a land swap between CONDITIONAL USE P & V Enterprises and the William S. Hart Union PERMIT 89-020 High School District. Item 5 is a request to subdivide approximately 80 acres of land into 161 VESTING TENTATIVE single family lots and one public facility lot TRACT 45416 AND (juniorhigh school site) and a request for a CONDITIONAL USE conditional use permit. Item 6 is a.request to PERMIT 89-019 subdivide approximately 121 acres of land into 253 single family lots and a request for a conditional use permit. Vice Chairman Brathwaite declared the public hearing open at 10:07 p.m. Speaking in favor of the items were: Nate .Goldberg, of P & V Enterprises; Dr. James Bown, of Wm. S. Hart Union High School District; Robert Silverstein, 19831 Flowers.Court; and Larry Mitchell,'17366 Sierra Highway. Speaking in opposition were: Edward Ketaily; 17175 Sierra Highway; and Bruce Stern, 17223 Mt. Stephen Avenue. Also commenting were: Peter Van Hoof, 26793 Pamela Drive; Donald Buckley, 17334 Canvas Street; and David Gordon, 17254 Canvas Street. 2-20-90 PC 5 Commissioners expressed concerns about traffic and the proximity of the homes to a major highway. Mr. Henderson indicated that in order to preserve the view for other homeowners a condition could be inserted into the conditional use permit regarding house heights on lots that butt up against Canvas Street. The Commission also requested a landscape maintenance district be created along Sierra Highway and at the entry to make the project more visually esthetic. The applicant.will submit landscape and entry feature exhibits, and the Director indicated that staff will prepare'a revised resolution and conditions on this item. Following discussion, Chairman Brathwaite declared the public hearing closed on Item 5 at 11:47 p.m. The project will.be conditioned that a secondary access be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. It was moved by Modugno, seconded by Worden, and unanimously carried to (1) approve the negative declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (2) approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map.48108 and Conditional Use Permit 89-020 based on the required findings and subject to the conditions of approval as revised and (3) adopt the resolution. With regard to Item 6, the Commissioners summarized their concerns, requesting further study of an assessment.district, of grade elevations, and of the need for traffic mitigation measures. It was moved by Worden, seconded by Modugno, and unanimously carried to continue the item to March 20, 1990. ITEM 7 At the applicant's request, staff recommended TENTATIVE TRACT that this item be continued to the regularly MAP 45979 AND scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 6, OAK TREE PERMIT 1990. Vice Chairman Brathwaite declared the 89-037 public hearing open at 11:50 p.m. It was moved by Modugno, seconded by Worden, and unanimously carried to continue the item to March 6. ITEM 8 The Director reported that, although staff has TENTATIVE TRACT preliminarily completed the review and staff MAP 48379 report for this project, some background issues have been raised which require additional study. Vice Chairman Brathwaite declared the public hearing open at 11:51 p.m. It was moved by Worden, seconded by Modugno, and unanimously carried to continue Tentative Tract Map 48379 tc the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 6, 1990. 1. 2-20-90 E�N CITY AND COUNTY The City's General Plan Advisory Committee is GENERAL PLAN presently completing the Goals and Policies statements. In order to finalize the land use map an all -day Saturday GPAC session is being planned, which Planning Commissioners may wish to attend. DIRECTOR'S Future study session dates have yet to be ANNOUNCEMENTS determined. The Director explained that a public hearing scheduled for February 22 will be continued to March 1. The February 22 time slot will instead be used for an informational meeting relative to a G. H. Palmer project, "Santa Catarina." COMMISSION Commissioner Worden expressed an interest in AGENDA the arrangement of meetings between the Cities of Palmdale, Lancaster and Santa Clarita for the purpose of discussing roadways and other long- range planning issues. The City Attorney suggested that study session time be.set aside to discuss and review "conflict.. of interest." PUBLIC BUSINESS Speaking were: Allan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore Avenue, regarding Ritter Ranch and Hathaway Ranch; and Bob Lathrop, 25105 Highspring, regarding the number of dwelling units that were approved at tonight's public hearing meeting. Vice Chairman Brathwaite adjourned the meeting at 12:1 a to March 1, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. 1 ezisd. LOUIS BRATHWAITE, Vice Chairman Planning Commission ATTEST: xou�e MARK SCOTT, Director Community Development City of Santa Clarita 1-16-90 MEETING OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY January 16, 1990 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Brathwaite, at 6:37 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Modugno led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United.States of America. ROLL CALL The Secretary called the roll. Those present were Commissioners Modugno, Worden and Vice Chairman Brathwaite. Chairwoman Garasi was excused. Also present were City Attorney Tim McOsker; Director of Community Development Mark Scott; Principal Planners Richard Henderson and Chris Trinkley; Assistant Planners Jeff .Chaffin and Fred Follstad; Traffic Engineer Ed Cline; Building and Engineering Services Office Manager Dick Kopecky; and Secretary Stephanie Kuhn. APPROVAL OF It was moved by Worden, seconded by Modugno, and MINUTES unanimously carried-to,approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 2, 1990. ITEMS 1 AND 2 It was moved by Modugno, seconded by Worden, and CONSENT CALENDAR unanimously carried to approve Resolution No. P90-02 RESOLUTION NOS. and Resolution No. P90-03. P90-02 & P90-03 ITEM 3 The City Attorney requested that this amendment AMENDMENT REQUEST request be removed from the Agenda in order that TENTATIVE PARCEL his office may take it under submission to determine MAP 18244 whether a public hearing must be conducted. Accordingly, it was moved by Worden, seconded by Modugno, and unanimously carried to remove this discussion.item from the Agenda. Commissioner Sharar arrived at 6:45 p.m. ITEM 3A Chairman Brathwaite requested that item 1 of the PROPOSED STUDIES Director's Announcements be moved up on the agenda FOR HILLSIDE AND for discussion at this time. With no objections, FLOOD ISSUES it was so ordered. Mr. Scott asked for Commission response to his recommendations for study of hillside and potential flood area issues for the purpose of establishing development standards. 1-16-90 PC Speaking in favor.of the item were:. John Ashkar, 10960 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles; Mark Ostrove, 19449 Nadal Street; and Chris Connelly, 29113 Florabunda. Speaking in opposition were: Robert Holder, 28149 Foxlane Drive; Christopher Giampietro, 28146 Foxlane Drive; Glenn Reeves, 28222 Bakerton.Avenue; Dennis Datin, 28180 Foxlane Drive; and Christine Giampietro, 28146 Foxlane Drive. Mr. Ashkar spoke again during the rebuttal period. Also commenting were engineering consultants Ross Khiabani, 25031 West Avenue Stanford; Mark Oborne, 23531 Stillwater Place; Dan Martinez, 1402 West 240th Street, Huntington Beach; Gunjit Sikand, 15230 Burbank Blvd., Van Nuys; and Ron Hirsch, 2007 Sawtelle Blvd., Los Angeles. Mr. Cline commented favorably on the traffic study. In the course of a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that in order to fully address the serious geologic concerns of neighboring homeowners, the applicants will meet in a forum with those residents, representatives of the City, and engineering experts from both sides. It was moved by Worden and seconded by Modugno that such a forum be held and that Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863 be continued to February 20, 1990, with the understanding that discussion at that time be limited to a summary of new findings and that a Willdan representative be present. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Brathwaite, Modugno, Worden ABSTENTION: Sharar Scope and_mgthodology_ were discusssed. It was the consensus of the Commission that, until such time as policy is set, decisions involving hillside management and potential flood areas will be made on a case by case basis. ITEMS 4 AND 5 At the request of the applicants, it was agreed that VESTING TENTATIVE testimony for the proposed Landmark and Weston TRACT MAP 47863 & subdivisions would be heard together. Commissioner VESTING TENTATIVE Sharar stated her intention to abstain from voting TRACT MAP 46626 & on these items as she has not reviewed the December PREZONE 89-002 19 hearing.tapes.. The Director summarized the staff report, noting issues that staff was asked to address at the December 19 hearing, from which this item was continued. Those issues included the clustering of units, drainage, wildlife displacement,.contour grading, traffic, and the relationship of these projects to the General Plan. Concluding the staff report was a slide presentation, discussed by Principal Planners Trinkley and Henderson. Speaking in favor.of the item were:. John Ashkar, 10960 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles; Mark Ostrove, 19449 Nadal Street; and Chris Connelly, 29113 Florabunda. Speaking in opposition were: Robert Holder, 28149 Foxlane Drive; Christopher Giampietro, 28146 Foxlane Drive; Glenn Reeves, 28222 Bakerton.Avenue; Dennis Datin, 28180 Foxlane Drive; and Christine Giampietro, 28146 Foxlane Drive. Mr. Ashkar spoke again during the rebuttal period. Also commenting were engineering consultants Ross Khiabani, 25031 West Avenue Stanford; Mark Oborne, 23531 Stillwater Place; Dan Martinez, 1402 West 240th Street, Huntington Beach; Gunjit Sikand, 15230 Burbank Blvd., Van Nuys; and Ron Hirsch, 2007 Sawtelle Blvd., Los Angeles. Mr. Cline commented favorably on the traffic study. In the course of a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that in order to fully address the serious geologic concerns of neighboring homeowners, the applicants will meet in a forum with those residents, representatives of the City, and engineering experts from both sides. It was moved by Worden and seconded by Modugno that such a forum be held and that Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863 be continued to February 20, 1990, with the understanding that discussion at that time be limited to a summary of new findings and that a Willdan representative be present. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Brathwaite, Modugno, Worden ABSTENTION: Sharar 1-16-90 PC It was then=additional-ly-moved-by.Worden and seconded by Modugno that the forum be held and that Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626 and Prezone 89-002 be continued to February 20, 1990, with the understanding that discussion at that time be limited to a summary of new findings and that a Willdan representative be present. Motion carried, by the following vote: AYES: Brathwaite, Modugno, Worden ABSTENTION: Sharar COMMISSION Vice Chairman Brathwaite declared a xacess at 9:55 RECESS p.m. COMMISSION Vice Chairman Brathwaite called the meeting back to RECONVENES order at 10:10 p.m. ITEM 7 For the convenience of the members of the audience VESTING TENTATIVE who were present for Item 7, it was moved by PARCEL MAP 207951 Modugno, seconded by Worden, and unanimously ,. CONDITIONAL USE carried to change the Agenda order, moving Item 7 PERMIT 89-002,.& to this position. In an opening statement, Mr. OAK TREE PERMIT Scott explained that this item was continued from 89-013 January 2, 1990, and that at the end of tonight's hearing staff recommends it be continued again to February 20. This delay is requested due to the fact that the City is required to run a project .of this size through the State Clearinghouse. A response is due from the State Clearinghouse on February 9. The City is also awaiting additional information from the applicant relative to the environmental checklist. Mr. Chaffin presented information contained in the staff report regarding this request for a subdivision of four parcels to create 18 parcels to accommodate a regional shopping center and other retail and office space. Speaking in favor of the item were: Gloria Glenn and Tom Dierckman, both of Valencia Company, 23823 Valencia Blvd. Ms. Glenn introduced architects, attorneys, and consultants from the audience. Also speaking in favor was: Chris Leinberger, 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills. Speaking in opposition were: Allan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore Avenue; Bob Lathrop, 25105 Highspring; Robert Silverstein, 19318 Flowers Court; and George Fred Armstrong, 21300 Victory. Blvd., Woodland Hills. At the conclusion of -the evening's testimony, the public hearing.remained open. It was moved by Modugno, seconded by Worden, and unanimously carried to continue Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 20795, Conditional Use Permit 89-002, and Oak Tree Permit 89-013 to February 20, 1990. 1-16-90 PC 4 ITEM 6 The Director introduced this request to subdivide TENTATIVE TRACT 137.23 acres into 70 single family lots, 2 private MAP 47324, recreation lots, and to remove 34 oak trees. CONDITIONAL USE In his overview of the project, the Director stated PERMIT 89-007, four significant concerns: 1) hillside/grading PREZONE 89-003 & issues; 2) flood/drainage issues; 3) subarea OAK TREE PERMIT traffic linkages; and 4) the acceptability of the 89-046 gated community concept. Information contained in the staff report was presented by Mr. Follstad. Speaking in favor of the item were: Stan Fargeon and Scott Pease, Pacific Crest Development, 18988 Soledad Canyon Road. Speaking in opposition were: Hal Good, 27800 Sand Canyon Road; Steve Huisman, 15556 Bronco Drive; and Cindy Zimmer, 27505 Trailridge. Speaking in rebuttal were: Dennis Ostrom, 16430 Sultus, and Scott Pease. Commissioner Sharar left the meeting at 12:38 a.m. In the ensuing Commission discussion, the need.for an area specific analysis was agreed upon. Subsequently, a field trip, part of a continued public hearing, was scheduled for January 201 1990, at 9:30 a.m. The Commission will meet the applicants for an onsite look at the east end of the parcel, emergency access, the site of the debris basin, and the site in general. It was moved by Modugno, secondedbyWorden, and unanimously carried to continue Tentative Tract Map 47324, Conditional Use Permit 89-007, and Prezone 89-003 and Oak Tree Permit 89-046 to the date of the field trip, January 20, 1990. DIRECTOR'S The Director briefly discussed: 1) staff ANNOUNCEMENTS follow-up to questions from the City Council and the public regarding the sign ordinance; and 2) Annexation No. 1989-07. Both topics are covered in letters written by the Director to the Planning Commission and included in the Agenda packet. PUBLIC BUSINESS Larry Stevens, whose request for approval of Tentative Tract Map 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016 was denied without prejudice on January 2, questioned.the fairness of denying his request and later planning a field trip to view a similar project, Tentative Tract Map 47324 ("Hunters Green"). Mr. Henderson explained that Mr. Stevens has the right to appeal the Commission's decision Eo the City Council. 1-16-90 ADJOURNMENT PC Vice Chairman Brathwaite adjourned the meeting at 1:25 a.m. to an Adjourned Meeting (Field Trip) on January 20, 1990. Prior to departing on the field trip, the Commission will meet at Council Chambers at 9:30 a.m. -u.,..a�% F UIS BRATHWAITE, Vice Chairman Planning Commission ATTEST: MARK SCOTT, Director Community Development City of Santa Clarita 61 P MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL 6:30 p.m. June 12, 1990 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order by Mayor Jo Anne Darcy at 6:45 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California. FLAG SALUTE Councilmember Jan Heidt led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL All Councilmembers were present. Also present were: City Manager, George Caravalho; Assistant City Manager, Ken Pulskamp; City Attorney, Carl Newton; Finance Director, Andrea Daroca; Parks and Recreation Director, Jeff Kolin; Public Works Director, John Medina; Assistant City Clerk, Donna M. Grindey. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item No. 15 regarding Elsmere Canyon was noted that the word litigation should read mitigation. The City Attorney requested that Item 134 recommendation be changed to read "approve the agreement, subject to approval by the City Attorney." It was moved by McKeon and second by Heidt to approve the agenda as amended. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Boyer, and second by McKeon to May 22, 1990 approve the minutes for May 22, 1990. hearing no objections, it was so ordered. ITEM 1 Mayor Darcy opened the public hearing. Assistant PUBLIC HEARING City Clerk, Grindey reported that this item was PALMER DEVELOPMENT published and posted in accordance with the law, AGREEMENT therefore, the public hearing was in order. -1- City Council Minutes June 12, 1990 ITEM 1 (continued) City Manager George Caravalho, presented the report to Council stating that as a result of the meetings of May 2nd and May 15th, Council directed staff to meet with Palmer with the purpose of providing development alternatives for the Santa Catarina Project. Those persons in favor of this item were: Michael LeBecki, (no address given); J.J. O'Brien, 22704 Rio Gusto, Santa Clarita; Mr. Sheffhausen, 21911 Placerita Cyn., Santa Clarita; Jamie Kennedy (no address given); Dan Palmer, 11740 San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles. Those speaking in opposition of this item were: Pat Campbell, (no address given); John O'Dwyer, 19762 Merry Hill Street, Santa Clarita; Linda Calvert, 27515 Glasser, Santa Clarita; Grace Stanford, 22658 Ariba Drive, Santa Clarita; Susan Marin, 20320 High Point Place, Santa Clarita. Rebuttal was given by Alan Seward, 24523 Chestnut, Santa Clarita. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Following discussion regarding the Palmer Development Agreement, letter from the lender, the subject of rental property, the critical need of roads in the Santa Clarita Valley, it was moved by Darcy, second by Boyer that this item be referred back to staff to look at a unit count of 800 to no more than the 1292; to have as little disruption to the McCoy's & Stanford's property; avoid impacting the riparian woodlands area; and include the road improvement package. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, McKeon, Darcy Noes: Heidt, Klajic Motion carried. RECESS At 8:20 p.m., the Mayor called a recess. RECONVENE At 8:42 p.m., the Mayor reconvened the meeting. -2- City Council Minutes June 12, 1990 ITEM 2 PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION 90-90 STANDARD FEE FOR OVER- SIZED & OVERLOAD HAULS ITEM 3 PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION 90-110 VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE ALLEY AT SAN FERNANDO RD. & 4th ST. tL Mayor Darcy opened the public hearing. Assistant City Clerk, Grindey reported that this item was published and posted in accordance with the law, therefore, the public hearing was in order. John Medina, Director of Public Works gave the report regarding standard fee charges for oversized or overload hauls. He discussed the current charges and the break down of such charges, as well as the Sheriff Department monitoring of vehicles. Mayor Darcy closed the public hearing. Following discussion regarding contacting the State to see if the law could be changed to be consistent with the cost, it was moved by McKeon second by Heidt to adopt Resolution No. 90-90. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy Noes: None Resolution No. 90-90 adopted. Mayor Darcy opened the public hearing. Assistant City Clerk, Donna Grindey reported that this item was published by the City Clerk in accordance with the law, therefore, the public hearing was in order. The person addressing the Council on this item was R.T. Kost, 22509 4th Street, Santa Clarita. Mayor Darcy closed the public hearing. Following discussion regarding the vacation it was moved by Boyer, second by Klajic to deny Resolution No. 90-110, ordering the vacation of the alley at San Fernando Rd. & 4th Street and reserving easements for public severs utilities in the City. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, Darcy Noes: McKeon Motion Carried. -3- City Council Minutes June 12, 1990 ITEM 4 PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Darcy opened the public hearing. Assistant PROPOSED BUDGET 1990-91 City Clerk, Grindey reported that this item was published by the City Clerk in accordance with the law, therefore, the public hearing was in order. Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager stated that all changes in the budget have been incorporated into the final version of the document, including an Associate Planner position to deal with environmental review. The budget will come back to Council on June 26, 1990 for final decision. Discussion ensued on hiring a Community Relations Special Assignment Officer, educational materials, computer equipment, and to add to the earthquake training program. The person addressing the Council on this item was Maureen Focht, 28650 Visco, Santa Clarita. Following discussion regarding the 1990-91 Budget, it was moved by McKeon, second by Boyer to close the public hearing and continue this discussion -to the end of the meeting. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy Noes: None Motion carried. ,ITEM 5 PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Darcy opened the public hearing. Assistant GENERAL PLAN REQUEST City Clerk, Grindey reported that this item was FOR TIME EXTENSION - published and posted in accordance with the law, RESOLUTION 90-101 therefore, the public hearing was in order. Community Development Director, Lynn Harris, stated that the City has not been able to complete its General Plan within the first thirty months following incorporation as recommended under state law. -4- City Council Minutes June 12, 1990 ` ITEM 5 (con't.) Those persons addressing Council on this issue were: Ralph Killmeyer, 25043 Greenmill Ave., Santa Clarita, and Jack Ancona, 29552 Abelia, Santa Clarita. Mayor Darcy closed the public hearing. Councilmember Heidt suggested that Clinton Turnstrom be invited to some of the Public Information Sessions, who is commissioner for the County, so he may become familiar with what the City is doing. Councilmember McKeon stressed how important it is to get the community involved in the General Plan meetings. Following discussion regarding the General Plan meetings, it was moved by McKeon, second by Klajic to authorize the time extension of one year and adopt Resolution No. 90-101. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy. Noes: None Resolution No. 90-101 adopted. ITEM 6 UNFINISHED BUSINESS City Manager, George Caravalho gave the report on SAUGUS SITE FEASIBILITY this item which deals with the Saugus Site REPORT Feasibility Report. By the direction of the City Council, staff has commissioned the firm of Tierra Planning and Design to perform a feasibility analysis of the Saugus Rehabilitation Site. It was moved by McKeon, and second by Boyer to receive the report and authorize staff to evaluate the access to the site. With no objections, it was so ordered. ITEM 7 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Assistant City Manager, Ken Pulskamp, introduced CIVIC CENTER Jim Parmley of Harris and Associates, who is the PROGRESS REPORT project manager. Jim Parmley discussed the project with the staff, the EIR, the schedule, and the planning phases. -5- &'L City Council Minutes June 12, 1990 ITEM 7 (con't.) Following discussion regarding the EIR and the project, it was moved by Darcy, second by Boyer to authorize staff to begin design completion and the EIR process. With no objections, it was so ordered. ITEM 8 UNFINISHED BUSINESS City Manager, George Caravalho, presented a slide CITY HALL SITE presentation on the City Hall site. He explained the pros and cons for each of four alternatives. Following the presentation, it was moved by Heidt, second by Klajic to begin work on the 238 acre site purchased by the City. On roll call vote: Ayes: Heidt, Klajic Noes: Boyer, McKeon, Darcy Motion denied. It was moved by McKeon second by Boyer to look at all four alternatives and a study of the effects on the community. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, McKeon, Darcy Noes: Heidt, Klajic Motion carried. ITEM 9 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Director of Public Works, John Medina reported that CITY YARD a study was conducted by the City with the assistance of Coldwell Banker Real Estate Services to evaluate potential sites for a City Yard. A report prepared by Coldwell Banker enabled staff to narrow the long list of potential sites to three locations: Valencia Industrial Site (Satellite Truck Body), Saugus Station Industrial Center (Thatcher Glass), and recently purchased City Hall site. Following discussion regarding the pros and cons, the long range effects, it was moved by McKeon second by Darcy to approve this in concept and proceed in negotiations on a final lease or purchase on the Satellite Truck Body Co. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried. -6- ,'L City Council Minutes June 12, 1990 ITEM 10 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Asst. City Manager, Ken Pulskamp, stated that NEWHALL AMBULANCE on February 27, 1990, Council directed staff to CONTRACT finalize a service agreement with Newhall Ambulance and later directed it back to Council for final approval. City Attorney, Carl Newton, discussed modifications to the contract including a confidentiality requirement and the specification of fees. Those persons addressing Council on this issue were: Ann Irvine, 24849 Alderbrook, Santa Clarita; Tim Jorgensen, 22519 Garzota, Santa Clarita. Following discussion about the contract, including fees, and equipment, It was moved by McKeon second by Boyer to approve the contract as modified. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried. ITEM 11 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Community Development Director, Lynn Harris, PROGRESS REPORT ON reported on Off Site Real Estate signs. Several OFF SITE REAL ESTATE meetings have taken place between City staff and SIGNS the Board of Realtors to review current City regulations pertaining to real estate signs. Those persons addressing the Council on this issue were: Mary Funk, 27246 Garza Drive, Santa Clarita; Ed Turk, 24444 A Hampton Drive, Santa Clarita. Following discussion on this item regarding problem corners, sidewalk areas, and right-of-ways, it was moved by Heidt, second by Boyer to refer this item back to staff for further review. With no objections, it was so ordered. ITEM 12 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Community Director, Lynn Harris, reported ORDINANCE 90-8 that Ordinance No. 90-8 (Prezone No. 89-002)was on the May 22nd agenda as a public hearing and is now ready for adoption. City Attorney, Carl Newton read the title of the Ordinance. It was moved by McKeon, second by Boyer to vaive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 90-8. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy Noes: Heidt Ordinance No. 90-8 adopted. -7- 01 City Council Minutes June 12, 1990 PUBLIC STATEMENT Those persons addressing Council were: Alan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore Ave., Santa Clarita-regarding the reassessment of the Quimby fees, and Castaic Industrial property; 'Bruce Kline, 19032 Delight Street, Santa Clarita - regarding traffic signals that are not on at proper time, and the increase of possible traffic accidents due to this situation. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 13 SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD LANDSCAPE FROM WHITES CANYON ROAD TO CROSSGLADE AVE. PROJECT 89-10 It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to approve the Consent Calendar. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy Noes: None Consent Calendar approved. ITEM 14 DECORO DRIVE VISTA DELGADO DRIVE TO SECO CANYON ROAD PROJECT NO. 89-9 ITEM 15 ELSMERE CANYON WATER STUDY ITEM 16 SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD WEST OF OAK SPRINGS CANYON RD. PROJECT NO. 89-15 ITEM 17 APPLICATION FOR STATE/LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS. RESOLUTION NO. 90-83 (S.B. 300) ITEM 18 COUNTY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT CONSENT AND JURISDICTION. RESOLUTION NOS. 90-95 THROUGH 90-99. ITEM 19 TRANSFER OF STORM DRAIN TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (L.A.C.F.C.D.) TRACT NO. 43174, PRIVATE DRAIN 1846. RESOLUTION NO. 90-102 ITEM 20 ANNEXATION TO SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 26, ANNEXATION NO. 258. RESOLUTION NO. 90-107 ITEM 21 PLACERITA CANYON NATURE CENTER OWNERSHIP STATUS -8- t� City Council Minutes June 12, 1990 ITEM 22 REPORTS TO THE COUNCIL FROM THE CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE ITEM 23 PARATRANSIT/GENERAL PUBLIC DIAL -A -RIDE SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES/COMMITTEE ON THE AGING AGREEMENT/FY 90-91 ITEM 24 PARATRANSIT/DIAL-A-RIDE AGREEMENT - LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FY 90-91 ITEM 25 LOCAL/COMMUTER TRANSIT AGREEMENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS/ FY 90-91 -ITEM 26 CITY LETTERHEAD POLICY ITEM 27 -CITY LOGO POLICY ITEM 28 SB 2368 (MARKS) - SUPPORT ITEM 29 RESOLUTION FOR LACTC INCENTIVE GRANT APPLICATIONS. RESOLUTION 90-100 ITEM 30 MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE ITEM 31 SANTA CLARITA DRAINAGE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT AREA 3, TRACT NO. 36496 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-91. RESOLUTION NO. 90-104. ITEM 32 SANTA CLARITA DRAINAGE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT AREA 6, TRACT NO. 43528 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-91. ITEM 33 SANTA CLARITA DRAINAGE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT AREA 18, TRACT NO. 44965 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-91. ITEM 34 SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT PRIVATE CONTRACT NO. 90-06 TRACT NO. 46110. ITEM 35 RESOLUTION NO. 90-37, A JOINT RESOLUTION OF NEGOTIATED PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER FOR ANNEXATION NO. 1989-05 ITEM 36 MAGIC MOUNTAIN LANE AT STILLMORE STREET INSTALL STOP CONTROLS. RESOLUTION NO. 90-103 -9- LL City Council Minutes June 12, 1990 ITEM 37 VALENCIA BLVD. AT K -MART DRIVEWAY LEFT TURN PROHIBITION. RESOLUTION NO. 90-108 ITEM 38 LYONS AVE./ORCHARD VILLAGE ROAD PARKING PROHIBITIONS. RESOLUTION NO. 90-109 ITEM 39 COMMUTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE I-5 AND THE ANTELOPE VALLEY FREEWAY ITEM 40 OPPOSITION TO SB 2443 -BINDING ARBITRATION- TORRES ITEM 41 FEE BASED DAY CAMP SWIMMING POOL FEE ITEM 42 DEMAND WARRANT NO. 11 ITEM 43 NEW BUSINESS SB 2139 (DAVIS) Public Works Director, John Medina, introduced this item to Council stating that it deals with an update on SB 2139 (Davis). Existing law requires each county to prepare a county -wide siting element for inclusion in the County Waste Management Plan. The bill would require the proposed Elsmere Canyon Landfill to meet that requirement. City Manager, George Caravalho further stated that the City can strengthen our legislative efforts by sending two Council members who will be prepared to lobby this bill in Sacramento. It was moved by McKeon, second by Boyer, to appoint Councilmembers Boyer & Klajic to make the trip to Sacramento along with members of the Integrated Waste Committee to prepare to lobby this Bill. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer. Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy Noes: None ITEM 44 NEW BUSINESS It was moved by Heidt, second by McKeon to CITY-WIDE ENGINEERING continue this item to June 26, 1990. With no & TRAFFIC STUDY - objections, it was so ordered. RESOLUTION NO. 90-112 ITEM 45 NEW BUSINESS Public Works Director, John Medina, reported that GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD on January 9, 1990 Council directed staff to IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT prepare a feasibility study for the formation of an DISTRICT -PRELIMINARY assessment district to fund the construction of REPORT Golden Valley Road from Sierra Hwy- to Route 14. Since that time, staff has had several meetings with five developers who vill participate in the district. -10- LL City Council Minutes June 12, 1990 Item 45 (contd) Following discussion of this item which included the roadway stabilization, utility improvements within Golden Valley Road and the park site in the feasibility report, it was moved by Boyer, second by Klajic' to direct staff to include roadway stabilization, backbone utility improvements with Golden Valley Road and the park site feasibility report being prepared by staff. With no objections, it was so ordered. ITEM 46 NEW BUSINESS PROPOSED COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT DEVELOPER FEES ITEM 47 NEW BUSINESS ITEM 48 NEW BUSINESS PLOT PLAN 90-046 •'► This item deals with the proposed County Consolidated Fire Protection District Developer Fees. City Attorney, Carl Newton, questioned the basis for imposing the fee, and suggested this matter be referred to staff for the purpose of reporting back to Council following the City's research and the County Counsel's research. It was moved by Boyer second by Klajic to continue this item to June 26, 1990, and direct staff to research a basis of the fees. With no objections, it was so ordered. Public Information, Officer, Gail Foy, introduced this item to Council stating that bids for the Annual Report/Calendar were opened on May 15th with bids from three vendors. The person addressing the Council on this item was Jeff Graham, of Graham Consulting (no address given.) It was moved by McKeon second by Boyer to continue this item to the Council meeting. of June 26, 1990. With no objections, it was so ordered. This item deals with Plot Plan 90-046, located at 27227 Sand Canyon Road adjacent to Warmuth Road. Community Development Director, Lynn Harris reported that Mr. Toyama, the applicant, is requesting approval for the construction of a single family residence on the subject property. The person addressing the Council on this item was Mr. Toyama, 21943 Marjoram Dr., Santa Clarita. Following discussion by the Council, it was moved by Boyer and second by McKeon to refer this item, back to City Council for review and legal status, and continue to June 26, 1990. With no objections, it was so ordered. -11- City-(�ouncil Minutes June 12, 1990 ITEM 49 NEW BUSINESS Parks & Recreation Director, Jeff Kolin introduced FOURTH OF JULY PARADE this item to Council, stating that the Fourth of AND FIREWORKS SHOW July Parade and fireworks show has been a community -sponsored special event for several years. Activities of the day will begin with a 5K run followed by the parade down Lyons Avenue and the fireworks show at College of the Canyons. The Parks & Recreation Dept., along with other community organizations, will sponsor a barbecue lunch and penny carnival at Newhall Park frog 12 noon to 5 p.m. The person addressing the Council on this item was Sammee 2eile, of the Newhall Signal. Further discussed was the number of security people needed, the funding for future July 4th parades and fireworks shows, and co -sponsoring by the City-. It was moved by Boyer, and second by McKeon to approve the allocation of $18,948 from the contingency fund for the parade and fireworks show, establish a funding limit of $20,000 for future July 4th parades, and that the City be named as co-sponsor of the parade and fireworks show. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy Noes: None Motion carried. ITEM 50 NEW BUSINESS Assistant City Manager, Ken Pulskamp, stated that ORDINANCE 90-14 Ordinance No. 90-14 deals with the imposing regulations upon AEROSOL PAINT CONTAINERS the sale of aerosol paint containers of six ounces or less. City Attorney, Carl Newton, read the title of Ordinance No. 90-14. It was moved by McKeon second by Boyer to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 90-14 and pass to second reading. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy Noes: None Ordinance No. 90-14 passed to second reading. -12- LL City Council Minutes June 12, 1990 ITEM 51 NEW BUSINESS ORDINANCE NO. 90-16 AMENDING TITLES 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 OF THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE ITEM 52 NEW BUSINESS Assistant City Manager, Ken Pulskamp, introduced this item to Council stating that it deals with building, plumbing, mechanical and fire codes. Each of these codes contains secondary uniform codes which are used in every jurisdiction in the State. City Attorney, Carl Newton read the title to Ordinance No. 90-16, amending Titles No. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. It was moved by Heidt second by Boyer to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 90-16 and pass to second reading on July 14,1990, at which time there will be a public hearing on this Ordinance. On roll call vote: - Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy Noes: None Ordinance No. 90-16 passed to second reading. Parks & Recreation, Jeff Kolin, stated that at the March 7th Council Study Session, a draft Tree Ordinance was reviewed. Council identified five sections of concern and suggested changes of which staff has made the changes and reviewed them with the local utilities, developers, Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Attorney's Office. Two ordinances have been developed for Council's review. City Attorney, Carl Newton, read the title of Ordinance No. 90-15 Version 1 and 2. It was moved by Boyer, second by McKeon to select Version 1 of the Ordinance and be returned to staff for further review of an alternative tree removal section. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy Noes: None Motion carried and Ordinance 90-15 passed to second reading. PUBLIC STATEMENT (Staff) City Manager, George Caravalho, spoke on the Metro Blue Line Transit dedication on June 19, 1990 at 11:00 a.m. The second item that Mr. Caravalho brought up was a meeting with Bill Mathis on June 20th, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., personnel closed session for the purpose of evaluating the City Manager. -13- LL City Council Minutes June 12. 1990 PUBLIC STATEMENT (Council) Councilmember Klajic invited all to the Pride Committee thank you party on Thursday, June 21st, 1990 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Jan Heidt spoke of the dedication of the Parkmobile and a plaque that was given to the Soroptomist Club. Councilmember Heidt also brought up the question if anyone in the Sand Canyon area has requested to be annexed to the Sanitation District so they may connect to the sewer. Director of Public Works, John Medina responded that only one inquiry has been made. Heidt suggested a news article be placed in the newspaper on this matter. Councilmember McKeon requested the subject -of prayer be placed on the next agenda. ADJOURNMENT At 12:32 a.m. the meeting was adjourned to June 20, 1990 at 4:00 p.m. for closed session. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. ATTEST: 6GgeorggaeaCarava ho City Clerk LL Joa Darcy M a4 or MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL 6:30 p.m. May 22, 1990 CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita- was called to order by Mayor Jo Anne Darcy at 6:32 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California. FLAG SALUTE Counciimember McKeon led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL All Councilmembers were present. Also present were: City Manager, George Caravalho; Assistant City Manager, Ken Pulskamp; City Attorney, Carl Newton; Finance Director, Andrea Daroca; Parks & Recreation Director, Jeff Kolin; Public Works Director, John Medina; Assistant City Clerk, Donna Grindey; Clerk Typist, Geri -Miller Davis. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item Nos. 9 & 12 were pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion and Item Nos. 5A, 29 and 30 were added as subsequent need items which arose after the posting of the agenda. It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to approve the agenda as amended. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEM 1 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION OF APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46879 It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to approve the minutes of May 8, 1990, as corrected. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. Mayor Darcy opened the public hearing. Assistant City Clerk Grindey reported that this item was published and posted in accordance with the law, therefore, the public hearing was in order. Community Development Director Harris presented the report to Council stating that this appeal was continued from the March 13, 1990 meeting of the City Council and that the application proposed is a subdivision of five lots from a single lot. -1- > CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 22, 1990 ITEM 1 CONTINUED Those proponents addressing Council were: Jim Chatterley, 24766 Golden Oak Lane, Newhall; Don Hale, 24303 San Fernando Road, Newhall; Richard Patterson, no address given; Art Browning, 21545 Oak Orchard Road, Newhall; Cheri Turner, 21227 Oak Orchard Road, Newhall; Lawrence Rink, 10304 Balboa, Granada Hills; Harvey Rawn, 21373 Oak Orchard Road; Santa Clarita. Those opponents addressing Council wt -re: Barbara Bradley, 24755 Golden Oak Lane, Newhall; Robert G. Leemon, 21231 Simay Lane, Santa Clarita; Georgette Cundiff, 24756 Golden Oak Lane; Newhall; Lewis Cundiff, 24756 Golden Oak Lane, Newhall; Dave Dennis, 24742 Golden Oak Lane, Newhall; Wayne Valerius, 24711 Golden Oak Lane, Newhall; Gene Leary, 21236 Simay Lane, Newhall. Those persons addressing the Council for rebuttal were: Jim Chatterley, 24766 Golden Oak Lane, Newhall. Following discussion by Council regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 46879, grading of the road in the area; helicopter stop for emergencies, whether or not the item should go back to the Planning Commission, equestrian trail, drought tolerant plants, it was moved by Boyer and second by McKeon to refer the matter to the Planning Commission to study and report back to Council on the following issues raised: that this project be completed without a bridge, without paving the streets, that consideration to be take for hillside management, that Planning Department be provided with standards, that drought tolerant plants be placed on hillside after grading and to ensure establishment of growth, consideration of an equestrian trail, that density stay within the hillside management for Los Angeles County, that staff get adequate input from the Standards Committee, that staff establish full mitigation of erosion, water shed and flooding issues and that the item be continued to the second meeting in August. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried RECESS At 8:09 p.m., the Mayor called a recess. RECONVENE At 8:35 p.m., the Mayor reconvened the meeting. -2- Lk CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 22, 1990 ITEM 2 PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor opened the public hearing. Assistant City PREZONE CASE NO. 89-002 Clerk Grindey reported that this item was published AND APPEAL OF VESTING and posted in accordance with the law, therefore, the TENTATIVE TRACT MAP public hearing was in order. NOS. 46626 & 47863 WESTON/AMERICAN Assistant City Manager Pulskamp presented the report LANDMARK) to Council stating that the above item involves two separate requests: a prezone and a subdivision for 201 and 80 lots, respectively, all for single-family residences. The proposal includes the dedication of a park site, a library site, and double the bridge and thoroughfare (traffic) fees. Those proponents addressing Council were: John Ashkar, no address given; Chris Connelly, no address given; Richard Bund, no address given; Dave Bench, 27822 Rosamond, Canyon Country; Mark Ostrove, 19449 Wadal Street, Santa Clarita; Vera Johnson, 26534 Oak Crossing Road, Newhall. Those opponents addressing Council were: Robert Holder, 28149 Foxlane Drive, Canyon Country; Dennis Datin, 28180 Foxlane Drive, Canyon Country; Gene Rizzardi, 28206 Tambora, Canyon Country; Kerry Wenninger, 28155 Foxlane Drive, Canyon Country; Evette Datin, 28180 Foxlane Drive, Canyon Country; Robyn Davidson, 28153 Haxton Drive, Canyon Country; Karen Holder, 28149 Foxlane Drive, Canyon Country; Christine Giampietro, 28146 Foxlane Drive, Canyon Country; Joe Stitcher, 26826 Hummingbird Circle, Canyon Country; Glenn Reeves, 28222 Bakerton, Canyon Country. Those persons addressing the Council for rebuttal were: John Ashkar, no address given. -3- I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1 MAY 22, 1990 ITEM 2 CONTINUED Following discussion by Council regarding the ueston/American Landmark project, the percentage of project to be graded, what will remain natural, possible requirement of safety bonds, EIR, endangered species, Metropolitan Water District, additional new items addressed at meeting regarding project, tow and direction that landslide is moving, irrigation of hills, use of negative declaration, hillside management and 'grading policy, it was moved by Boyer and second by McKeon to approve the following recommendations by staff as amended: 1) 'approve the attached Negative Declarations; 2) pending public testimony, approve Prezone No. 89-002 and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 subject to the requirement that staff will bring back to Council a provision for safety bonds prior to the release of last 15 occupancy permits and subject to no more than 100 occupancy permits being given prior to opening -of Whites Canyon Bridge on November of 1992 whichever comes first; 3) adopt attached Resolution Nos. 90-74 and 90-75, with conditions as added, amended and deleted above. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: Heidt Motion Carried City Attorney Newton read the title of Ordinance No. 90-8: amending the Official Zoning Map, Prezone Case No. 89-002. It was moved by Boyer and second by McKeon to waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 90-8. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: Heidt Motion Carried RECESS At 10:35 p.m., the Mayor called a recess. RECONVENE At 10:45 p.m., the Mayor reconvened the meeting. It was moved by Heidt and second by Boyer to add Item No. 31, pertaining to signs, to the agenda as a subsequent need item based upon the fact that the need to take action arose after the posting of the agenda. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried -4- tL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ` MAY 22, 1990 ITEM 3 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Community Development Director Harris presented the ANNEXATION NO. 1988-01 report to Council stating that Annexation No. 1988-01 MAKING FINDINGS ON is a proposal to annex approximately 1,038 acres of WRITTEN PROTEST, inhabited land to the City of Santa Clarita. The site CALLING FOR ELECTION, is located in the Canyon Country area, northerly of AND APPROVING Soledad Canyon Road and east of the northerly ANNEXATION NO. 1988-01 extension of Oak Spring Canyon Road, in the area SUBJECT TO VOTER typically known as the Pine tree /Timberlane/Le House CONFIRMATION Neighborhood. Annexation is requested by the property P.ESOLUTION NO. 90-88 owners, who cite a desire for City services, local control and local government permit processing. It was moved by Boyer and second by Heidt to adopt Resolution No. 90-88. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Resolution No. 90-88 Adopted 0041VI ^. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Community Development Director Harris presented the PREZONE CASE NO. 89-04 report to Council stating that this item was on the LOCATED AT THE agenda of May 8, 1990, as a public hearing to allow a EASTERLY TERMINUS OF prezone of the site to officially recognize the OAK SPRINGS ROAD existing Los Angeles County A-1-1 zoning as the official zoning of the City of Santa Clarita. This prezone is for 160 acres located at the easterly terminus of Oak Springs Canyon Road adjacent to the Angeles National Forest. City Attorney Newton read the title of Ordinance No. 90-11: amending the Official Zoning Map, Prezone Case No. 89-004. It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 90-11. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Ordinance No. 90-11 Adopted ITEM 5a SUBSEQUENT NEED ITEM CONSENT CALENDAR Finance Director Daroca presented the report to PURCHASE OF FLEET Council stating that the City of Santa Clarita, in VEHICLES need of five (5) light -duty 1/2 -ton pickup trucks, advertised and requested sealed bids from potential suppliers with a bid opening of May 16, 1990, at 11 a.m. for bid #GS -89-90-10. One sealed bid was received from Scott Irvin, the local Chevrolet dealer, for $61,130.55. -5- LL M L♦ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 22, 1990 ITEM 5a CONTINUED ITEM 6 CONSENT CALENDAR APPOINTMENT TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT AS AN ALTERNATE ITEM 7 ANNEXATION TO SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 26, ANNEXATION NO. 257, VICINITY OF SIERRA HIGHWAY AND ADON AVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 90-85 ITEM 8 ANNEXATION TO SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 32, ANNEXATION NO. 129, VICINITY OF MAPLE STREET & APPLE STREET IN NEWHALL RESOLUTION NO. 90-86 ITEM 9 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY BEACHES, WILDLIFE AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1990, RESOLUTION NO. 90-87 ITEM 10 APPLE STREET ET. AL. - PROJECT NO. 89-14 AWARD OF BID ITEM 11 SPACE PLANNING SERVICES ITEM 12 DAY CAMP COUNSELOR CLASSIFICATION NO. 90-91 ITEM 13 DEMAND WARRANT i 9A It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to direct staff to purchase the needed pickup trucks from Scott Irvine, a local vendor, due to the fact that the Parks and Recreation staff will not be able to provide the public with the necessary services without these vehicles. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried It was moved by Boyer the Consent Calendar. Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Noes: None Motion Carried -6- and second by McKeon to approve On roll call vote: Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 22, 1990 ITEM 18 NEW BUSINESS Parks and Recreation Director Kolin presented the LANDSCAPING IMPROVE- report to Council stating that the City Council was MENTS TO VACATE presented with a declaration of intention to vacate a PORTION OF ALLEY AT portion of the alley at Fourth Street and San Fernando FOURTH STREET AND Road, at its March 13, 1990 meeting. The City Council SAN FERNANDO ROAD directed staff to meet with the adjacent property RESOLUTION NO._90-41 owners to investigate possible improvements to the subject parcel of land. Staff met with Dr. Kost on several occasions and at that time presented a plot plan and design proposal to Mr. Kost which includes a hardscaping plan. It was moved by McKeon and second by Heidt to vacate the property to the adjacent property owner thereby adopting Resolution No. 90-41. On roll call vote: Ayes: Heidt, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: Boyer, Klajic Resolution No. 90-41 adopted It was moved by Darcy and second by Klajic to continue with Item Nos. 14 through 31 on May 29, 1990 following Planning Commission interviews. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. PUBLIC STATEMENT AUDIENCE Those persons wishing to address the Council were: Karen Hall, 26617 Gavilan Drive, Santa Clarita - regarding release of land of Placerita Park to County, off-road vehicle raceway at Whitney Canyon, reconnaissance research; Jack Ancona, 29552 Abelia, Canyon Country - alternate routes for arterial roads; Vera Johnson, 25632 Oak Crossing, Santa Clarita - Mono -rail; Bob Lathrop, 25105 Highspring, Newhall - retainment of semi-public nature of meetings held by the Chamber of Commerce. PUBLIC STATEMENT COUNCIL Councilwoman Klajic addressed fellow councilmembers regarding an award won by the Placerita Nature Center under the Environmental Ecology category. Mayor Darcy addressed fellow councilmembers regarding a bill that deals with waiving the liability for volunteer workers. -7- u ti LL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 22, 1990 PUBLIC STATEMENT COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT ATTEST: 1A I Cara It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to authorize staff to draft letters of support for Proposition 117, to adopt Resolution No. 90-92 in support of Proposition 111, and to adopt Resolution No. 90-93 in support of Proposition 108 and in conjunction, authorize the Mayor to sign letters of support. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: Klajic (On Prop. 111 and Prop. 108 only) Motion Carried Councilman McKeon addressed fellow councilmembers regarding a letter of support for Armenian demonstrators who were shot by May 25, 1990. At 11:35 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to May 29, 1990 at 5:30 p.m. City Clerk J e Darcy, Mayor -8- eR� MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL 6:30 p.m. April 24, 1990 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order by- Mayor Jo Anne Darcy at 6:32 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California. FLAG SALUTE Councilmember Buck McKeon led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL All Councilmembers were present. Also present were: City Manager, George Caravalho; Assistant City Manager, Ken Pulskamp; City Attorney, Carl Newton; Finance Director, Andrea Daroca; Parks & Recreation Director, Jeff Kolin; Public Works Director, John Medina; Assistant City Clerk, Donna Grindey; Clerk Typist, Geri Miller -Davis. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item Nos. S, 6, 8, 11 and 12 were pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to approve the Agenda. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to approve the minutes for March 27, 1990. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. PRESENTATION Joe Astleford from the Department of Forestry gave a brief presentation on the Elsmere Canyon Landfill. Mayor Darcy read the City's Ordinance dealing with the public meeting policy and guidelines to ensure that the appropriate guidelines are followed at future meetings. -1- I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 24, 1990 ITEM 1 j PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Darcy opened the public hearing. Assistant City ZONE CHANGE 89-5 FROM Clerk, Grindey reported that this item was published A-2-2 (HEAVY and posted in accordance with the law, therefore, the AGRICULTURAL) TO public hearing was in order. R-1-11,000 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, Assistant City Manager, Ken Pulskamp presented the 11,000 SQ FT MINIMUM report to Council stating that the applicant, LOTS) AND R -2 -(DP) Lori Johnson is requesting a change of zone from the (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE existing A-2-2, Heavy Agricultural, two -acre minimum WITH A DEVELOPMENT zoning to R-1-11,000, Single -Family with an PROGRAM OVERLAY) 11,000 square foot minimum lots and R-2 (DP), Single and Duplex with a Development Program Overlay. Those persons address Council on this issue were: Bob Sunset, 21026 Susan Carole Drive, Santa Clarita; Roy Payton, 21059 Susan Carole Drive, Santa Clarita; Steve Lilley, 27816 Radfall Court, Santa Clarita; Kevin Large, 20902 Susan Carole Drive, Santa Clarita. City Attorney, Carl Newton read the title of Ordinance No. 90-7: amending the official Zoning Map, Zone Change Case No. 89-5. Following discussion regarding Zone Change Case No. 89-5, width of streets, on -street parking requirements, landscaping, price range of condominiums, possible transit fees and amount of bridge and thoroughfare, it was moved by Boyer and second by McKeon to waive further reading and to introduce Ordinance No. 90-7. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: Klajic Ordinance No. 90-7 passed to second reading ITEM 2 PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Darcy opened the public hearing. Clerk Typist ZONE CHANGE AT THE Davis reported that this item was published SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF by the City Clerk in accordance with the law, GILBERT DRIVE - therefore, the public hearing was in order. ORDINANCE NO. 90-10 -2- N r LL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 24, 1990 ITEM 2 Continued Assistant City Manager, Ken Pulskamp presented the report to Council stating that the applicant, American Beauty Homes, Incorporated, is requesting a Zone Change on the subject property from A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural) to RPD -1-6U for a Residential Planned Development. The applicants have received Planning Commission approval to develop the 47.4 acre site into 14 condominium lots to allow for 187 single-family detached condominiums. Those persons addressing Council on this issue were: Jack Shine, 18909 Soledad Canyon Road, Canyon Country; Bryan Brahms, 26110 Rainbow Glen, Santa Clarita. City Attorney, Carl Newton read the title of Ordinance No. 90-10: amending the official Zoning Map, Zone Change Case No. 85-503 with the stipulation that the insertion of the new Section 5 and the renumbering of the existing Section 5 regarding the finding of the Negative Declaration. It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 90-10. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: Klajic Ordinance No. 90-10 passed to second reading RECESS At 8:17 p.m., the Mayor called a recess. RECONVENE At 9:34 p.m., the Mayor reconvened the meeting. ITEM 3 PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Darcy opened the public hearing. Clerk Typist, PREZONE 89-003 and Davis reported that this item was published APPEAL OF VESTING by the City Clerk in accordance with the law, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP therefore, the public hearing was in order. NO. 47324, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-007 Assistant City Manager, Ken Pulskamp presented the AND OAK TREE PERMIT report to Council stating that appellant, Hal Good NO. 89-046 filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of February 20, 1990, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47324, Conditional Use Permit 89-007 and Oak Tree Permit 89-046 and Prezone 89-03. -3- W CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 24, 1990 ITEM 3 Continued Those persons addressing Council on this issue were: Stan Fargen, 18998 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita; Hal Good, 27800 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita; Glenn Reeves, 28222 Bakerton Avenue, Canyon Country. City Attorney, Carl Newton read the title of Ordinance No. 90-9: amending the official Zoning Map, Prezone Case No. 89-003. It was moved by McKeon and second by Heidt to adopt Lk ITEM 5 CONSENT CALENDAR This item deals 'with the requests received by several SIERRA HIGHWAY AT members of the public and Councilmembers regarding the RAINBOW GLEN DRIVE need for a traffic signal at the intersection of STATE/CITY TRAFFIC Sierra Highway at Rainbow Glen Drive. SIGNAL AGREEMENT Those persons addressing Council on this issue were: Charles Ives, no address given. -4- Resolution No. 90-76. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried It was moved by McKeon and second by Darcy to waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 90-9. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy - Noes: Ordinance No. 90-9 passed to second reading T ITEM 4 Mayor Darcy opened the public hearing. Clerk Typist PUBLIC HEARING Davis reported that this item was published L PREZONE NO. 89-002 AND by the City Clerk in accordance with the law, APPEAL OF VESTING therefore, the public hearing was in order. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 46626 and 47863 Because of medical reasons, the owners have requested that this item be continued to the 5/22/90 Council meeting. It was moved by Boyer and second by McKeon to continue Item No. 4 to May 22, 1990. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried Lk ITEM 5 CONSENT CALENDAR This item deals 'with the requests received by several SIERRA HIGHWAY AT members of the public and Councilmembers regarding the RAINBOW GLEN DRIVE need for a traffic signal at the intersection of STATE/CITY TRAFFIC Sierra Highway at Rainbow Glen Drive. SIGNAL AGREEMENT Those persons addressing Council on this issue were: Charles Ives, no address given. -4- { CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1 APRIL 24, 1990 ITEM 5 Continued T A— L" ITEM 6 PLACERITOS BOULEVARD AND 12TH STREET/STOP SIGN -RESOLUTION NO. 90-58 ITEM 7 LOS MANANITAS DRIVE AT VISTA DELGADO DRIVE/ STOP SIGN RESOLUTION NO. 90-59 ITEM 8 WILEY CANYON ROAD/ MODIFY STREET STRIPING/ PARKING PROHIBITION It was moved by Boyer and second by McKeon approve in concept the draft agreement, to direct Public Works to send a copy of the agreement to Cal Trans, to direct staff to include $61,920 for the project in the upcoming fiscal year budget, and to move ahead and recover the money from Cal Trans. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried. This item deals with a study conducted by the Traffic Engineering staff of the intersection of Placeritos Boulevard and 12th Street to determine the need for traffic controls at the intersection. This item deals with a study conducted by the Traffic Engineering staff in Wiley Canyon Road, between Lyons Avenue and Powell Drive regarding traffic, safety and the possible installation of left -turn channelization. ITEM 9 ANNEXATION NO. 1990-01, RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION ITEM 10 DEMAND WARRANT 48 RESOLUTION NO. 90-68 ITEM 11 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF A WATER FEATURES STUDY ON THE SANTA CLARA RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES ITEM 12 ND -90-001 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CITY ACQUISITION OF SAUGUS REHABILITATION SITE This item deals with the finalization of terms of contract with B.S.I. Consultants, Incorporated on the Santa Clara River Water and Recreation Study. It was moved by Boyer and second by McKeon to approve Item No. 11. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: Klajic Motion Carried This item deals with a Negative Declaration for potential acquisition of the Saugus Rehabilitation site for municipal uses. -5- CITY COUNGIL MINUTES APRIL 24, 1990 ITEM 12 Continued It was moved by Klajic and second by Boyer to approve Item No. 12 with the stipulation that there be pertinent language in the Negative Declaration that would indicate that the City intends to do a full Environmental Impact Report once a project has been decided upon. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried ITEM 13 DISABLED PERSONS PARKING ZONE - 23008 HILSE LANE RESOLUTION NO. 90-66 PUBLIC STATEMENT AUDIENCE Those persons addressing Council were: Bob Lathrop, 25105 Highspring Avenue, Newhall- regarding the development of Sand Canyon as a gated community; Beverly Lusk, 25358 Via Pacifica, Valencia -thanked the Council for responding to her letter regarding Item No. 13. It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried ITEM 14 NEW BUSINESS Parks and Recreation Director, Jeff Kolin presented AWARD OF COMPREHENSIVE the report to Council stating that on July 26, 1989, STREET TREE PEST bids were opened for the Comprehensive Street Tree CONTROL CONTRACT Maintenance Contract. The contract included three separate sections: (1) tree trimming, (2) pest control and (3) for emergency service based on an hourly rate. At that time, staff recommended that only the street tree trimming and emergency service portions of the contract be awarded and Council awarded that contract to Golden Bear Arborists, Incorporated. The bid for the pest control section exceeded the $50,000 budget guideline which was estimated for that portion of the contract. Therefore, staff went out to bid a second time and recommended that Council award the contract to Chem -Lawn Commercial Services in the amount of $43,774. -6- LL I T J__ << CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 24, 1990 ITEM 14 Continued It was moved by Heidt and second by McKeon to approve Item No. 14. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried ITEM 15 NEW BUSINESS Finance Director, Andrea Daroca presented the report PRESENTATION OF MSI to Council stating that this item is on the agenda for COST -TO -PROVIDE -SERVICE presentation of ,.he Management Service Institute (MSI) STUDY Cost -to -Provide -Service Study. This study is an indepth analysis of 142 services provided by the City and a recommendation of an appropriate corresponding fee structure or subsidy level. Doug Ayres, President of M.S.I. reported to Council on the findings. It was moved by Heidt and second by Boyer that this item be brought back to the next Study Session for discussion. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. ITEM 16 NEW BUSINESS Traffic Engineer, Ed Cline presented the report to ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN Council stating that a traffic engineering study was LANE SOLEDAD CANYON conducted at Soledad Canyon Road and Sierra Highway. ROAD/SIERRA HIGHWAY The results of this study indicates that traffic flow RESOLUTION NOS. 90-70 can be improved if eastbound traffic in the number two AND 90-71 through -lane on Soledad Canyon Road has the option to turn right onto Sierra Highway. This optional right turn can be accomplished in addition to the existing free right turn only lane. It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to adopt Resolution Nos. 90-70 and 90-71 and to direct staff to implement appropriate measures to effect the project. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Resolution Nos. 90-70 and 90-71 adopted SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON G.H. PALMER MEETING On April 23, 1990, the subcommittee of Councilmembers Heidt and McKeon met with citizens and Dan Palmer. -7- i LL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 24, 1990 SCA 18 SALES TAX FOR SCHOOLS ADJOURNMENT ATTEST: Geca zF Caravalho LCity Clerk It was moved by Heidt and second by Darcy to add this item as a subsequent need item that arose after the posting of the agenda. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried Following discussion regarding Santa Catarina, the Colony, Proposition P, Golden Valley Road, Rio Vista, Westcreek, the Development Agreement, the cost of building roads, it was mived by Boyer, with no second to adjourn to May 2, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. Councilman McKeon reported on SCA 18, sales tax for schools asking Council's support of the bill. It was moved by Heidt, second by McKeon to add this item as a subsequent need item which arose after the posting of the agenda and to support the amendment. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: Klajic Motion Carried At 11:46 it was moved by Heidt and second by Darcy to adjourn the meeting to May 2, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. �a? �� �,/ zlz� J nne Darcy el yor -8- OPPOSITION TO ROUEST TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS RELATING TO TRACTS 46626 AND 47863 RECEIVED Hearing Date December 2, 1997 HHV 2 6 1997 Time: 7:00 p.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Location: City Council Chambers CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, California 91355 The residents of the Oak Grove Tract 27493, directly abutting Tracts 46626 and 47863, stand behind their original letter of opposition. A copy of that letter has been attached and is incorporated herein. Additionally, the residents would like to make the following suggestions and ask the following questions: 1. Could the $30,000 a year it would cost to maintain the fencing and medians which are strongly opposed be set aside to be added to the monies already in hand to build the much needed and promised library and park site. 2. If the council can take $300,000 to complete the median development, as suggested by the builder, than why can't the City Council take that same $300,000 to add to the building of the park and library site. 3. Could the park be initially built and then funds sought from the Federal or State Government to be added to existing funds to complete the library portion of the site. 4. Perhaps, if the City Council follows the citizens' lead and denies the requests for modifications, a committee of interested residents, together with park and other officials, could be comprised just for the specific purposed of seeking outside governmental aid to complete either the park and/or the library. 5. Being that there are already funds set aside for these developments, and there is such a need in the community of Canyon Country, could the priority of building these two sites be moved up the ladder and placed at a higher priority. As was mentioned before at the previous meeting, the residents of Oak Grove and other residents of the Canyon Country area do not have a problem waiting for the park and library sites to be built. We implore you to follow the promises previously made to the residents and on which the initial development was granted and deny the requests before you. With regard to the fencing there are several fences, block and wooden, along White's Canyon which are taller than six feet. If the builder is only building a six foot fence and not removing the fencing which is already in place now, how is that fencing going to improve the appearances? Now, you will a block panel wall and then within inches or a foot of that an additional fencing. The gap between the fencing will become an accumulation of trash and other debris and who knows what. Additional there will be several areas where block or wooden fencing will stand above the block panel wall giving an unsightly appearance. Again, there is the fear of additional graffiti to the fencing as there will be more available to write on. With regard to the Oak Tree, by denying the request of the developer to remove the tree, you do not have to make one person thereby responsible for the Vee as stated by the developer. If the developer is required to maintain the tree during his development and runs an irrigation system to the tree, then why can't the irrigation system remain in place thereby providing water to the tree long after the builder is gone. This would provide a simply solution to the problem at hand Additionally, the builder stated that the oak tree would become part of a home's front lawn area. It is difficult to believe that someone would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a brand new house and then not maintain it. The builder mentions that he will replace the trees with more trees. However, as stated by the builder, these trees would be placed in a location near the entrance to his project. How convenient. Again, we implore you to deny the builder's request and rule that the oak tree should be allowed to remain. Sincerely, THE RESIDENTS OF OAK GROVE TRACT 27493 I am a resident of property whose rear property line abuts White's Canyon and I opposethe building the aforementioned block panel wall. Numerous of us have spent thousands of dollars building block walls over the years and feel that we will have suffered an unnecessary expense if this panel wall is constructed. Additionally, there are some residents who have chosen not to place up any walls, but to use the chain link that was placed there so that they might have views out of their yards, Also, there are residents that maintain a gate which opens onto White's Canyon for access to and from their rearyards. The building of this panel wall would no longer that access. M ZtL�u2_) ���nf 0J1(�, t� �i�y+�LL GLtzcL Q� 4 e 7' .,-x ejj ,c , ?4-L /Y� t// -e, xza tet/- t /t -d c c, e t., Glx ;G /i t [ t�,c, t`�-t t'iCz, 14u• Z. >Q -tn.+� PLO cr /!✓1„Q.. Pp_piri.. ,�' [�- G � /�./Yl^t!L Gt% I�- � � fit" M.Q� ' OPPOSITION TO REQUEST TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS RELATING TO TRACTS 46626 AND 47863 Hearing Date: November 4, 1997 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: City Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Rather than overwhelming the City Council with numerous letters all attempting, in varying degrees, to make the same points, the undersigned residents of the Oak Grove Tract 27493, directly abutting Tracts 46626 and 47863, have agreed to submit one letter in opposition to the proposed amendments before you. We strongly oppose the requested modifications and it is our wish that this letter be included in the materials that the Planning Commission and City Council will review with regard to its decision to either deny or approve the proposed amendments. To release the developers, White's Canyon Associates, LTD and Canyon View Partners, from previous commitments to the City of Santa Clarita and to the residents would be a detriment to this community. The developers are requesting that they be released from their prior obligation to the City and to the residents of this tract to provide the City with cash payments to be used in the development of a park and library site adjacent to Canyon High School. The Community of Canyon Country is, by the developers' own admission, "seriously deficient in parks and recreation facilities for everyone's enjoyment." The developers used this land and the monetary donation to sell its residential housing tracts to the City of Santa Clarita and to its residents. The whole idea behind the monetary donation was so that the park would be constructed immediately and not years down the road. In reviewing several hours of previously held hearings it is quite obvious that this park site, the amenities it would provide and the cash payments were a major factor in the Planning Commission's, the City Council's and the local residents initial approval of this development. The City Council was so excited with the prospect of having this park and the immediate development of it, that a call went out from the City Council to form a Citizen's Advisory Committee to begin the initial planning and development of the park. To allow the developers to renege on what was such a crucial point in the approval of this residential project would be an error. In doing so the City of Santa Clarita would have this fantastic land site and absolutely no funds whatsoever to develop it within the next five to ten years and the residents would be left empty handed. By requiring the developers to satisfy their previously agreed to commitments, the City of Santa Clarita would be able to provide its residents with a much needed and long overdue park site in an area where parks are scarce. In return for being relieved of its monetary obligation the developers offer up a poor substitute by stating that they would construct landscaping improvements from Soledad Canyon Road to Steinway. The only real contribution the developers would be making here would be from Soledad Canyon to Nadel. From Nadel on up to Steinway consists of the new housing development which already requires that certain landscaping needs be meet from the developers. The winners here would be the developers. Their substitution only will aid the in the appearance and the sales of their property. Additionally, throughout numerous conversations and meetings with the developers in the past, the local residents had already been promised lush landscaping and fully maintained and watered slopes to be maintained by a special maintenance district. So in essence, nothing new is being offered by the developers. They are only offering that which had already been promised. In recent years trees have been planted along the parkways of Whites Canyon from Soledad Canyon by the City of Santa Clarita and, residents have, on their own, been making improvements over the last several years. Construction of a "six foot tall concrete panel wall" from Soledad Canyon to Steinway would take away from the rural charm for which Canyon Country is noted for and one of its most desirable features. Additionally, because of its close proximity to a Junior High and High School, this wall would provide an ever increasing temptation for graffiti which would have to be continually removed, thereby giving. Canyon Country an undesirable affect. If the developers desire to construct a panel wall to help sell their project to potential buyers, then so be it. However, to release them from their previous commitment to the community to create what will only become a nuisance with its maintenance would be a step backwards in progress. The residents are not willing to release the developers from their prior commitments. Lastly, if the landscaping improvements are of equal value to the cash payments, as stated by the developers, then what real difference would it make to keep with the plan at hand and as a result have a beautiful and much needed park for the local residents? As you can see by the information provided in this letter, a park and possible library site are of much more importance at this time than anything else the developers might provide. It is for the reasons stated above that the local residents are in opposition to the proposed amendment. This is a very critical amendment that the developers are seeking and we urge you to consider all of the consequences when making your decision. We are confident that once you have weighed all the pros and cons you, too, will see that the residents will benefit far more from a park than any six foot concrete wall or minimal landscaping could provide. We hope that you will not strip us of the only benefit we actually stand to reap from these development projects and that you will unanimously vote to deny their request for amendment. Secondly, the developers are requesting permission to remove one oak tree to correct a geological problem. The geological issues of these two housing projects encompass endless hours of research and testimony and should, perhaps, be reviewed prior to the hearing on this particular amendment. After the countless hours and extensive meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council the developers stated that the oak tree would be fully preserved. Original acceptance of the projects was based on the assurances that the oak tree would remain. Now, the developers, having already been denied once permission to remove the oak tree, are here before you a second time seeking permission to remove the same tree. The developers state that removal is required to correct a geological problem. It is a well known fact that there is an underground spring on the property in question and that lowering and monitoring of the water table has always been a major concern not only to the developers, but to the residents nearest the development as well. However, it is our feeling (and originally until this point, that of the developers) that removal of the oak tree in no way prevents these things from happening. There is plenty of room around the oak tree for the developers to place any irrigation system, above or below ground, necessary to correct any geological problems. Review of previous testimony will support this finding. It is our belief that the developers are seeking removal of the oak tree so that they can come before you.again and request the addition of 1 or more houses once the tree has been removed as there will be a large area of land currently not cited for use because of the presence of the oak tree. This land area had been originally slated for a common area to be lavished with trees and landscaping incorporating the oak tree and to be maintained by the developers at no cost to the residents closest to the project. Not only would this have provided the residents abutting the development a means of maintaining some privacy in their yards, but it would have also provided a beautifixl scenic area rather than the building of block or brick walls to maintain that same source of privacy. Additionally, the local residents were promised by the developers that they would playa part in the selection of the landscaping to be used in the creation of this common area. It would seem that the developers have forgotten about this as well. If the oak tree is removed and the developers are granted the addition of 1 or more houses down the road, the residents closest to the location of the oak tree in question will have absolutely no privacy whatsoever and will be forced to put up block walls, etc., in order to provide themselves with some means of privacy. It should also be mentioned that an owl currently resides in the oak tree and has for quite some time. Removal of this oak tree may result in the loss of a home for this owl. As mentioned above, the developer has already sought removal of the oak tree once prior and was denied by the City. It is our hope that you will abide by your initial decision and once again deny the request to remove this oak tree. It is important to hold developers to their initial commitments and not allow them to make promises in order to obtain their initial permits and then come in down the road once the project has been begun to make changes which have a major impact on the residents surrounding these projects and on which commitments residents based their decision to support the developers. It is respectfully requested that you, the voice of the people of the City of Santa Clarita, will make the right decision and deny the requests before you. Additionally, with the potential of El Nino we would like to remind both the City and the developers that there was a promise that there would be thousands of sand bags on hand in case of rain during the building process. We hope that this matter will not be overlooked and that these sandbags will be made available with the crews necessary to fill and stack them. In the past, even in the heaviest of rains, there have been no problems with earth migrating into the yards from the bills . However, at this time there is a lot of loose dirt over the area to be developed and if the El Nino weather pattern does in fact develop the potential for dirt to migrate into yards of residents and our streets exists. In the event this should occur please. be advised that we intend to hold the developers and the City responsible. Sincerely, THE RESIDENTS OF OAK GROVE TRACT 27493 OPPOSITION TO REQUEST TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS RELATING TO TRACTS 46626 AND 47863 Hearing Date: November 4, 1997 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: City Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Rather than overwhelming the City Council with numerous letters all attempting, in varying degrees, to make the same points, the undersigned residents of the Oak Grove Tract 27493, directly abutting Tracts 46626 and 47863, have agreed to submit one letter in opposition to the proposed amendments before you. We strongly oppose the requested modifications and it is our wish that this letter be included in the materials that the Planning Commission and City Council will review with regard to its decision to either deny or approve the proposed amendments. To release the developers, White's Canyon Associates, LTD and Canyon View Partners, from previous commitments to the City of Santa Clarita and to the residents would be a detriment to this community. The developers are requesting that they be released from their prior obligation to the City and to the residents of this tract to provide the City with cash payments to be used in the development of a park and library site adjacent to Canyon High School. The Community of Canyon Country is, by the developers' own admission, "seriously deficient in parks and recreation facilities for everyone's enjoyment." The developers used this land and the monetary donation to sell its residential housing tracts to the City of Santa Clarita and to its residents. The whole idea behind the monetary donation was so that the park would be constructed immediately and not years down the road. In reviewing several hours of previously held hearings it is quite obvious that this park site, the amenities it would provide and the cash payments were a major factor in the Planning Commission's, the City Council's and the local residents initial approval of this development. The City Council was so excited with the prospect of having this park and the immediate development of it, that a call went out from the City Council to form a Citizen's Advisory Committee to begin the initial planning and development of the park To allow the developers to renege on what was such a crucial point in the approval of this residential project would be an error. In doing so the City of Santa Clarita would have this fantastic land site and absolutely no funds whatsoever to develop it within the next five to ten years and the residents would be left empty handed. By requiring the developers to satisfy their previously agreed to commitments, the City of Santa Clarita would be able to provide its residents with a much needed and long overdue park site in an area where parks are scarce. In return for being relieved of its monetary obligation the developers offer up a poor substitute by stating that they would construct landscaping improvements from Soledad Canyon Road to Steinway. The only real contribution the developers would be making here would be from Soledad Canyon to Nadel. From Nadel on up to Steinway consists of the new. housing development which already requires that certain landscaping needs be meet from the developers. The winners here would be the developers. Their substitution only will aid the in the appearance and the sales of their property. Additionally, throughout numerous conversations and meetings with the developers in the past, the local residents had already been promised lush landscaping and fully maintained and watered slopes to be maintained by a special maintenance district. So in essence, nothing new is being offered by the developers. They are only offering that which had already been promised. In recent years trees have been planted along the parkways of Whites Canyon from Soledad Canyon by the City of Santa Clarita and, residents have, on their own, been making improvements over the last several years. Construction of a "six foot tall concrete panel wall" from Soledad Canyon to Steinway would take away from the rural charm for which Canyon Country is noted for and one of its most desirable features. Additionally, because of its close proximity to a Junior High and High School, this wall would provide an ever increasing temptation for graffiti which would have to be continually removed, thereby giving Canyon Country an undesirable affect. If the developers desire to construct a panel wall to help sell their project to potential buyers, then so be it. However, to release them from their previous commitment to the community to create what will only become a nuisance with its maintenance would be a step backwards in progress. The residents are not willing to release the developers from. their prior commitments. Lastly, if the landscaping improvements are of equal value to the cash payments, as stated by the developers, then what real difference would it make to keep with the plan at hand and as a result have a beautiful and much needed park for the local residents? As you can see by the information provided in this letter, a park and possible library site are of much more importance at this time than anything else the developers might provide. It is for the reasons stated above that the local residents are in opposition to the proposed amendment. This is a very critical amendment that the developers are seeking and we urge you to consider all of the consequences when making your decision. We are confident that once you have weighed all the pros and cons you, too, will see that the residents will benefit far more from a park than any six foot concrete wall or minimal landscaping could provide. We hope that you will not strip us of the only benefit we actually stand to reap from these development projects and that you will unanimously vote to deny their request for amendment. Secondly, the developers are requesting permission to remove one oak tree to correct a geological problem. The geological issues of these two housing projects encompass endless hours of research and testimony and should, perhaps, be reviewed prior to the hearing on this particular amendment. After the countless hours and extensive meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council the developers stated that the oak tree would be fully preserved. Original acceptance of the projects was based on the assurances that the oak tree would remain. Now, the developers, having already been denied once permission to remove the oak tree, are here before you a second time seeking permission to remove the same tree. The developers state that removal is required to correct a geological problem. It is a well known fact that there is an underground spring on the property in question and that lowering and monitoring of the water table has always been a major concern not only to the developers, but to the residents nearest the development as well. However, it is our feeling (and originally until this point, that of the developers) that removal of the oak tree in no way prevents these things from happening. There is plenty of room around the oak tree for the developers to place any irrigation system, above or below ground, necessary to correct any geological problems. Review of previous testimony will support this finding. It is our belief that the developers are seeking removal of the oak tree so that they can come before you again and request the addition of I or more houses once the tree has been removed as there will be a large area of land currently not cited for use because of the presence of the oak tree. This land area had been originally slated for a common area to be lavished with trees and landscaping incorporating the oak tree and to be maintained by the developers at no cost to the residents closest to the project. Not only would this have provided the residents abutting the development a means of maintaining some privacy in their yards, but it would have also provided a beautiful scenic area rather than the building of block or brick walls to maintain that same source of privacy. Additionally, the local residents were promised by the developers that they would play a part in the selection of the landscaping to be used in the creation of this common area. It would seem that the developers have forgotten about this as well. If the oak. tree is removed and the developers are granted the addition of I ormorehouses down the road, the residents closest to the location of the oak tree in question will have absolutely no privacy whatsoever and will be forced to put up block walls, etc., in order to provide themselves with some means of privacy. It should also be mentioned that an owl currently resides in the oak tree and has for quite some time. Removal of this oak tree may result in the loss of a home for this owl. 7 As mentioned above, the developer has already sought removal of the oak tree once prior and was denied by the City. It is our hope that you will abide by your initial decision and once again deny the request to remove this oak tree. It is important to hold developers to their initial commitments and not allow them to make promises in order to obtain their initial permits and then come in down the road once the project has been begun to make changes which have a major impact on the residents surrounding these projects and on which commitments residents based their decision to support the developers. It is respectfully requested that you, the voice of the people of the City of Santa Clarita, will make the right decision and deny the requests before you. Additionally, with the potential of EI Nino we would like to remind both the City and the developers that there was a promise that there would be thousands of sand bags on hand in case of rain during the building process. We hope that this matter will not be overlooked and that these sandbags will be made available with the crews necessary to fill and stack them. In the past, even in the heaviest of rains, there have been no problems with earth migrating into the yards from the hills . However, at this time there is a lot of loose dirt over the area to be developed and if the El Nino weather pattern does in fact develop, the potential for dirt to migrate into yards of residents and our streets exists. In the event this should occur please be advised that we intend to hold the developers and the City responsible. Sincerely, <C�� THE RESIDENTS OF OAK GROVE os� TRACT 27493 • As mentioned above, the developer has already sought removal of the oak tree once prior and was denied by the City. It is our hope that you will abide by your initial decision and once again deny the request to remove this oak tree. It is important to hold developers to their initial commitments and not allow them to make promises in order to obtain their initial permits and then come in down the road once the project has been begun to make changes which have a major impact on the residents surrounding these projects and on which commitments residents based their decision to support the developers. It is respectfully requested that you, the voice of the people of the City of Santa Clarita, will make the right decision and deny the requests before you. Additionally, with the potential of El Nino we would like to remind both the City and the developers that there was a promise that there would be thousands of sand bags on hand in case of rain during the building process. We hope that this matter will not be overlooked and that these sandbags will be made available with the crews necessary to fill and stack them. In the past, even in the heaviest of rains, there have been no problems with earth migrating into the yards from the hills . However, at this time there is a lot of loose dirt over the area to be developed and if the El Nino weather pattern does in fact develop the potential for dirt to migrate into yards of residents and our streets exists. In the event this should occur please be advised that we intend to hold the developers and the City responsible. Sincerely, THE RESIDENTS OF OAK GROVE TRACT 27493 �r ✓v L- L� V 77 JA, J /o Edward L. Bradford 19331 Old Friend Road Catn•nn Country, CA 91351-1272 t'.. -ober 16.199- C;--- o C 6.199' Ci^:.)f Santa Clatita P ::ruing and Building Senices Department =9*'t? Valencia Blvd.. Third Floor .aa Clarta _A 913 Attn: Fred Failstad i2e: \ taster Case Number 97-146 & 97-147 {Revised Development Agreement for Tract's 'r,(526 &4736?) red n agreement with tPe «7tite'., anon Iandscapirm fencing 3r. median improvements mentioned in vour Notic:, of Public Hearina. hese agreement modifications are requested by the developer because it will be hard to eii nice homes if the prospective buyers need to drive through the perceived " NVltite's Canyon Barno' to get to the modeis. i" -i :! 'eloper is building aimost nti::;e the number of homes that should be built in those rue's. He shculd be regtured to offer some additional money for these modifications. Same librar.• :ands shouid be transf=ed to the existing library on Soledad & Sierra for it's r:k:cation and improvement. Si::-,- funds should also remain and go toward the development of additional bike trails and other recreation improvements in the area. ReTectfulh submitted. Ed Bradford A. An amendment to Annexation and Development Agreement pertaining to VTT No. 46626 (as to VTT 50536, a part thereof) and an amendment to Development Agreement pertaining to VTT 47863 ("Agreements"), to wit: 1. Amend the Agreement for VTT 46626 with regard to paragraph 6(e)(4), which provides for cash payments totaling $500,500.00 plus a sum equal to the increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for the period from the date of approval of VTT 46626 to January 1st of the year next preceding the issuance of building permits for.dwelling units within said tract, which funds were to be used for the improvement and purchase of equipment and facilities for the joint park and library site; 2. Amend the Agreement for VTT 46626 with regard to paragraph 6(d)(8), which provides for cash payments per dwelling unit of $1,067.62 plus a sum equal to the increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for the period from the Effective Date of said Development Agreement to January 1st of the year next preceding the issuance of building permits within VTT 46626, .the total sum of which was to be used by City for development, construction and maintenance of bicycle trails; 3. Amend the Agreement for VTT 47863 with regardto paragraph 6(e)(3), which provides for cash payments totaling $199,500.00 plus a sum equal to the increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for the period from the date of approval of VTT 46626 to January 1st of the year next preceding the issuance of building permits for dwelling units within said tract, which funds were to be used for the improvement and purchase.of equipment and facilities for the joint park and library site; 4. Amend the Agreement for VTT 47863 -with regard to Paragraph 6(d)(7), which provides for cash payments per dwelling unit of $1,067.62 plus a sum equal to the increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for the period from the Effective Date of said Development Agreement to January 1st of the year next preceding the issuance of building permits within Tract 47863, the total sum of which was to be used by City for development, construction and maintenance of bicycle trails; and substitute as the uses to be made of the funds (referenced in paragraphs 1,. 2, 3 and 4 above) by the City for those uses described below in the listed order -of priority ofapplication of funds as set out below as follows: Attachment to Entitlement Application Page 1 of 4 First: Construction and/or installation within the City's right-of-way of walls and fences on both sides of White's Canyon Road from Soledad Canyon Road to Steinway Street, a distance of approximately 1.8 miles, pursuant to the Developer's improvement plans and specifications prepared by Lee Newman & Associates, dated June 10, 1997; Second: Construction within the City's right-of-way of landscaping and irrigation of parkways on both sides of White's Canyon Road from Soledad Canyon Road to Steinway Street, a distance of approximate 1.8 miles, pursuant to the Developer's improvement plans and specifications prepared by Lee Newman & Associates dated June 10, 1997; and Third: Construction of a median island in White's Canyon Road starting at Soledad Canyon Road and extending as far toward Steinway Street.as funding is available pursuant to the Developer's improvement plans prepared by Lee Newman & Associates, dated June 10, 1997. In the event the.aggregate amount of funds resulting from Developer's payments to City described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above are insufficient to pay for the improvements described above as First, Second and Third, City may elect, at its sole discretion, as follows: (a) Limit the extent of improvements described in the First, Second and Third subparagraphs above, but in that order, to the availability of funds from the sources described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, or (b) To the extent of the amount of fees paid by Developer to City as a condition of VTT 46626 and VTT 47863 pursuant to the Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee,.City may determine to make such funds available to be applied to the unfunded portion of the improvements described in the First, Second and Third subparagraphs above, and in that order; which remain to be constructed, and/or (c) To pay for the remainder of the unfunded portion of the improvements described in the First, Second and Third subparagraphs above, and in that order, out of other City funds. Theamended provisions of the Agreements shall also provide as follows: Developer shall design and prepare the -plans and specifications for said improvements, which shall be plan checked. and approved by the City in an expedited manner so as not to adversely impede Developer's construction schedule. Attachment to Entitlement Application r3 Page 2 of 4 Developer shall construct the said improvements in the order of priority described above to the extent that there are sufficient City fee credits or funding to cover the cost of such work. The City shall give Developer any City criteria for the preparation of plans and specifications within 10 days of this Application. The Developer shall then prepare plans and specifications for the improvements described in the First, Second and Third paragraphs above, and submit them to City for its review within 45 days. The City shall complete its review within 10 days after receipt so that the entire time of plans and specifications preparation and approval shall be completed in full within 65 days from the date of this Application. If preparation of the plans and specifications cannot be completed within.said 65 day time period, at the election of Developer, in its sole discretion, Developer shall notify the City of its choice not to continue; then in such event, said white's Canyon Road improvements shall not go forward, the initial terms of the Agreements shall be reinstated and Developer shall pay the park improvement and bicycle trail fees set out in the original Agreements. Developer shall prepare and keep an accurate accounting of, the amounts it expends to: (i) design and prepare plans and specifications for all of said improvements; (ii) prepare agreement(s) with the City and provide bonds, if necessary, as security for the payment of labor, materials and completion of said improvements; and (iii) construct said improvements and obtain inspections and acceptance thereof by the City, and to -the extent of the amounts Developer actually pays for the cost items in (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the City shall credit and relieve Developer from paying the fees previously agreed to be paid by Developer to the City which are set out in Paragraphs 1 through 4 on page 1, andParagraph(b) on page 2.hereof. Nothing herein shall change or supersede the terms of the existing Agreements with regard to the total amounts agreed to be paid to the City and the time and number of such payments pursuant.to the subparagraphs referenced above. In other words, Developer shall not be obligated to pay to City any greater sum nor to make any payments thereof earlier in time.than as presently is agreed upon in the Agreements. In the event.City and Developer fail to agree upon the terms and provisions of this Amendment to the Agreements, the existing provisions shall, without change, continue to be mutually binding and enforceable. Attachment to Entitlement Application Page 3 of 4 � y, Government Code Section 64868 enables the amending of development agreements in general. The City and Developer join in these amendments to the two Development Agreements for the reasons which follows: 1. The improvements to White's Canyon Road are significant community benefits with regard to traffic safety, sound control and aesthetics; 2. The benefits to be derived transcend benefits to VTT's 46626 and 47863 (and 50536 as a part -thereof); and 3. The cost of the park improvements significantly exceeds the funds to be derived from these Development Agreements, and there is no other identifiable immediate source of funds to undertake and complete such improvements. B. Issuance of an Oak Tree Removal Permit, to wit: Removal of one oak tree in the area of stabilization grading and an installed dewatering system in the White's Canyon slide area. Removal of one oak tree, which will be significantly adversely affected by conditioned corrective grading and the installation of a dewatering system.required to stabilize the White's Canyon slide area. C. Modification of Tentative Trace Map No. 47863 Project Description Delete Condition No. 84, which prohibited removal of an oak tree within Tract 47863. Justification Statement Removal of one oak tree, which will be significantly adversely affected by conditioned corrective grading and the installation of a dewatering system required to stabilize the ` White's Canyon slide area. JC:Zms\WestoM065%r-Chv t Attach to Enti6enw t App Attachment to Entitlement Application Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ X ] Proposed [ l Final PERMIT/PROJECT: Revised Development Agreements 91-004 and 91-003, and Oak Tree Permit 96-026 APPLICANT: Whites Canyon Associates LTD. and Canyon View Partners MASTER CASE NO, 96-241, 97-146 and 97-147 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant currently has Testing Tentative Tract Maps and Development Agreements which allows construction of 281 single family residential units on two separate project areas. The applicant is requesting to modify the approved Development Agreements to remove the requirements for 'cash payments towards the improvement of a park site and library site adjacent to Canyon High School and cash payments towards the development of bike trails. In exchange the applicant would construct landscaping improvements and some median improvements along Whites Canyon Road of equal value to the waived cash payments. The landscaping improvements would include the planting of trees and shrubs adjacent to the sidewalk and in some of the medians, the construction of a six foot tall concrete panel wall along existing residences with Whites Canyon Road frontages, concrete split rail fences in some parkway areas and sidewalks with uniform widths. In addition, the applicant is requesting to remove one oak tree to allow grading to correct a geologic problem. The site currently includes vacant land and residential units under construction. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [ ] City Council [X] Planning Commission [ I Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that.a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [ l are not required. [ X I are attached. [ ] are not attached. Prepared by: Fred Follstad. Associate Planner 1 Reviewed by: L Jennifer Reid, Associate Planner 4(S-ature)l ` l6 Public Review Period From: 10/15/97 To: 11/4/97 Public Notice Given On: 10/15/97 By: [X] Legal Advertisement. [ X ] Posting of Properties. [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: FLF: current\nd97147.flf I? ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT "T TLITd T<' (Initial Study Form B) R• t CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ' Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Ste. 300 rM Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact Person & Phone Number: Fred Follstad (805) 255-4330 Master Case or CIP Number: 97-146 & 147 Entitlement Type(s): Revision to Development Agreement(s) and Oak Tree Permit Case Planner: Fred Follstad Project Location (Thomas Bros.): The location of the units to be developed is on the east side of Whites Canyon Road north of Nadel Street and south of Wildwind Road and northerly of the terminus of Foxlane Drive and Bakerton Avenue. The oak tree is located near the western terminus of Nearview Drive. The improvements are to occur along White's Canyon Road from Soledad Canyon Road to Steinway Street. This project is located in the Canyon Country community of the City of Santa Clarita (4461 G-7, H-7, 4551 F-1, G-1) Project Description and Setting: The applicant currently has Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and Development Agreements which allows construction of 281 single family residential units on two separate project areas. The applicant is requesting to modify the approved Development Agreements to remove the requirements for cash payments towards the improvement of a park site and library site adjacent to Canyon High School and cash payments towards the development of bike trails. In exchange the applicant would.construct landscaping improvements and some median improvements along Whites Canyon Road of equal value to the waived cash payments. The landscaping improvements would include the planting of trees and shrubs adjacent to the sidewalk and in some of the medians, the construction of a six foot tall concrete panel wall along existing residences with Whites Canyon Road frontages, concrete split rail fences in some parkway areas and sidewalks with uniform widths. In addition, the applicant is requesting to remove one oak tree to allow grading to correct a geologic problem. The site currently includes vacant land and residential units under construction. General Plan and Zoning Designation(s): The zoning and general plan category for the site is RL (Residential Low). Project Applicant (Name, Address, Phone): Whites Canyon Associates LTD. and Canyon View Partners, 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1960, Los Angeles Cailifornia, 90024 (310) 479- 9900. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by existing single family residential to the south and northwest, multiple family to the south west and the remaining areas are vacant. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) None (addressed through initial environmental approvals). ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [x] Transportation/ [x] Public Services Circulation [ ] Population and Housing I ] Biological Resources [ I Recreation [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Noise [x] Aesthetics [] Water I Hazards [] Cultural Resources [ j Air Quality [ ] Mandatory Tests of [xj Utilities and Service Significance System [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources -3- q?U DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ 1 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ J I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Prepared By: ignature). Approved By: (Signatur Fred Follstad/Associate Planner 10115197 (Nameffitle) Jennifer Reid/Associate Planner (Nameffitle) (Date) 10/15197 (Date) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source # ) b) Conflictwith applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the city? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? e) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)? ( ) f) Other ( ) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Create a net loss of jobs? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) d) Other ( ) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ( ) b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ( ) c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ( ) d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ( ) e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ( ) f) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) g) Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ( ) h) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ( ) -5- Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Lessthan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact [1 [I [1 IXI [] [1 II IXI [] [1 11 IXI Il [1 11 IX] [1 [1 11 [X] [7 [1 [1 IXI [] [1 [1 IX] Il Il 11 IXI [] Il 11 [XI [I [1 IXI [] II 11 IX] [I 11 [X1 [] [1 11 [XI [1 ❑ IX] [I I] IX] [1 [1 11 [XI [] [1 11 IX] [1 [I 11 [X1 I) Earth movement (cut andfor fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ( ) j) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25% natural grade? ( ) k) Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ( ) 1) Other ( ) IV. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoM ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (eg. temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity) ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements? ( ) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? j) Other ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? { ) c) Create objectionable odors? ( ) d) Other ( ) A. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wouldthe proposal result In: -6- ?3 11 Potentially 11 [xl I1 Significant I] Ix1 [] Impact . 11 Ixl Potentially Unless Less than [xl significant Mitigation significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact [l [1 [1 Ix] [1 [I [I [xI [] [1 [1 [xl [1 [] [1 Ix] [1 [] Il [xl [1 [] II 1x1 [1 [] 11 [x] [7 ❑ Il Ix1 [] [1 II Ix1 [I [1 Il Ix1 11 11 11 [xl I1 Il I] Ix1 [] [] 11 Ixl [1 11 [xl Il [] II Ixl Il [] 11 1x1 [1 [1 11 Ixl [1 [l Il Ixl d) Other ( ) II II II 1x1 IX HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of II II II Ixl hazardous substances Including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response (1 I ] [ ] [x] plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Leu than -. Slgniflcant Mitigation significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Increased Vehicle trips or traffic Congestion?( ) [] [] [] (x] b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp II Il (7 (xI curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby [] [1 [] (x] uses? ( ) d) insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? (1 Il I] IxI e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? I I I I Ixl I I ( ) I) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [] [] II Ix1 aRemative transportation (e.g. bus stops, bicycle racks)( ) g) Disjointed pattern of roadway improvements ( ) (] [] [] [x] h) Other ( 1 [1 [] [] 1x1 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal resuh in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their [] [] [[ [x] habitats pncluding but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds) ( ) b) Oak Trees ( ) II [ I I I [xI c) Wetland habitat or blueline stream? ( ) I [] I [x] d) Wiidlite dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) 11 [] 11 Ixl e) other ( 1 11 [l II 1x1 Vlll. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [] [] [] [x] b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] [] [x] inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [] [] [] [x) resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) d) Other ( ) II II II 1x1 IX HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of II II II Ixl hazardous substances Including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response (1 I ] [ ] [x] plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) -8- Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C) The creation of any health hazard or potential health I7 [I I1 Ix1 hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential Il II I1 1x1 health hazards (eg. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? ( ] e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, [] [] (] Ixl grass, or trees? ( ) f) other ( ) [1 [1 [1 1x1 X. NOISE. Would the proposal resutt in: ' a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) Il II Il 1x1 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [] (] (] 1x1 vibration? ( ) c) Other ( ) Il Il Il Ixl XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect on, or result in a need for new or altered govemenent services in any of the following areas: a) Fre protection? ( ) II 11 11 1x1 b) Police protection? ( ) 11 Il I l 1x1 c) Schools? ( ) I1 Il II 1x1 d) Maintenance of pubic facilities, including roads? I] Ix] I] I] e) Other government services? ( ) [] [1 [1 1x1 XII. UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a meed for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) 11 11 11 1x1 b) Communications systems? ( ) Il 11 11 1x1 c) Local or regional water beabnent or distribution I l I l 11 Ixl facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) [] I1 [] 1x1 e) Storm water drainage? ( ) Il 11 II 1x1 f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) II II ❑ 1x1 g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) I l 1x1 I I I1 h) other ( ) Il 11 I1 Ix] XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista open to public view? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] [x) -8- XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [] [] [] [x] Potentially quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or significant wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal Impact community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Potentially Unless Less than California history or prehistory? Significant Mitigation Significant No short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Have a negative aesthetic effect? ( ) [ ] (] (] [x] c) Create light or glare? ( ) [] (] [] [x] d) other ( ) ❑ Il I1 Ixl XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. would the proposal: where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those a) Disturb paleontological or archaeological Il Il I1 Ix7 have environmental effects which resources? will cause substantial adverse effects on human f ) b) Have the potential to cause a physical change which [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) c) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the [] Il 11 Ixl potential impact area? ( ) - d) Affect a recognized historical site? ( ) I7 11 Il ]xl e) other ( ) [1 17 11 [xl XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [] [] [] [x] quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve [] [] [] [x] short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) C) Does the project have impacts which are individually [] [] [] [x] limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment Is significant) d) Does the project have environmental effects which [] [] [] [x] will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. DISCUSSION. OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSES AND IF NECESSARY MITIGATED MEASURES: Section Evaluation of Impact UTILITIES Major utility lines and associated facilities currently exist in Whites Canyon Road. The applicant will connect to these existing services. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure into the project, no significant impact is anticipated. 1.1. Mitigation: The proposal will be required to connect the necessary utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Party Responsible for Mitigation: The applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to certificate of occupancy Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Transportation and Engineering Services 2. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The applicant would not be paying funds towards the improvement of bike lanes in the area. However, the applicant is proposing to install traffic medians along an existing roadway. This will reduce the number of potential traffic conflict points thereby increasing traffic safety. With the incorporation of the following additional mitigation measures, the traffic impacts associated with an office use are expected to be less than significant. 2-1. Mitigation:. The applicant shall submit street plans to include the medians. Party Responsible for Mitigation: The applicant. Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Transportation and Engineering Services 3. PUBLIC SERVICE The project will increase the need for services provided by Parks, Recreation and Community Services for the maintenance of the landscaped medians and side panels. There will also be a loss of funds to develop the park site. 3-1. Mitigation: The applicant shall submit landscape plans for approval Party Responsible for Mitigation: The applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to building occupancy Potentially Significant _ Impact Potentially unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINUMUS" FINDING a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [] [] [] [x] Individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish. amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." XVIII. DISCUSSION. OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSES AND IF NECESSARY MITIGATED MEASURES: Section Evaluation of Impact UTILITIES Major utility lines and associated facilities currently exist in Whites Canyon Road. The applicant will connect to these existing services. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure into the project, no significant impact is anticipated. 1.1. Mitigation: The proposal will be required to connect the necessary utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Party Responsible for Mitigation: The applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to certificate of occupancy Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Transportation and Engineering Services 2. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The applicant would not be paying funds towards the improvement of bike lanes in the area. However, the applicant is proposing to install traffic medians along an existing roadway. This will reduce the number of potential traffic conflict points thereby increasing traffic safety. With the incorporation of the following additional mitigation measures, the traffic impacts associated with an office use are expected to be less than significant. 2-1. Mitigation:. The applicant shall submit street plans to include the medians. Party Responsible for Mitigation: The applicant. Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Transportation and Engineering Services 3. PUBLIC SERVICE The project will increase the need for services provided by Parks, Recreation and Community Services for the maintenance of the landscaped medians and side panels. There will also be a loss of funds to develop the park site. 3-1. Mitigation: The applicant shall submit landscape plans for approval Party Responsible for Mitigation: The applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to building occupancy Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Parks, Recreation and Community Services 4. LAND USE PLANNING, POPULATION AND HOUSING, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, ENERGY RESOURCES, RECREATION, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, WATER, AIR QUALITY, NOISE, AESTHETICS AND HAZARDS There are no significant permanent or temporary impacts in the areas of Land Use Planning, Population and Housing, Biological Resources, Energy Resources, Cultural Resources, Geological Problems, Water, Air Quality, Noise, Aesthetics, and Hazards with the proposed facility. Recording Requested By and When Recorded Return to: CITY CLERK CITY OF -SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 91-1831600 QQ RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS RECORDER'S OFFICE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA 1 PAST. 4 P.h1 NOV l9 1991 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,. AMERICAN LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND WHITE'S CANYON ASSOCIATES RELATIVE TO THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 47863 THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED WITHIN.TEN DAYS OF EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES HERETO PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT CODE $65868.5 8/26/91 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is made this 5th day of November , 1991, by and among the City of Santa Clarita,-a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the general laws of the State of California (the "City"), White's Canyon Associates, Ltd. a California Limited Partnership and American Landmark Development, Inc., a California corporation (collectively, the "Developer"). RECITALS A. The City is authorized pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 (the "Government Code") to enter into binding agreements 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. The City further enters into this Agreement pursuant to Part 4 of Chapter 22.16 of the Santa Clarita Municipal -Code (the "Santa Clarita Code"). B. The Developer is the applicant foir entitlements and the owner of approximately 32 acres of unimproved real property located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, California, as shown in Exhibit A to this Agreement, which real property is the subject matter of this Agreement (the "Project Site"). Exhibit A is incorporated herein by this reference. The legal description for the Project Site.is set forth in Exhibit B to this Agreement. Exhibit B is incorporated herein by this reference. C. The Parties desire to enter ipto this Agreement relating to the Project Site in conformance with the Government Code and the Santa Clarita Code in order to achieve the development of land uses expressly permitted under the terms of this Agreement and the provision of public services, public uses, and urban infrastructure, all in the promotion of the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Santa Clarita and the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley. D. The Developer has applied for the following entitlements (collectively referred to as the "Project Approvals"): 91 1831600 -1_ WP%/TBM/AGR132461t (1) vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47863 (the "Tract Map"). (2) Development Agreement No. 91 -DDA The development as proposed by the Developer for the Project Site will consist of 8o single family homes and related amenities (the "Project"). E. On March 20, 1990, following the public hearings conducted on December 19, 1989, January 16, 1990 and February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City adopted Resolution No. P90-16.approving the Tract -Map and the negative declaration prepared in connection therewith. On August 6 , 1991, the Planning Commission of the City, held a public hearing on the Developer's application for this Agreement. F. On May 22, 1990, following the public hearing conducted on April 24, 1990, the City Council of the City adopted Resolution No. 90-74, approving the Tract Map and the negative declaration prepared in connection therewith. On October S , 1991, the City Council of the City adopted Ordinance No. 81_41 approving this Agreement with the Developer. The second reading of Ordinance No. g1-41 was approved on October 22 1991, and became effective on Nnvam er 21 , 1991. G. The City desires to obtain the binding agreement of the Developer to dedicate its share of the proposed twenty eight (28) acre park/library site, Developer's donative payment of $199,500.00.in cash, which sum is Developer's share of the total of $700,000.00 cash donation to be made by Developer and the balance of said cash donation is to be made by Weston to the City for said park/library improvements and facilities, and Developer's donative payment of $1,067.62 per unit for the development of bicycle trail improvements in the City. H. The Developer desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City that the City will permit the Developer to develop the Project and Project Site in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined), including any modifications permitted by this Agreement. The Developer further desires that it not be required to -construct public.improvements or make dedications or financial contributions to the City in lieu of public improvements, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement and the conditions of the Project Approvals. -2- uoX,Te",.Ga,3z<61, 911831600 I. Developer has applied to the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Santa Clarita Code for approval of this Agreement which provides for the binding agreements desired by the Parties to this Agreement. The City Council of the City has given notice of intention to consider this Agreement, has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to the Government Code and the Santa Clarita Code, and has found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the City's adopted plans and policies and the "Zoning Ordinance" (as hereinafter defined). The City, as a newly incorporated municipal corporation, has not yet adopted a general plan. The City is in the process of preparing, reviewing, and considering a general plan as required by California Government Code Sections 65300, et seq. In approving the Project, the City Council and the City Planning Commission found, pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, as follows: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the Project will be consistent with the City's proposed general plan under study at the present time; and (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, a future adopted general plan if the Project is ultimately inconsistent with the proposed general plan. J. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have been found by the City to be fair, just, and reasonable, and prompted by the necessities of the situation so as to provide extraordinary benefits to the City. K. This Agreement is consistent with the present public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City of Santa Clarita and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered and approved the impact and benefits of this Project upon the regional welfare. L. This Agreement will bind the City to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and limits, to the degree specified in this Agreement and under State law, the future exercise of the City's ability to delay, postpone, preclude or regulate development of the Project on the Project.site except as provided for herein. M. A negative declaration has been prepared and approved in conjunction with the above referenced Project Approvals and the consideration set forth in this Agreement WPX/TBM/AGR132461} 91 1831600 -3- 14 in accordance with the applicable statutes, ordinances, and regulations of the State of California and of the City of Santa Clarita. N. This Agreement eliminates uncertainty in planningandprovides for the orderly development of the Project Site. Further, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by the City, and other Federal, State and local agencies, allows installation of necessary improvements, provides for public servicesappropriateto the development of the Project Site, and generally serves.the public interest within the City of Santa Clarita and the surrounding region. 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. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: WP%/TBM/AGB132461f (a) "Applicable Rules" means the rules, regulations, and official policies of the City in force as of the "Effective Date" (as hereinafter defined)'governing development,. density, permitted uses, growth management, environmental consideration,.building codes, grading requirements, improvement and construction standards and specifications and design criteria applicable to the Project. (b) "Consumer Price Index" or "CPI" isthe Consumer Price Index (all items) prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles - Anaheim -Riverside area relating to all urban consumers (1967=100). (c) "Discretionary Actions; Discretionary Approvals" are actions which require the exercise of judgment or a decision, and which contemplate and authorize the imposition of revisions or, conditions, by the City, including any board, commission, or department of the City and any officer or employee of the City, in the process of approving or disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from an activity which merely requires the City, including any board, commission, 91 1831600 -4- WP%/TBM/AG8132461f or department of the City and any officer or employee of the City, to determine whether there has been compliance with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, or conditions of approval. (d) "Effective Date" is the date this Agreement is executed by all Parties. In the event this Agreement is executed by the Parties on different dates, the latest date of execution shall constitute the Effective Date. In the event this Agreement is not fully executed, but substantially performed, the Effective Date is the date the Tract Map is approved by the City. (e) "Final Map" is the final approved map for any phase of Tract 47863 that is recorded following the satisfaction of.the conditions imposed upon the approval of the -Project, including but without limitation, Condition 16 of the conditions of approval for Tract 47863; which allows the developer to file multiple phase final maps upon notice to City Departments of Community Development and Public Works at the time Vesting ..Tentative Tract Map 47863 is filed. (f) "Public Improvements" means those public improvements that the Developer agrees to construct and dedicate or alternatively, that with regard to those public improvements, the Developer agrees to the payment of money and the dedication of land to the City or such other public entity as the City shall lawfully designate, which improvements include by way of example, but not limitation, (i) those improvements, the provision of which are conditions to the Project Approvals, and (ii) the acquisition, dedication and/or construction of easements and facilities described in Section 6 of this Agreement. (g) "Subsequent Applicable Rules" means the rules, regulations, and official policies of the City, as they may be adopted becoming effective after the Effective.Date of this Agreement which, other than as provided for in this Agreement, would govern the development, building codes, grading requirements, improvement and construction standards, density, permitted uses, growth management, environmental considerations, and design criteria applicable to the Project and Project Site. The parties intend the development of the Project and the Project Site 31 1831600 -5- I to be subject to Subsequent Applicable Rules only to the extent specified in paragraph (a) of Section 7 of this Agreement and, provided that any Subsequent Applicable Rule can be applied to the Project Site if the City conducts public hearings and makes reasonable findings basedon the record of the hearing that the failure to apply a Subsequent Applicable Rule will place residents of the City in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or safety, and that such condition, as determined by the Council in its sole discretion cannot otherwise be mitigated in a reasonable manner. (h) "Zoning Ordinance" is the Zoning Ordinance for the City -of Santa Clarita (Title 22 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code) as same exists on the Effective Date. 2. Interest of Developer. The Developer represents to the City that, as of the Effective Date, it owns the Project Site in fee, subject to encumbrances, easements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, and other matters of record. 3. Binding Effect. This Agreement, and all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, shall run with the land comprising the Project Site and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective assigns, heirs, or other successors in interest. 4. Negation of Agency. The Parties acknowledge that, in entering into and performing under this Agreement, each is acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of the other in any respect. Nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or partners nor principal and agent. 5. Development of the Property. The following specific restrictions shall govern the use and development of the Project and the Project Site: (a) "Permitted Uses" The Project Site may only be used for the development of no more than 80 detached, single family residences and related amenities. (b) "Development Standards" All design and development standards applicable to the development -6- 4P%/TBM/AGR132461f 91.1831600 7 of the Project Site shall be in accordance with the Applicable Rules including, by way of example, but not limitation, the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of the Project Approvals as same may be amended or modified in the future by mutual consent, and shall also be in accordance with Subsequent Applicable Rules. If there is a conflict between:any of the Applicable Rules and Subsequent Applicable Rules to be applied, the City Council, in its reasonable discretion, shall determine which shall apply. 6. Acknowledgments, Agreements and Assurances on the Part of the Developer. The parties acknowledge and agree that Developer's faithful performance in developing the Project Site and in constructing and installing public improvements, making payments and providing other benefits in accordance with the Applicable Rules and Public Improvements will fulfill substantial public needs not otherwise obtainable under the Applicable Rules and Public Improvements defined above in Sections 1(a) and (e), respectively. The City acknowledges and agrees that there is good and valuable consideration to the City resulting from developer's assurances and faithful performance thereof and that same is in balance with the benefits conferred by the City on the Project and the Developer by this Agreement as.more particularly described in Section 7 below.. The parties further acknowledge and agree that the exchanged consideration hereunder, each as.to the other, is fair, just and reasonable in that known assurances of development is, among other things, appropriate and reasonable in view of the extraordinary benefits provided to the City by this Agreement. Developer acknowledges that`the consideration is reasonably related to the type and extent of the impacts of the Project on the community and the Project Site, and further acknowledges that said consideration is necessary to mitigate the direct and indirect impacts caused by the development of the Project. In consideration of the foregoing and the City's assurances set out in Section 7 below, Developer hereby agrees as follows: GP%/TBM/AGR132461t (a) Development of the Project Site. Developer Will use reasonable efforts, in accordance with its sole business judgment in taking into consideration market conditions and other economic factors influencing the Developer's business decision to commence or to continue development, to develop the Project Site in accordance with the terms and 91 1831600 -7- J conditions of this Agreement, the conditions of the Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules. (b) School Fees. Concurrent with the issuance.of each unit building permit for a lot within Tract No. 47863, American Landmark shall pay.to the applicable School District a per unit sum in accordance with existing agreements between American Landmark and the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Sulphur Springs Union School District. Said School Districts and the City acknowledge that the amount of such school fees in said Agreements exceed the amount of the current required fee for construction of new school facilities under SB 2926. (c) Easements. The Final Map or phased maps shall describe and depict all easements.including, but not limited to, streets, public utilities, storm drains, cable television, etc, all as are necessary to facilitate the construction or installation of the infrastructure itemized in subparagraph (d) below and, by the recordation of such map or maps convey said easements to the City. Developer.shall use.good faith efforts to acquire and grant to the City certain off -tract easements for streets, drainage, sewers and public utilities in accordance with the Final Map and the conditions thereto approved by the City. In the event Developer is unable to acquire such easements or dedications by negotiation and upon a reasonable showing thereof, the City hereby agrees to acquire same by its power of eminent domain, provided the Developer shall pay the amount of such award and attorneys' fees and costs in the pursuit thereof. (d) Infrastructure, Fees, Dedication, Donations. This subparagraph states the time for and description of Developer performance of certain Project conditions as follows: (1) Subsequent to the commencement of construction of the first phase of Tract 47863 and prior to issuance -of the first certificate of occupancy for American Landmark Tract No. 47863, American Landmark shall have constructed its portion of the access road depicted on Tract 47863 as "A" Street, in furtherance of the public health and safety of those existing residences which presently have only one access road serving their -8- NPX/TBM/AGR132461f 91 1831600 �J entire tract thereby providing emergency secondary access for said existing residential neighborhood in addition toprovidingaccess to the new dedicated park described in subparagraph (d) (3) of this Section 6 and conditioned upon Developer's decision to undertake construction of the Project, American Landmark shall perform as follows:. (a) During the first construction phase of Tract No. 47863, American Landmark shall construct "A" Street as shown on the Tract Map through the Project. (b) Pursuant to Condition No. 68(b) of said Tract Map, American Landmark shall construct "A" Street from White's Canyon Road through its tract to the southwest boundary of Weston Tract No. 46626 located within an existing easement for road and utilities purposes reserved by the City over a portion of the common area of White's Canyon Homeowners' Association. Should the final alignment of said street eventuate in the right of way exceeding the City's said easement, City agrees to cooperate with Weston and American Landmark in acquiring the necessary property interest.to allow for construction and maintenance of said street, which shall provide direct access to White's Canyon Road. (c) If Weston starts residential construction prior to American Landmark, it will also construct a further part of said street completing the access link across American Landmark property to White's.Canyon Road as shown on Tract No. 47863. Prior to the issuance of building permits for its first residential construction phase, American Landmark will reimburse Weston for the actual cost of said street construction done by Weston within Tract No. 47863 plus interest at the Prime Rate of interest as established and changed from time to time by City National Bank, per year on the total cost expended by Weston for said street construction from the date Weston substantially completed said road to the -9- WiX/T3X1AGR132461f 91-1831600 WX/78MACRt32661t date of final payment of reimbursement. The reimbursement obligation provided for in this subparagraph shall be enforced and administered through a separate reimbursement agreement to be prepared by the City and subject to the mutual review and approval of Weston and American Landmark. (2) Prior to the first recordation of final Tract Maps No. 46626 and 47863 or any subphase of either of said Projects, but in no event later than December 31, 1991, Weston and American Landmark, acting together, will dedicate to the City or its designated public agency approximately 28 acres of land, described in Exhibit "H" attached hereto, located west .of White's.Canyon Road for a public park and potential library. This land dedication is acknowledged by the City to exceed; and thereby satisfy in full, Quimby Act requirements for Tract Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 and existing City park standards and policies. (3) Upon issuance of Building Permits, for the first for -sale residences (excepting model homes), for Tract.Map No. 47863 or any subphase thereof, American Landmark shall donate and pay to the City the sum of $199,500.00, plus a sum equal to the increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index calculated for the period from the date the tentative map was approved by the City to the January prior to the issuance of the Building Permits, in cash, which sum is Developer's share of the total of $700,000.00 cash donation to be.made by Developer and Weston to be used for the improvement and purchase of equipment and facil- ities for the.park and library site referred to in subparagraph (2) above. The .City acknowledges that said sum is not a requirement of any City ordin- ance, resolution, policy or Tract Map condition of approval. (4) Concurrent with the construction of the intersection of "All Street and White's Canyon Road, Weston and American Landmark, shall, pay for the cost of construction and installation of the traffic signal at said intersection. (5) Concurrent with the issuance of building permits on a lot by lot basis for each phase of 91 131600 -10- Tract No. 47863, American Landmark.shall pay to the City the sum of $5,300.00, plus a sum equal to the increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index calculated for the period from the date the tentative map was approved by the City to the January prior to the issuance of the Building Permits, for each residential unit permitted. The City acknowledges that said per unit sum exceeds the existing District fee and said amount shall not be subject to increase as long as this Agreement is in effect. (6) City acknowledges that Developer has contributed the cost to process and record a 3 lot parcel map on property currently owned by Mark and Renee Ostrove of which the Ostroves have agreed to donate to the City Lot 3 of said parcel map containing approximately 7 acres in addition to the 28 acre park/library site, described in Exhibit "H" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. City and Developer agree that if the approximately 7 acre site is not dedicated to City by December 31, 1991, this Agreement shall be null and void. (7) Developer shall pay to City the sum of $1,067.62, plus a sum equal to the increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index calculated for the period from the Effective Date to the January prior to the issuance of the Building Permits, per unit at the time of building permit issuance, to be used by City for development construction and mainten- ance of bicycle trails. Nothing herein shall preclude phased recordation of the Tentative Map, phased residential unit construction or supercede Developer's discretion as to the timing and number of units to be constructed. 7. Acknowledgments, Agreements and Assurances on the Part of the City. In order to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement, and as an inducement for the Developer to obligate itself to carry out the covenants and conditions set forth in the preceding Section 6 of this Agreement,and in consideration for the Developer doing so, the City hereby agrees and assures Developer that Developer will be permitted to carry out and complete the development of the Project within the Project Site, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the conditions of the Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules. In furtherance of such OX/TWAGR 132661 f 91 1831600 -11- WPX/18M/AGR132461t agreement and assurances, and pursuant to the authority and provisions set forth in the Government Code and the Santa Clarita Code, the City, in entering -into this Agreement, hereby agrees and acknowledges that: (a) Entitlement to Develop. The Developer is hereby granted the vested right to develop the Project and the Project Site to the extent and in the manner provided in this Agreement, subject to' the conditions of the Project Approvals and in accordance with the Applicable Rules and the Subsequent Applicable Rules upon the City making the findings set forth below in this subparagraph (a) and City hereby finds the Project consistent with the City's adopted plans and policies and the Zoning Ordinance. Any change in the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation,.any change in any applicable general or specific.plan, Zoning Ordinance, growth management regulations, hillside restrictions, design standards or any subdivision regulation of the City, adopted or becoming effective after the Effective Date, shall not be applied by the City to the Project or Project Area. Subsequent Applicable Rules can be applied to the Project Site only if (1) the City determines that the failure of the City to apply Subsequent Applicable Rules will place residents of the City in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or safety, which condition cannot otherwise be mitigated in a reasonable manner and (2) it is applied consistently and evenly to all other residential developments in the City. (b) Consistency With Applicable Rules. City finds, based upon all information made available to City prior to or concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, that there are no Applicable Rules that would prohibit or prevent the full completion and occupancy of the development of the Project and the Project Site in accordance with uses and densities incorporated and agreed to in this Agreement. (c) Rate and Timing of Development. The City acknowledges and agrees that the Developer cannot at this time predict when the Final Map for the Project Site or any recordation phase thereof will record. Further, the City acknowledges and agrees that the Developer cannot at this time predict when, or the rate at which, the Project will be 91 1831600- -12- !4 developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors including, but not limited to, general economics, housing market, financial capability, title, title insurance, interest rates, labor availability and costs, loan availability and terms, lender requirements and other factors which are not within the control of the Developer. The California supreme Court, in Pardee Construction Company v. City of Camarillo, (1984) 37 Cal.3d. 465 held that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development allowed a later adopted initiative, which restricted the timing of development, to prevail over.the agreement of the parties. In order to avoid the effects of that decision, the City acknowledges and agrees that the Developer shall have the right, but not the obligation, to develop the Project, and if developed, to do so in such order and at such rate, and at such times as the Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement or, where not in conflict with this Agreement, any timing or phasing requirements set forth in the Applicable Rules and Project Approvals. (d) Time of Recordation of the Final Map or Phased Maps; Start of Grading. Notwithstanding, the provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the Developer has the sole right and discretion as to the .time of recording the Final Map for all or any phase of the Project and the time to start grading and/or pulling permits for on and off-site works of improvement and building permits during the term of this Agreement. (e) Subsequent Discretionary Actions. With respect to any Discretionary Action or Discretionary Approval that is or may be required subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, the City agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold from .Developer or unreasonably condition or delay any such Discretionary Action or -Discretionary Approval which must be issued by the City in order for the development of the Project Site to proceed to.construction and occupancy in ordinary course. In addition, no condition shall preclude or otherwise limit the Developer's ability to develop the Project and the Project Site in accordance with the timing, density and intensity of use set forth -13- YPX/TBR AGR132461f 91.1831600 WPX/TBM/AGR132461f in this Agreement, unless the City determines that (1) the failure of the City to impose such condition would place residents of the City in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or safety, which condition cannot otherwise be mitigated in a reasonable manner and (2) such condition is applied consistently and evenly to all other residential developments in the City. (f) No Moratoriums. In addition to, and not in limitation of, the foregoing, it is the intent of the Developer and the City that no interim, temporary or permanent moratorium (whether relating to the rate, timing, or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any partof the Project, whether imposed by ordinance, initiative, referendum, resolution, or otherwise, and whether enacted by the City Council, electorate or any agency of the City) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative, or final), building permits, certificates of occupancy, or other entitlements to use or service (including, without limitation, water and sewer) approved, issued or granted within the City, or portions of the City, shall apply to the Project. (g) Term of Tentative Map. As authorized by California Government Code Section 66452.6(a), City shall extend the term of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map up to and including the scheduled Termination Date of this Agreement as set forth in Section 10 below. In extending the duration of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map City shall not impose any additional conditions or fees,. or changes in design, density or other policies, rules or regulations which differ from the original approval of the Project. (h) Cooperation and Implementation. The City agrees that it will cooperate with Developer to the fullest extent reasonable and feasible to implement this Agreement. Upon satisfactory performance by Developer of all required preliminary actions and payments, bonding, or delivery of Letters of Credit pertaining to appropriate fees, the City will commence and in a timely manner proceed to complete all steps necessary for the implementation of this Agreement and the development of the Project and the Project Site in accordance with the terms of 91 1831600 -14- this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the processing and checking of any and all Project approvals, agreements, covenants, applications, and related matters required by this Agreement, building plans and specifications and any other plans necessary for the development of the Property, and the issuance of all necessary buildingpermits, occupancy certificates, or other required permits for the construction, use, and occupancy of the Project Site.. Developer will, in a timely manner, provide the City with all documents, plans, and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. 8. Review of Compliance. (a) Periodic Review. The City shall review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in accordance with the procedure and standards set forth in this Agreement and the Santa Clarita Code in order to ascertain compliance by the Developer with the terms of this Agreement. (b) Special Review. The City Council.of the City may order a special review of compliance with this Agreement at any time. The Community Development Director or the City Council, as determined from time to time by the City Council, shall conduct such special reviews. (c) Procedure. During either a periodic review or a special review, the Developer shall be required to demonstrate good -faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on the Developer. The parties acknowledge that failure by the Developer to demonstrate good faith compliance shall constitute grounds for termination or modification of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. However, once Developer has performed its obligations under Sections 6(E)(2) and 6(E)(3) it shall not be under any further obligation to proceed with development or Final Map recordation. Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the Community Development Director shall submit a report to the City Council setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by the Developer with the terms of this _15- WPVTBM/AG2132661f Agreements and the recommended finding on that. issue.- All compliance reviews shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Sections 22.16.460, 22.16.470, and 22.16.480 of the Santa Clarita Code. However nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to impose an affirmative duty to proceed with development should Developer decide to defer or to temporarily or permanently terminate construction of.the Project. If, on the basis of review of this Agreement, the Community Development Director concludes that the Developer has not complied in'good faith with the terms of this Agreement, then the.Community Development Director may issue a written "Notice of Non-compliance" specifying the grounds therefor and all facts demonstrating such non-compliance. The Developer's failure to cure the alleged non- compliance within thirty (30) days after receipt of said notice, shall constitute a default under this Agreement, subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing. If the nature of the alleged noncompliance is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the commencement of the cure within a reasonable time period and a diligent prosecution to completion of cure shall be deemed a cure within such period. Subject to the foregoing, after notice and expiration of the thirty (30) day period without cure, the City may pursue any remedy available under this Agreement. (d) Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If the City determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement after completing the reviews specified in Sections 22.16.460, 22.16.470, and 22.16.480 of the Santa Clarita Code, the City shall give written notice to the Developer of its intention to modify or terminate this Agreement. Notice shall be given at least sixty (60) calendar days before the scheduled hearing.and shall contain such information as may be reasonably necessary to inform the Developer of the nature of the proceeding. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, the Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The Developer shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance_ with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If the City Council finds, based upon substantial -16- WPX/TBM/AGR132461f 91 1831600 [1 1q evidence, that the Developer has.not reasonably complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the City Council may initiate proceedings to terminate this Agreement. 9. Modification, Amendment, or Cancellation. Subject to meeting the notice and hearing requirements of Section 65867 of the Government Code and the applicable provisions of the Santa Clarita Code, this Agreement may be modified or amended from time to time by mutual consent of the parties to their successors in interest in accordance with the provisions of the Santa Clarita Code and Section 65868 of the Government Code. 10. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall become operative and commence upon the Effective Date and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years, unless said term -is terminated, modified, or extended by circumstance set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the parties hereto. Following the expiration of said term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect; provided, such termination shall not automatically affect any right arising from City approvals on the Project Site prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to.the Effective Date of this Agreement; and provided further, that such termination shall not automatically affect any right the City may have by reason of the Developer's covenants to dedicate land, contribute money or provide public improvements in conjunction with any portion of the Project Site which is under construction at the time of the termination. 11. Remedies For Default. It is acknowledged by the Parties that the City would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to have unlimited liability and damages under this Agreement, or with respect to this Agreement, or the application thereof. 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 the construction is commenced. Moreover, Developer has invested a considerable amount.of time and financial resources in planning the time, location, intensity of use, improvements and structures for the development of the Project Site. For these reasons, the Parties agree that it will not be.possible to determine an amount of monetary damages which would adequately compensate the Developer for this work. Therefore, the Parties agree that monetary damages will not be an adequate remedy for Developer if the City fails to carry out its obligations under this uaW WAGR132G61 f 91 1831600 -17- Agreement. The Parties further agree that the Developer's remedies under this Agreement shall be limited to the right to specifically enforce the terms of this Agreement. The.City's remedies under this Agreement shall also be limited to the right to specifically enforce the terms of this Agreement. In addition to specific performance, if the Developer fails to make any payment or complete any other act or performance specified in this Agreement in•a reasonable -manner, the Developer shall have no further right or entitlement to any building permits or certificates of occupancy for any portion of the Project Site until the default has been cured in accordance with due process and as provided in this Agreement. The Parties recognize that this section may result in the limitation or cessation of the rights otherwise conferred by this Agreement upon the Developer, including any of the Developer's successors, assigns, transferees, or other persons or entities acquiring title to or otherwise acquiring an interest in the Project or any portion thereof. 12. Arbitration. In order to -expedite the resolution.of disputes and default, the parties have elected to submit to binding Judicial Arbitration and Mediation. If the matter in connection with any alleged breach is not resolved in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of breach, either party shall have the right to submit the matter to expedited arbitration. whenever any dispute over enforcement, interpretation or other arises between the parties hereto in connection with this Agreement and.either party gives written notice (the "Notice") to the other that such dispute shall be determined by arbitration, then within thirty (30) days after the giving of the Notice, both parties shall agree upon and hire one member of the panel of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. ("Judge"). The Judge shall be a retired judge experienced with land use, zoning and real estate development matters. As soon as reasonably possible, but no later than thirty (30) days after the Judge is selected, the Judge shall meet with the parties at a location reasonably acceptable to Developer, City and the Judge. The Judge shall determine the matter within ten (10) days after such meeting. Each party shall pay one-half the costs and expenses of the Judge. If Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. ceases to exist, and either party giveswrittennotice to the other that a dispute shall be determined by arbitration, then, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the parties, all arbitrations hereunder shall be governed by the u7x/ WAGR132661f 91 1831600 -18- then -current -rules of the American Arbitration Association. Any determination by arbitration hereunder may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. Within ten (10) days after delivery of such notice, each party shall select an arbitrator with at least five (5) years experience in land use, zoning and real estate development matters and advise the other party of its selection in writing. The two arbitrators so named shall meet promptly and seek to reach a conclusion as to the matter to be determined, and their decision, rendered in writing and delivered to the parties hereto, shall be final and binding on the parties. If said arbitrators shall fail to.reach a decision within ten (10) days after the appointment of the second arbitrator, said arbitrates shall name a third arbitrator within the succeeding period of five (5) days. Said three (3) arbitrators thereafter shall meet promptly for consideration of the matter to be determined and the decision of any two (2) of said arbitrators rendered in writing and delivered to the parties hereto shall be final and binding upon the parties. If either party fails to appoint an arbitrator within the prescribed time, and/or if either party fails to appoint an arbitrator with the qualifications specified herein, and/or if any two (2) arbitrators are unable to agree upon the appointment of a third arbitrator within the prescribed time, then the Superior Court of Los Angeles County may, upon the request of any party, appoint such arbitrators, as the case may be, and the arbitrators as a group shall have the same power and authority to render a final and binding decision as where the.appointments are made pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph. All costs of any arbitration shall be borne by the party which does not prevail in that arbitration. All determinations by arbitration hereunder shall be binding upon Developer and City. 13. Administration of Agreement and Resolution of Disputes. All decisions by the City staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement and the Project which is the subject hereof are appealable to the City Council and all like decisions by the City Council shall be final but subject to the.arbitration provisions set forth in Section 12 herein and shall also be subject to judicial review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. ' 14. Assignment. The rights of the Developer under this Agreement may be transferred or assigned in whole or in part by the Developer upon prior written notice to the YPX/TBM/AGR132461f 91 1831600 -19- City. Express assumption of any of the Developer's obligations under this Agreement by any such assignee shall relieve the Developer from such obligation. 15. 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: If to City: City of Santa Clarita Attention: City Manager 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 With a Copy to: Carl K. Newton, Esq. Burke, Williams & Sorensen 611 West Sixth Street Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 If to Developer: L. Thomas.MC Fadden American Landmark Development, Inc. White's Canyon Associates 232 East Canon Perdido Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 With a copy to: Charles W. Cohen, Cohen, Alexander One Boardwalk Suite 102 Thousand oaks, CA Esq. & Clayton 91360 16. Severability and Termination. If any provision of this Agreement should be determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, or if any provision of this Agreement is superseded or rendered unenforceable according to any law which becomes effective.after the Effective Date, the remainder of this Agreement shall be effective to the extent the -remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform, taking intoconsideration the purposes of this Agreement. 17. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. 4P%/TRM/AGR132461f 91.1831600 -20- 18. Amendment or Cancellation. Subject to meeting the notice and hearing requirements of Section 65867 of the Government Code, this Agreement may be amended from time to time, or cancelled in whole or in part, -by mutual consent of the parties.or their successors in interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 64868 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. 19. Force Majeure. In the event of changed conditions, changes in local, state or federal laws or regulations, inclement weather, delays due to strikes, inability.to.obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, acts of god, or other circumstances.which substantially interfere with carrying out the Project, as the Project has been approved by way of the existing approvals, or with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, the parties agree to bargain in good faith to modify such obligations to achieve the goals and preserve the original interest of this Agreement. 20. 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 refers expressly to an occurrence or event to be deemed waived or such a waiver effect a waiver of any right or remedy in respect of any other occurrence or event. 21. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this -Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, and subsequent owner 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 Section 64865.4 and 64868.5 of the Government Code. 22. Interpretation and Governing 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 plain language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, The rule of construction that ambiguities are to be resolved 4PX/TBM/AGR132461f 91.1831600 -21- 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. Attorneys Fees. If either Party commences any action for the interpretation, enforcement, termination, cancellation or rescission of this Agreement, or for specific performance for the breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 26. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to bean original and each of which shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument when each Party signs each such counterpart. 27. Incorporation of Attachments. All attachments to this Agreement, including Exhibits A through H, and all subparts thereto, are incorporated herein by this reference. 28. Successor Statutes Incorporated. Subject to the terms of this Agreement in general.and Section 29 below in particular, 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. WP%/TBM/ACR132461f 91- -1631600 -22- 29. Entire Agreement;.Conflicts. This Agreement consists of 18 pages and 8 Exhibits which constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. The exhibits are as follows: Exhibit "A" - Map of the Project Site: Exhibit "B" - Legal Description of the Project Site. Exhibit "C" - The Project Approvals. Exhibit "D" - Phasing Plan. Exhibit "E" - Applicable Rules. Exhibit "F" - Development Fee Schedule. Exhibit "G" - Zoning Ordinance. Exhibit "H" - Park/Library Site Legal Description Should any or all of the provisions of this Agreement be found to be in conflict with any other provision or provisions found in the Project Approvals, Applicable Rules, Subsequent Applicable Rules.or Zoning Ordinance then the provision(s) of this Agreement shall prevail. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we affix any signatures hereto the date first written above. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Dated: A(C-1• 7 , 1991 By: l/Q.}�/ ,.Mayor ATTEST: ity Clerk AMERIC LANDMARK DEV ENT, INC., A California corporation n 1 Dated: !ISN s , 1991 By: L.Y Mark Holland, Presiden ll 91 1831600 -23- WP%/i8M/AGR132461f WHITE'S CANYON ASSOCIATES, LTD., A California limited partnership Dated: • J 1 , 1991 BY: American Landmark Development, Inc., General Partner By: Mark Holland; Presi'dent WP%/T8N/AC1t132661f 91 1831600 -24- STATE OF CALIFORNIA -11 h� SS. f �,t��%J.C!%� COUNTY OF Onthis ^ dayoflyL'�"rnlbr• 19 ,before me, , the undersi allotaryCpubuc/m for sa county state Pen°°ally �7C.!'F- %7� 91 1831600 a. a� d` appeared personally known to me (o deace) to be the President, end . iay OFMAL SEAL RHONDA LEE LEDSON th�H ° NOtaa1' PUBLIC CXIfOR" the corporate that executed the within instce) toe and - e)to be the y' PAABARL RA CO IN ;y- sutra BANBWA23. caknown to me who executed the within instrument on behalf of said corporation, VI Caeilentltn 60. Feb.ek. 21 190.1 o persons said corporation being known m me to be one of the partners of _— mstrument, and acknowledged that tTie partnership that exec ted the wuthm executed the same as such partner and that such h h' such corporation partnership executed- WITNESS my d an (ficial seal ✓ Sips, NamedNamed do FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP Q w WP%/T8N/AC1t132661f 91 1831600 -24- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY r /I On this S . day of /� «•...r E� Y in the year 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for said State and County, personally appeared Z��e'Gc..: personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of % satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument asiyl ( CZAof the City of Santa Clarita R— and acknowledged that t e City of Santa Clarita executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. r 3� OF [C:AL SEAL Notary Public: _� -t_� /1"1211.2 " l '_' y GERI K. DAVIS 3_'C • CA!P-'!"1A IJ !,,,, r I,::. •'I'.3 AP '1294 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF -5i11 -i% ��,,� On this > day ofI ✓I. PO -4 in the year 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and.for said State and County, personally appeared Mark Holland, personally known to me (or proved to me-on--thaL hasis CLE. sat-ia -or-y-evldeneo to be the.person who executed this instrument as the President of American Landmark Development Corporation and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors. . WITNESSan and ffic' 1 seal. Notary Pubi- WPX/T8M/AGR132461} OFFICIAL SEAL RHONDA LEE LEDSON ate' NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA { PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN I� SANTA BARBARA COUNT At, Commie nE1P Fe: 23. 1::: -25- ,�l STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF On this day of in the year 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for said State and County, personally appeared Mark'Holland, personally known to me (or-ntoved to mP on the basis of }t- rsfao rp--en-idrnee) to be the person who executed this instrument as the President of American Landmark Development Corporation as General Partner of White's Canyon Associates, the partnership that executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument as such General Partner pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors. Notary 91 1831600 seal. OFFICIAL SFX RHONDA LEE LEDSON amu. NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY My Commium EAP. Feb. 23. 1993 -26- UPR/TBM/AGR132461f SK 28'2 TR A C T N 0 3 8 9 9 0 O~ � N Q BK m 2801 SMT ♦ 2 ey ♦ ♦ a�NO N SK 2806 ^ +�"�M B 124 29 PG 37 91 1831600 1030 - 35 POR NE 1/4 SEC 17 Uil t T 4 N R 15 W PG 2 PG 35 ARVIEW OR j N v N Z U2 � �= TTM 46626 I - P. PZ 89-002 1 t2 / VTTM 47863 u a 4 N 9 U2 U IM cry 2 U2 nn -u 2 =U3 U --.N2 NI N2 UI PROJECT SITE I Ni <—WESTON CITY OF SANTA H M U2 � AMERICAN LMJDMARK —> - - U3 H M PROPOSED PARKSITE --` C NI .F \ c W/ S C,L / _ u3 W U3 M U.2... L31P �-- 3... I U 2 // U4. i O u U / NSOIEDAD / P • c M I C23 CYN P U2 i C wiS U S nt(� a ;' 4 I'S6j I u a U3•M p U5 U3 Sp \ U3 C �.'• 91 1831600 p HIM . atm 5* �r NI H M �� H M The land referred to in this Report is situated in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and is described as follows: PARCEL 1: The Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 4 North, Range 15 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, according to the official plat of said land. EXCEPT therefrom that portion of said land lying Southwesterly of the Northeasterly line of the land described in Parcel 5-2 part "A" of the final decree of condemnation entered in Superior Court of Los Angeles County Case No. 119810 a certified copy of which was recorded on February 8, 1977, as Instrument No. 77-139406, Official Records of said County. ALSO EXCEPT therefrom therefrom '50 per center of all .oil, gas, minerals and other hydrocarbons substances lying in and under said land within the right of surface entry, as reserved by Blance Nelson by deed recorded July 10, 1956, as Instrument No. 709, Official Records. PARCEL 2: That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 4 North, Range 15 West, San, Bernardino Meridian, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, according to the official plat of said land, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 17, thence along the Easterly line of said Section South 0 degrees 22' 28" East to the most Southerly Northwest line of Lot -29 of Tract 28043, as per map recorded in Book 758, Pages 95 to 100 inclusive of maps, records of said County; thence along said line -South 73 degrees 32, 50" West 14.80 feet to the Northeasterly line of the land described in Parcel 5-2 part "A" of the final decree of condemnation entered in Superior Court of Los Angeles County Case No. 119810 a certified copy of which was recorded on February 8, 1977, as Instrument No. 77-139406, official Records of said County; thence Northwesterly along said last mentioned line to the Northerly line of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 17; thence Easterly along said line to the point of beginning. EXCEPT therefrom 50 per cent of all oil, gas, minerals and other hydrocarbon substances lying in and under said land with the right of surface entry, as reserved by Blance Nelson by deed recorded July 10, 1956, as Instrument No. 709, Official Records. 91 1831600 1 7. RESOLUTION NO. 90-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT.MAP NO. 47863 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows: a. An application for a vesting tentative tract map was filed with the City of Santa Clarita, June 5, 1989, by American Landmark Development, Inc. ('the applicant'). The property for which _this entitlemecic-kas been filed is a 32 -acre parcel located on Whites Canyon Road approximately 600 feet northwest of the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street. The site is zoned A-1-10,000. The purpose of the vesting tentative tract map application is to create 80 lots within the subject site for single family residential units. Assessor Parcel No. 2802-001-037. b. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on October 26, 1989 and supplied the applicant's agent with recommended conditions of approval. C. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1989, continued to January 16, 1990, and February 20, 1990, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. d. On March 20, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P90-16, conditionally approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47863. e. An appeal was filed by Karen Holder on March 30, 1990 which was within the appropriate period to file an appeal. £. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 24,.1990 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia, Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. At the request of the applicant the hearing was continued to a date certain on May 22, 1990. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds and determines as follows: a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a general plan. There is a_reasonable probability that this.project will be consistent with the general plan proposal currently being considered and studied, that there ig mottle or no probability of substantial detriment 91 1831 or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed resolution is ultimately inconsistent with that plan, and that the proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. b. The division and development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject parcel map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/or public utility right-of-way and/or easements within the parcel map. C. Approval of this vesting tentative tract map will expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of -approval. d. The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative tract map which depicts the atoa proposed for the SO lots within the subject site. e. The design of the subdivision and the,type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems, since sewage disposal, storm drainage, fire protection, and geological and soils factors are addressed in the recommended conditions of approval. The discharge of sewage from the subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements prescribed by the California Regional Vater Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Vater Code. f. The subject property is of a size and shape which lends itself to the proposed use. g. The recommended subdivision will not result in a significant environmental effect. h. Implementation of this proposal will cause no adverse effects in the environment which cannot, be adequately mitigated through the application of available controls. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wild life or their habitat, since the project site is not located in a mapped significant ecological area. i. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with surrounding lot sizes. j. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision given the size and shape of the lots and their intended use. k. The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake or. reservoir. 1. ' The housing needs of the region were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents. ,1 ` 91 1831600 r M. Neither the design of the subdivision nor the type of improvements will conflict with public easements for access through the use of property within the proposed subdivision, since the design and development as set forth in the conditions of approval and on the tentative map, provides adequate protection for easements. n. The subject property is in a proper location for single family residential uses. o. The City Council finds that satisfactory evidence has been provided, in accordance with Section 21.24.100 of the municipal code, that a lower street grade is not possible. The maximum street grade proposed is 12 1/2Z. p. The.applicant:has requested a reduction in lot area in accordance with Section 21.24.260 of the municipal code. Accordingly, the City Council makes the following findings required of Section 21.24:250A., 1. That due to sloping terrain, the topographic features within the division of land will be better utilized if a portion of the lots in such division are less in area than the applicable designation; and 2. That a final map or parcel map of the division of land or any'part thereof will not be filed unless the average area of all lots on such map or maps is not less than the applicable zoning designation; and 3. That the lots having a reduced area will be compatible in design to the design of adjacent facing and siding lots of abutting development; and 4. That all lots which are not reduced in area shall comply with Subsection A of Section 21.24.240. SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, and determines that it is in compliance with CEQA and that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. A negative declaration was prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated above, the City Council hereby approves the negative declaration. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves the application for the vesting tentative tract map subject to following conditions attached hereto as "Exhibit 1' and incorporated herein by reference allowing the creation of 80 lots for single family residential uses. 9-1 1831600 SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit a copy -to the applicant, the Departments of Public Works, Fire, and Parks and Recreation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of Ma 1990. ATTEST: C erk VC-1-Ma-d' "JIM I 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 22nd day of May 1990, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: Councilmembers: Boyer, Rlajic, McRecn, Darcy NOES: Councilmembers: Beidt ABSENT: Councilmembers: Nate ID 32 91.1831600 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47863. GENERAL CONDITIONS Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47863 (the "VTTM") shall expire two years from the date of its conditional approval. The applicant (as hereinafter defined) may file for an extension of the VTTM by filing an application for extension at least 60 days' prior to expiration of the VTTM. Said extension shall not exceed a period of one year. 3. Within 30 days of any .change in the status of the applicant or upon designation of a new engineer, the applicant (as hereinafter defined) shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community Development, in writing, of any such change. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set. aside, void, or annul the approval of this Subdivision by the City, which action is provided for in the Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: (1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and (2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the entitlement is approved by the applicant. Details shown on the VTTM are not necessarily approved. Any details which are. inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, these general conditions of approval, or City policies must be specifically approved. 91 1831600 Page 1 The subject property shall be subject to fees, at the rate being charged by the City at the time the applicant seeks building permit issuance, including but not limited to (1) Los Angeles County Residential Sewer Connection Fee; (2) Interim School Facilities Financing Fee; (3) Installation, or Upgrade of Traffic Signals Fees; and (4) Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fee. This condition specifically does not address bridge and thoroughfare district fees, which are covered by Condition No. 67. 7. During construction of the improvements upon the property which is the subject of this land division, a stop -work order shall be considered in effect immediately upon the discovery of any- historic artifacts and/or remains, at which time the City shall be immediately notified of the discovery. Said stop -work order shall remain in effect until City terminates said order, which shall not be unreasonably prolonged. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures on each lot at this time, the applicant shall develop the property in conformance with the City Code and other appropriate ordinances, including but not limited to the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Water Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and- Fire Code. Improvements and other requirements may be imposed by the Department of Community Development and the Department of Public Works pursuant to such codes and ordinances. A grading permit shall be required for any and all off-site grading which is done for the purposes of developing the property covered by these conditions. 10. The applicant shall make .the required deposit to the City prior to City review of documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 11. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. 12. Easements shall be granted to the City, or other 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. 13. The applicant shall adjust, relocate and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements, grading, geotechnical - protective devices, and/or physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the date the County determined the application to be complete, all of which shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 91 1831600 page 2 PUBLIC WORKS-- ENGINEERING CONDITIONS Sap Requirements 14. All easements existing at the time of final map approval must be accounted for on the approved tentative map, including but not limited to the location, owner, purpose, and recording reference for all existing easements. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the tentative map in lieu of its location. If all easements have not been accounted for on the VTTX at the time final map approval is sought, the applicant shall submit a corrected tentative map to.the City Engineer for approval. 15. All offers of dedication shall be noted by.certificate on the face of the final map. 16. The final map shall be prepared by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. 17. The final map must be approved by the City Engineer before filing with the County Recorder. 18. The applicant shall quit claim or relocate existing easements which would otherwise underlie or run through proposed structures. 19. If the applicant intends to file multiple final maps, he must so inform the Department of Public Works and the Department of Community Development at the time the tentative map is filed. The boundaries of each unit of the final map shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Department of Community Development. 20. If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map, a preliminary guarantee shall be required for each record title owner. A final guarantee shall be required for each record title owner at the time of filing the final map. If said signatures do not appear on the final map, a title report/guarantee shall be provided showing all fee owners and interest holders and this account. must remain open until the parcel map is filed with the County Recorder. 21. The applicant shall grant to the City or other 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.. Page 3 91 1831600 Road Improvements 22. Local street(s) shall be aligned so that the central angles of the right-of-wayradius returns do not differ by more than 10 degrees. 23. The applicant shall provide letter(s) guaranteeing the dedication of slope easement(s) and drainage.acceptance by the applicant and the adjacent homeowners respectively, as. required by the City Engineer or Director Public works. 24. The applicant shall provide at least 40 feet of frontage at the front property line between radial lot lines for each lot fronting an a cul-de-sac or knuckle. 25. The applicant shall be required to install distribution lines and individual service lines for community antanna television service (CATV) for each lot in the subject property. 26. The applicant shall place above ground utilities including, but not limited to, fire hydrants, junction boxes and street lights, outside of the sidewalk. 27. The applicant shall install mailboxes and. posts for each lot on the subject property per City standards. Approval of the U.S. Postal Service shall be secured prior to installation of mailboxes and posts. 28. Existing trees in dedicated right-of-way or right-of-way to be dedicated shall be removed if they are not acceptable .as street trees. The determination as to the acceptability of existing street trees shall be made in the sole discretion of the Director of Parks and Recreation. 24. The applicant shall be required to plant street trees to City standards and specifications unless this condition has been waived by the Director of Parks and Recreation because, in his sole discretion, sufficient trees have been placed within an abutting landscaped setback. The applicant shall contact the City Department of Parks and Recreation for street tree location, species, and approved method of installation and irrigation. 30. The applicant shall not grant or record any easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other areas intended to be used by the public or restricted in use until after the final map is filed with the County- Recorder ountyRecorder unless such easements are subordinated, in writing, by the easement holder to the proposed -grant or dedication. 91 1831600 Page 4 N 31. The applicant, by agreement with the City- Engineer or Director of Public Works, may guarantee installation of improvements as deemed necessary by the City Engineer or Director of Public Works through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. 32. Off-site improvements may be required for "A" Street if in the sole discretion of the Director of Public Works such off-site improvements are necessary. 33. Where off-site grading and street improvements are required, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire the necessary right-of-way and/or easements, provided, however, that the provisions of Government Code Section 66462.5 shall be applicable. 34. The centerlines of all local streets shall be aligned without creating. jogs of less than 150 feet. A one foot jog may be used where a street changes width from 60 feet to a 58 foot right-of-way. 35. The centerline radius of each street with (1,) a grade in excess of 10%, or (2) a distance of 40 feet between curbs shall be a minimum of 350 feet. 36. The design of local streets shall have a minimum centerline curve radii which will provide centerline curves to 100 feet minimum length; provided, however, that reversing curves need not exceed a radius of 1,500 feet and no curve need exceed a radius of 3,000 feet. The length of curve outside of the beginning of curb return shall be used to satisfy the 100 foot minimum requirement. 37. The minimum centerline radius on a local street with an intersecting street on the concave side should comply with design speeds per Road Section's "Requirements for Street Plans" and sight distances per the current standards of the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. 38. Street grades shall be permitted in excess of 10% at the following location: "S" Street between "A" Street and "C" Street, not to exceed 12.5%. 39. The design for intersections of local streets with General Plan .Highways shall provide sight distance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additional right-of-way dedication and/or grading may be required. 40. The design for intersections of local streets shall provide sight distances to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additional right-of-way dedication and/or grading may be required. 91 1831600 Page 5 41. The central angles of the right-of-way radius returns shall not differ by more than 10 degrees on local streets. 42. The applicant shall provide standard property line return radii of (1) 13 feet shall be provided at all local street intersections, including intersections of local streets with General Plan Highways, (2) 27 feet where all General Plan Highways intersect, or (3) standard property line return radii which are satisfactory to the Department of Public Works. 43. Compound curves are. preferred over broken -back curves, but broken -back curves, where used, shall be separated by a minimum of 200 feet tangent (1,000 feet for multi -lane highways). 44. The applicant shall construct drainage_ improvements and offer for dedication easements needed for street drainage or slopes. 45. The applicant shall construct full width sidewalks at all sidewalk returns. 46. The applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement on streets within or abutting the subdivision as required by the Department of Public Works. 47. The applicant shall construct a- slough wall outside the street right-of-way when the height of slope is. greater than 5 feet above the sidewalk and the sidewalk is adjacent to the street right-of-way. 48. The applicant shall provide and install street name signs prior to occupancy of the first unit in the subject property. 44. The applicant shall dedicate to the City, for public use, vehicular access right on Whites Canyon Road, unless construction of a wall is required. If the construction of a wall is required, the applicant shall.dedicate to the City for public use, complete access rights. 50. Driveways shall not be constructed within 25 feet upstream of any catch basin on a street with a grade in excess of 6%. Page 6 91 1831600 51. The applicant shall construct the following required road improvements: Street Curb & Street Street Name Width utter Pavina Lights Trees Sidewalk C,D,E,F,G 58 FT. X X X X X a 60 FT. X K X X X A 64 and 80 FT. X K X X X 52. The offer for Future Street and for Nearview Drive must be accepted prior to recording the final map if it is not already, a dedicated street. The temporary turnaround on Nearview Drive shall be eliainated and curb, gutter, base, pavement and sidewalk shall be constructed. WATER CONDITIONS 53. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, including fire hydrants of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land division. Domestic flows required for the land division are to be determined in, the sole discretion of the City Engineer or Director of Public Works. Fire flows required are to be determined in the sole discretion of the Fire Chief. 54. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the proposed development, the applicant shall file with the City Engineer a statement from the water purveyer indicating that the water system will be operated by, and water service will be provided to, the project' by the purveyor and that under normal operating conditions, the system will meet the requirements for the land division, and that water service will be provided to each lot. 55. The applicant shall provide all documents or materials necessary to substantiate to the City's satisfaction that there is an adequate water supply and a firm commitment from the water purveyor that. the necessary quantities of water will be available to the proposed development. SEWER CONDITIONS 56. The applicant shall submit an area study to determine whether capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outlet for the sewers in this land division. If the system is found to have insufficient capacity, the problem must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to .the issuance of the first building permit. LL 91 1831600 Page 7 57. The applicant shall, prior to the issuance of the first building permit for this land division or at such time as required by the Director of Public Works, (1) install and offer for dedication the local main line sewers and separate house laterals to serve each lot of the land division, or (2) have on file with the City a City approved and bonded sewer plan which provides in detail for the installation and dedication of the -main line sewer and separate house laterals to serve each lot of the land division. Determination of whether or not the applicant shall install and dedicate the above -required improvements or file a plan and bond shall be in the sole discretion of the Director of Public Works. 58. An hydrology study shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Director of Public Works prior. to filing the final map. GRADING, DRAINAGE. AND GEOLOGY CONDITIONS 59. A grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to approval of the final map. 60. The grading plan required by these conditions must be based on a detailed engineering Geotechnical report and must be specifically approved by the City's geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by. them. The grading plan shall agree with the tentative map and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission. All buttresses shown on the grading plan to be in excess of 25 feet high shall be accompanied by calculations. 61. Because portions of this project are within a mapped landslide area, (1) all geologic hazards associated with the development proposed for this land division must be eliminated, or (2) the applicant shall delineate a restricted use area approved by the consultant geologist to the satisfaction of the Geology and Soils Section of the City Public Works Department and dedicate to the City by legal means approved by the City Attorney the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use areas. 91 1831600 Page 8 62. Because portions of the property lying in and adjacent to natural drainage courses are subject to flood hazard because of overflow, inundation, and debris flows and because portions of the property are •subject to sheet overflow and ponding and high velocity scouring action, the applicant shall provide, prior to filing the final map, drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with the following requirements which shall be to the satisfaction of, and be approved by, the Director -of Public Works: (a) Provide for the proper distribution of drainage; and (b) Provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard and dedicate and show necessary easements and/or rights-of-way on -the final map and show on the final map the City's/Flood Control District's right-of-way. for stormdrains. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the right-of-way or facilities; and (c) 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; and (d) Comply with the requirements of the approved drainage concert to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 63. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Director of Public Works, a final geotechnical and soil report. That report shall be based upon adequate test borings or excavations, and shall: (1) describe any soil or geologic condition(s) which, if not corrected,might lead to structuraldamage or slope failure; and (2) recommend action likely to prevent structural damage or slope failure. A soil expansion index test. shall be required and shall be done in accordance with the procedures of Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2. 64. A drainage benefit assessment district shall, be established and ratified prior to recordation of the final map to insure the continued maintenance of any drainage improvements and subdrains. The, first year's maintenance costs shall be paid by the applicant prior to approval of the final map. 65. The applicant shall include in covenants, conditions and restrictions applicable to the subject land division - notifications to homeowners of all recommendations and requirements of the geotechnical engineer. 66. The applicant shall construct the project in compliance with the required and approved drainage plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 91 1831600 Page 9 PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONDITIONS 67. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall pay a bridge and thoroughfare fee in the amount of $5,300 per dwelling unit. Said fee amount shall be fixed for the duration of the VTTM approval. 68. The following traffic mitigations shall be required by the applicants for both this VTTX,and VTTM No. 46626. Costs for these requirements shall be assessed for each of the two tracts as follows: (a) On a 50/50 basis, a traffic signal with appropriate signs and street striping shall be installed at the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and "A" Street. (b) On a pro rata basis, "A" Street shall be extended between the boundaries of Tentative Tract :lap Nos. 46626 and 47863 to complete acontinuous length from Whites Canyon Road to the easterly boundary of the VTTM. This shall include acquisition of right-of-way between the two tracts including off-site easement for future public streets and off-site grading necessary to accommodate -the proposed street. (c) On a pro rata basis, peak -hour parking restrictions .;hall be installed on Whites Canyon Road on -both the east and west sides, north of Nadal Street for which the applicant shall provide and install signage and/or striping as determined in the sole discretion of the City's Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall stripe the approach and departure lanes to the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street (within the existing right-of-way) by restriping and shall provide and install any related signing of the northbound and southbound approaches to Whites Canyon Road to provide one additional northbound and southbound lane. All work shall beffunded by the applicant and completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 64. The applicant may use the non -alternate street section only with the approval of the Director of Parks & Recreation, the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. RE CONDITION 70. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as Fire Zone 4 and future construction shall comply with applicable Code requirements. 91 1831600 Page 10 _r 71. The applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the map to be recorded. All fire hydrants for the subject property shall have a fire flow over and above maximum daily domestic use of 1,250 gallons per minute @ 20 psi for a duration of two hours. 72. The applicants shall provide and install 9 Public Fire Hydrants which shall each meet the measure 6"x 4"x 2 1/2", be made of brass or bronze and conform to current American Water Works Association Standard C503 or approved equal. 73. All hydrants shall. be installed a minimum of 25' from a structure or where a structure is -a distance less than 25' from a fire hydrant that structure shall be protected by a two hour fire wall as per map on file, or as othe;,rise approved by the Fire Department. 74. The applicant shall provide Fire Department and City approved street signs, and building address numbers prior to occupancy. 75. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access to the required. fire hydrants must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. 76. The applicant shall participate in an apprcpriate financing mechanism to provide funds for fire protection facilities which are required by new commercial, industrial or residential development, in an amount proportionate to the demand created by this project. PARRS AND RECREATION CONDITIONS 77. An in -lieu park and recreation fee, or dedication of park land, as determined by the City, or a.combination of the two shall be required prior to approval of the final map and in accordance with the Municipal Code. 78. Either a special landscape maintenance assessment district - or a homeowner' s. association (a "HOA") shall be formed to have the responsibility and authority to maintain all slopes, and street trees if the non -alternate street section is used, in the land division including, but not limited to, landscaping, irrigation and street trees. The formation of a landscape assessment district or HOA must be disclosed in real estate documents to homeowners. 79. The applicant shall provide access to, and egress from, slopes which are to be maintained by a Landscape Assessment District or HOA by the dedication of easements or other legal means satisfactory to the City Attorney. Page 11 91.1831600 80. Median landscaping improvements shall be made to the medians from adjacent to the tract frontage on Whites Canyon Road to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks & Recreation. MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITION 81. Three copies of a landscape plan and fencing plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Community Development and the Director of Parks and Recreation prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall show size, type, location of all plants, trees, and water facilitiesand locations dimensions, and details .of the project fencing and/or walls and shall be in conformity with the following standards: (a) Fencing for each lot shall be provided in the form of a decorative masonry block wall, with a cap, at a height of six (6) feet, or other materials as approved by the Director of Community Development. (b) View lots may be fenced using a combination of a base fencing of three (3) courses of masonry with wrought iron the remainder of the distance to the six (6) feet height. Masonry pilasters shall be provided at theintersection of a rear property with a side property line. Lots to be fenced as view lots shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. (c) Fencing for each lot shall end at tl:e end of the pad for each lot. All remaining slope areas shall be fenced to give the appearance of a. single open space lot. (d) Entrances to side yards shall be constructed of masonry wall and wooden gates. No wrought iron shall be permitted at side yard entries except a side yard entry which is not visible from the street. 82. Prior to occupancy, landscaping and fencing for the tract shall be provided and installed in conformity with the landscape and fencing plans. 83. A subdivision entry sign may be permitted in accordance with Section 22.52.970(b) of the Municipal Code and may be incorporated into tract fencing and landscaping. 84. The existing oak tree on the site shall be incorporated into future landscaping of the .tract, and shown on the landscape plan. During grading and construction, that oak tree shall be appropriately protected. No work shall be permitted within the protected zone which shall be in conformity with City standards (5 feet from the dripline). Page 12 91 1831600 �I 85. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the specific zoning for the subject property unless provisions to the contrary are set forth in any approval issued with respect to the development of the subject property or shown on the approved tentative map. Any deviation from zoning requirements shall be made only with the proper approval. 86. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the tentative map. 87. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed with the Director of Community Development their affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree to accep--, all of the.conditions of this grant. 88. Any violation of any condition hereof or of any law, statute, or ordinance applicable to this land division and the development of the subject property shall result in suspension of the entitlement granted hereby and lapse of all privileges granted hereunder; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to cease: such violation for a period of 30 days following the giving of such notice. 89. Pursuant to approval and agreement of the applicant, final map approval shall not be granted until the applicant enters into an agreement for school mitigation with the William S. Hart Union High School District, the Saugus Union School District and the Sulphur:Springs Union School District. 90. Prior to submitting the fencing and landscaping plans required above, the applicant shall solicit from the existing property owners whose property abuts the southerly boundary of the subject property for opinions and comments of those homeowners regarding the location, design and materials to be used in the construction of the walls, landscaping and irrigation on the subject property which lies immediately adjacent to those existing homes. 91 1831600 Page 13. 91. Prior to occupancy, a traffic study shall' be conducted by the City in the existing neighborhood to the east of the subject property to determine if any additional traffic controls are required. The cost of the study and controls deemed required shall he borne by the applicant. Additional controls which may -be required by the City as a resolution of the traffic study may include, but shall not be limited to, any necessary signal modifications at the intersections of whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street, and potential use of speed bumps or humps or raised ceramic pavement markers. Property owners within 400feet of the eastern boundary of the subject property shall be notified by the City of the results of the study. 92. Prior to commencement of any grading, the applicant shall hire, at applicant's cast, an inspector to inspect each home and property within 400' of the eastern boundary of this land division, from whose owner the applicant receives a written request so to do, to help determine its existing conditions and to create a bench mark by which to determine if any grading on the applicant's tract cause any damage to the adjacent existing .homes. Any damage determined to be caused by the applicant will be repaired at the applicant's expense. CITY COUNCIL AMENDED CONDITION (5-22-90) In implementing this condition, the City will send copies of the final conditions approved for this project to each property owner within 400' of the project, as set forth above. The City shall include a cover letter explaining the purpose of the documents and the owner's right to request inspection per this condition. A form will be included which property owners will be invited to return as a request for inspection. The results of all inspections performed by the applicant shall be made available to the City. Upon their receipt, the City shall notify each property owner who returned the form that the results have been filed with the City and shall make these results available to individual property owners who may, if they chose, obtain a copy of their own inspection report. All property owners will in addition have access to public information on file. 91 1837 604 Page 14 ►L 93. X monitoring system for ground movement shall be established within the off -site. tract street and sidewalk network to establish a baseline reference six (6) months prior to commencement of any proposed grading activity. Such monitoring shall continue through the grading process until the grading is completed, within five hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. Thereafter, such monitoring shall continue for a period of six (6) months following the completion of grading activity in said area. Said monitoring system shall be read and examined once a month. The survey points shall be established in an area within five hundred (500) feet of the tract boundaries. In addition to the monitoring devices required above, the applicant shall establish survey monitoring points along its southern tract boundaries near the off-site property corners three (3) months prior to the commencement of grading activity. These survey points shall be read on a monthly basis until such time as construction activity commences. Thereafter, these survey points shall. be read once per week until such time as grading activity is completed within five hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. The survey points shall then be read. on a monthly basis for a period of six (6) months following completion of said area. 94. Prior to the commencement of the monitoring required by conditions noted above, the applicant shall notify the City. The applicant shall make all survey data and monitoring results available to the City of Santa Clarita, to its representatives, and to the applicant's consultants for the purpose of analysis and review. 95. Prior to the commencement of grading, and as soon as practicable, the applicant shall hydroseed all places where plant life has been removed from the easterly slope of the site during the exploratory trenching completed on February 3, 1990. 96. During grading of the site, small equipment shall be used within five hundred (500) feet of any existing residences to minimize vibration. Any excessive vibration may be reported to the City which may recommend additional mitigation measures. 97. Subject to written approval from the property owner of the residence at 28135 Foxlane Drive, the applicant shall be permitted to enter the property to correct a localized surficial slump in the vicinity of the rear yard of that property. It is recognized that, to accomplish the task outlined herein, the applicant will require access through two adjacent properties at 28129 and 28143 Foxlane Drive and that written permission of the owners of those properties will be required to ingress and egress to the slump area described above. Page 15 91 1831600 98. To reasonably insure the safety of the adjacent property during the grading process, the applicant shall install two chain link fences, one- near and surrounding any portion of the subject property upon which the applicant is grading and another near the property line of the subject property with adjacent homes. The fence shall be designed to perform beyond normal standards in protecting adjacent homes from the results of grading. Such fences shall require approval by the Department of Public Works before installation. hbl�)iui�I.Ff+t�Nl�[fi� � • • ��I�I�fe��llFiliI��f��Zii� 99. The applicant shall comply prescribed in the biological dated January 8, 1990. with the mitigation measure resources report for the site � � �1T+�+�di �ti 1 � • • � . �Ii3����IiIit�II�I�� 100. During grading and construction, no traffic shall be permitted ingress and egress the site via Foxlane Drive, Nearview Drive, Tambora Drive or Bakerton Avenue. All vehicles entering the site shall be required to use Whites Canyon Road as the point of ingress and egress. CITY COUNCIL NEW CONDITIONS (5-22-901 101. In addition to the monitoring devices required above, the applicant shall establish survey monitoring points along its southern tract boundaries near the off-site property corners three (3) months prior to the commencement of grading activity. These survey points shall be read on a monthly basis until such time as grading activity commences. Thereafter, these survey points shall be read once per week until such time as grading activity is completed within five- hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. The survey points shall then be read on a monthly basis for a period of six (6) months following completion of said area. 102. In furtherance of Condition No. 92 above, the applicant shall maintain throughout construction or for six (6) months. after the date the City has certified for rough grading for the last fifteen (15) homes, whichever event occurs later, its General Liability Insurance with limits of not less than six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), insuring the applicant and the City against damage resulting from such grading to any home or property within 400 feet of the east boundary of this land subdivision. Mi 91 1831600 103. The number of residential Certificates of Occupancy which may be obtained by the applicant(s) for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 prior to November 11 1992, or the completion and opening of the Whites Canyon Bridge over the .Santa Clara River, whichever comes first, shall not exceed a combined maximum total of one hundred (100). Per agreement of the applicant.(s), VTTM 46626 shall be eligible to request and obtain a maximum of seventy-two (72).of these Certificates of Occupancy, with VTTM 47863 eligible to request and obtain a maximum of twenty-eight (28). Transfer of the Certificates of Occupancy allocation is not precluded by this condition, but is subject to written agreement between the applicants and approval by. the Departmerrt of Community Development. Upon completion and opening of the Whites Canyon Bridge or No -ember 1, 1992, whichever comes first, the applicant(s) may request any remaining Certificates of Occcupancy as normally required for completion. 91 1831600 Page 17 DEC 2 7 CITY OF SANTA.CLARITA CERTIFICATION BY THE CITY CLER& STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) CCUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF. SANTA CLARITA ) 1. Donna H. Grindev, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do � herehv certifv that the attached rnnv of ��� �� "7 7f is a complete and correct copy sof the original 7A",7�/ now on file in my office ander as /addopteed� by the City Council at the City Council meeting on cis qnn� M. Grindey Gity Clerk by Geri Miller -Davis Deputy City Clerk 91 1831600 LL 91 1831600 • ••• a • •�::7a 91 1831600 EXHIBIT "E" APPLICABLE RULES The parties agree that the Applicable Rules as defined in Section 1(a) of this Agreement are too lengthy and comprehensive to record as a single exhibit. Although not attached hereto, documentation of the Applicable Rules in effect.on the Effective Date shall be made available from the official files and records of the City of Santa Clarita and, upon certification by the City Clerk on an as needed basis, said documentation shall be incorporated.into this Agreement as though set forth herein in its entirety. 91 1831600 EXHIBIT "F" DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE The Development Fee Schedule which applies to the implementation of this Agreement.and the improvement of the Project site is too lengthy and comprehensive to record as a single exhibit. Although not attached hereto, documentation of the specific development fees in effect on the Effective Date shall be made available from the official files and records of the City of Santa Clarita and, upon certification by the City Clerk on an as needed basis, same shall be incorporated into this Agreement as though set forth herein in its entirety. 91 1831600 EXHIBIT "G" ZONING ORDINANCE The Zoning Ordinance as defined in Section 1(g) of this Agreement is too lengthy and comprehensive to record as.a single exhibit. Although not attached hereto, a copy of the Zoning Ordinance in effect on the Effective Date shall be made available from the official files and records of the City of Santa Clarita and, upon certification by the City Clerk on an as needed basis, same shall be incorporated into -this Agreement as though set forth herein in its entirety. 91 1831600 LL EXHIBIT ('f PARCEL 1: LOT 124 OF TRACT NO. 38890 IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1030 PAGES.29 THROUGH 35 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFROM 49 PERCENT OF ALL OIL, - GAS, MINERALS, EARTH MATERIALS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBON AND ASSOCIATED SUBSTANCES LYING IN AND .UNDER SAID LAND, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM GWENDOLYN FRANCES NIEMEYER, AS,EXECUFRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THEODORE JOSEPH NIEMEYER, DECEASED, IN THE DEED FROM MARIA C. BLANKMEYER, LORENZA H. KELLEHER, VERA N. BELLO, ALSO KNOWN AS VERA N. BENNETT, WILLIAM E. NIEMEYER, JAMES NIEMEYER, KATHRYN AND NIEMEYER AND KATHRYN ANN KELLEHER, AND IN DEED FROM EDITH D. NIEMEYER, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LEO P. NIEMEYER, DECEASED; ALL OF SAID DEEDS BEING RECORDED ON APRIL 4, 1957 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 4591 OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL 2: LOT 10 OF TRACT NO. 27335 IN THE CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED INCLUSIVE OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE COUNTY. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF IN BOOK 693 PAGES 19 THROUGH 23 OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT 10 THE NORTHERLY 220 FEET MEASURED ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE THEREOF. ALSO EXCEPT 25 PERCENT OF ALL OIL, GAS AND MINERALS BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET, BUT WITHOUT SURFACE RIGHTS AND WITHOUT RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED BY D.D. SLINKARD AND MARY E. SLINKARD, HUSBAND AND WIFE, IN DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1960 IN BOOK D-1056 PAGE 79, OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPT ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS, EARTH MATERIALS AND HYDROCARBON AND ASSOCIATED SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, WITHOUT RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY TO THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND OR TO THE SUBSURFACE THEREOF TO A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE AS RESERVED BY R.S.D. INVESTMENT CO., A CORPORATION, JOYRAL CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, LOIS BUILDING CO., A CORPORATION, B.L.T. INVESTMENT & CO., A CORPORATION, GRANADA PROPERTIES, INC., A CORPORATION, AND ACLARE CORPORATION, -A CORPORATION; IN DEED RECORDED MAY 24, 1962, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1784 IN BOOK D-1625 PAGE 520, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 91 1.831600 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PORTION OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22398 TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA EXHIBIT a THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER -OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 15 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, LYING NORTHWESTERLY, NORTHERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY, NORTHERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF NADEL STREET, DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 1-4 OF THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION, ENTERED IN SUPERIOR COURT; LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CASE NO. C124975, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED ON FEBRUARY 13, 1976 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 6551 AND 6564, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, AND LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE. BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 87 DEGREES 51'-02" EAST 245.00 FEET FROM -THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 00f 00" EAST 235.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINATION IN SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF NADEL STREET. 91 1831600 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL FOR A ^�'SS TO PROPOGED PARI. a mr ` .I8P88TMENT LOT PAR THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP OF TRACT NO. 36496 FILED IN BOOK:1042, PAGES 56 THROUGH 61 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 36496, THENCE ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT SOUTH 64.18159" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 25.41001" WEST 287.35 FEET, THENCE NORTH 64.18 59,, WEST 84.19 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE• OF SAID TRACT; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 00.25121" WEST 320.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. I LL 91 1831600 ORDINANCE NO.'91-41 CEI 1% E © A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Of 2 4 1491 OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004 FOR ;a ra VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47863 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find: a. An application for a development agreement was filed with the City of Santa Clarita on March 4, 1991, by American Landmark (^the applicant'). The property for which this entitlement has been filed is 32 acres located north of Whites Canyon Road between Nadal Street and Wildwind Road. The Assessor's Parcel Numbers are 2802-38-136 and 137. b. The request is for a development agreement to allow ten years for the build -out of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863 ("the Development Agreement'). VTTM 47863 consists of 80 single-family residences and the site is currently vacant. The General Plan designation of the site is RL. C. On March 20, 1990, following the. public hearings conducted on December 19, 1989, January 16, 1990, and February 20.' 1990, the Planning Commission . of the City adopted Resolution P90-16 conditionally approving .VTTM 47863 and the negative- declaration prepared.for the project. d. On May 22, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution 90-74, approving VTTM 47863 and the negative declaration prepared in connection therewith. e. The applicant is proposing to provide public benefits. as part of the Development Agreement, in addition to those proposed under the original VTTM 47863 approval including the following: 1. The 28 acre park site and the 7 acre library site would be given to the City by December 31, 1991, regardless of whether or not the American Landmark or Weston tracts record. American Landmark and Weston have also paid for the cost of a parcel map (TPM 22398) which included donation of an additional 7 acres for a library site adjacent to the park site. The 35 acre park/library site is valued at $510,000. 2. The.' $199,500 (American Landmark's share of the $700.000) would be given to the City upon issuance of the first building permit for VTTM 47863. This cash donation would be increased yearly based on the January CPI from the date of VTTM 47863 tract approval. 3. The $5,300 per unit BTD fees would be increased yearly based on the January CPI from the date of VTTM 47863 approval. 4. A new fee of $1,067.62 per unit for development of bicycle lanes in the City would be paid and would be increased yearly based on the January CPI from the effective date of the Development Agreement. f. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Development Agreement application on Tuesday, July 16, 1991 at the City of Santa Clarita City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. At that time, the Planning Commission received testimony, closed the public hearing and directed staff to return to the meeting on August 8, 1991, with a resolution certifying the negative -declaration and recommending approval of the Development Agreement to the City: Council. On August 8, 1991, the Commission adopted Resolution P91-35, certifying the negative declaration and recommending approval of the Development Agreement to the City Council. g. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this ordinance. on Tuesday, September 24, 1991, at the City of Santa Clarita City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. SECTION 2. Based upon the .above facts, oral and written testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follovs: a. The Initial Study prepared for VTTM 47863 is applicable to this project. The Development Agreement does not alter the environmental factors previously considered for VTTM 47863 and will have a de minimus impact on -the environment. b. The Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan RL designation. C. The Development Agreement complies with zoning, subdivision and other applicable ordinances and regulations. d. The Development Agreement is consistent with the public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice, making it in the public interest to enter into the development agreement with the applicant. e. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. f. The- Development Agreement will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other .persons located in the vicinity of the site. g. The Development Agreement will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. L L SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial study, which was approved by the Planning Commission, and determines that it is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and that the Development Agreement will not have a significant effect on the environment and will have a de minimus impact upon wildlife. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated above, the City Council hereby approved the Negative Declaration. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council doeshereby ordain that the Development Agreement is approved and shall be executed by the Mayor on behalf of the City. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after adoption, or upon the recordation of a notice of agreement, whichever occurs last. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law and is hereby directed to cause a copy of the fully executed Development Agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder not more than 10 days following the execution by the City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this -ZZW-day of October , 1991. ATTEST: /%✓.moi i STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, DanM M. Grindev, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91 -Al was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 88th day of October 1991. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the .22nd day of October , 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Darcy, Klajic, McKeon, Boyer NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heidt ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: LHS: 347 L PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 24, 1990 r` AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented Ken Pulskamn SUBJECT: Prezone 89-002 and Appeal of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 46626 and 47863 DEPARTMENT: Community Development 1 f BACKGROUND: The above items involve two separate requests: (1) A prezoning is necessary for Tentative Tract 46626 since its site is entirely within the County of Los Angeles, and adjacent to the City limits. The site is presently divided between two zones in the County, A-1-10,000 and A-2-1. A prezoning of A-1-10,000 for the entire sitehas been requested by the applicant; the Planning Commission has reviewed this matter and recommended approval to the City Council of the requested prezoning. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the Council is the approving authority for a prezoning. (2) The two tentative maps have been approved by the Planning Commission. A local resident whose property abuts the site of -Tentative Tract 47863 has appealed the Planning Commission's decision on both tract maps. Please see the attached letter dated March 30, 1990 from Karen Holder requesting the appeal and stating reasons for the request. Non -substantive changes have been made in the conditions. (The.appellant has indicated that condition no. 97 in both tracts (a different subject in each list of conditions, coincidentally numbered the same] was only indicated to apply to one of the two tracts, although it is appropriate to include them in both tracts. This has now been shown for both projects.) Also, condition no. 77 in VTTM 47863 has been deleted. It does not pertain to this type of project. Since the Planning Commission's approval action on February 20, 1990, the applicants have secured an agreement from an adjacent property owner to the south to expand the proposed park. by an additional seven acres. This expansion would provide two new access points, from Camp Plenty Road and Nadal Street, and would retain existing access from Whites Canyon Road. The expansion. provides a 2.5 acre pad fronting on the north side of Nadal Street which would allow siting of an approximately loo -space parking lot for use by Canyon Country High School to the south. This lot would alleviate existing traffic congestion caused by on -street parking on Nadal Street during school hours. The pad would also provide a site for location of a future library of approximately 15,000 square feet, with additional space to meet library parking requirements on-site. Finally, the expansion will allow the usable pad area of the park to be increased from 11 acres to.12 acres. The proposed expansion has been reviewed and accepted by Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Kolin, and by Dr. Smythe of the school district and is considered to be of significant benefit to the commmunity and the school district. . Continued To: Agenda Iters: _ L L rI Page 2 As a measure of comparison, the park site now proposed by the applicants is approximately 34 acres in area, or twice- the size of the recently completed 17 -acre Canyon Country Park. Usable pad area will be 12 acres, or 25Z larger than the 9 -acre Canyon Country site. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the attached negative declarations. 2. Pending public testimony, approve Prezone No. 89-002 and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 46626 and 47863. 3. Adopt the attached resolutions, with the attached added conditions. 4. Introduce the attached prezone ordinance and pass to second reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter dated March 30, 1990 from Karen Holder, requesting the appeal. 2. Staff reports dated December 19, 1989, January 16, and February 20, 1990. 3. Negative Declarations. 4. Correspondence received. 5. Draft Council resolutions and ordinance. ID 30 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA r STAFF REPORT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 46626 and 47863 and PREZONE 89-002 TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Mark Scott, Director of Community Development DATE: February.20, 1990 (continued from January 16, 1990) APPLICANT: Weston Development Corporation and American Landmark Development LOCATION: North of the northerly terminus of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue (VTTM 46626) and Whites Canyon Road, east side, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of Nadal Street and Whites Canyon Road. (VTTM 47863). If satisfactory resolution of grading issues is reached, staff would recommend: 1. Approve the attached negative declarations with corrections as noted with the finding that the proposed projects will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Approve modification of.street grades in excess of 101 up to a maximum of 12.5I. 3. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 based on the required findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval as modified (See additional conditions nos. 97-102 for 46626 and conditions nos. 89-91 for 47863. Condition no. 31 for both tract maps is proposed to be modified, and a new Condition no. 103 is proposed for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626 and no. 92 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863.) 4. Recommend approval to the City Council of a prezoning of A-1-10,000 for VTTM 46626. 5. Adopt the attached resolutions. BACKGROUND• At its meeting of January 16, 1990 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing from December 19; 1989, on the above entitlements. The items were continued.once again to the Commission's meeting of February 20, 1990 for the purpose of addressing geologic concerns raised by nearby residents. Since the January 16th meeting, new geologic studies have been conducted by the applicants and reviewed by the City's geologic consultant, Converse Consultants, Pasadena. Following the new studies and review, an informational meeting was scheduled for February 19, 1990 to discuss.the geologic issues pertaining to the two sites. Because of the late date of the informational meeting, staff will report the results of the meeting, orally, to the Planning Commission at the Commission's February 20th meeting. Additional conditions of approval will likely be developed to protect nearby residents from impacts of grading activity. LL MS/MAR/lb F CITY OF SANTA CLARITA N SAME ! ,CV ! Y— , STAFF REPORT SAME `WVER REpo27, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 46626 and 47863 PREZONE 89-002 TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Panning Commission FROM: MarkiScott, Director of Community Development DATE: January 16, 1990 (continued from December 19, 1989) APPLICANT: Weston Development Corporation and American Landmark Development, Inc. LOCATION: North of the northerly terminus of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue (VTTM 46626) and Whites Canyon Road, east side, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of Nadal Street and Whites Canyon Road. (VTTM 47863). RECOMMENDATION• 1. Approve the attached negative declarations with corrections as noted with the finding that the proposed projacts will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Approve modification of street grades in excess of 1OZ up to a maximum of 12.52. 3. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 based on the required findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval as modified (See additional conditions nos. 97-102 for 46626 and conditions nos. 89-91 for 47863.. Condition no. 31 for both tract maps is proposed to be modified, and a new Condition no. 103 is proposed for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626 and no. 92 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863.) 4. Recommend approval to the City Council of a prezoning of A-1-10,000 for VTTM 46626. 4. Adopt the attached resolutions. BACKGROUND - At its meeting of December 19, 1989, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above entitlements and continued the matters to the January 16, 1990 meeting, with the public hearings being left open. The purpose of the continuance was for the staff to provide new or additional information on the following subjects: 1. Cluster arrangement of lots. 2. Drainage relating to adjacent existing neighborhoods. 3. Wildlife displacement. 4.. Use of contour grading. 5. Traffic a.) Mitigation related to existing streets. b.) Cumulative impacts. �t 6. Relationship to .the General Plan. Additionally, staff has provided the Commission with applicant requested additions to the conditions of approval and staff requested corrections to the negative declarations. 1. Cluster arrangement As described in the staff report the land use category of this vicinity in the SCV Areawide General Plan is Hillside Management (HM). A subdivision proposed in tris classification normally is designed in a cluster arrangement so that grading and development in the 50Z and above slope areas is generally avoided. The design of these projects is not arranged in a cluster concept. The site areas are too small to make effective use of a cluster arrangement. The configuration as proposed is in character with the vicinity. A cluster arrangement might work well if a condominium project were proposed. The slope analysis map (available at the hearing) shows that the 50Z and above slope areas are dispersed throughout the two sites. VTTM 46626 indicates 16 acres of the 80 -acre site is in the 50Z and above slope area. Approximately 20Z of the site is in the 50Z and above areas. VTTM 47863 has 8 acres of the 32 -acre site in the 50Z and above slope areas. Approximately 25Z of the site is in the 50Z and wove slope areas. Because of the relatively low percentage of site areas in the steep slope category and the fact, that the steep slopes are dispersed, the cluster concept would not work well for these projects. 2. Drainage When property is developed, it is required to be designed so that it drains within its boundary. It was mentioned at the hearing that drainage from the sites of the two proposed tracts drains onto existing adjacent neighborhoods. These drainage problems will be corrected as part of the grading of the two tracts. The result will be that the new drainage will be a solution to an existing problem. 3.. Wildlife displacement See attached reports by Independent Environmental Consultants, entitled "Biological Resources for Tentative Tracts 46626 and 47863" (separatereport for each tract). In particular, the section (on page 6 of both reports) labeled "Impact of Development" indicates the author's conclusions. A new condition of approval (no. 103 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626 and no. 92 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863) is proposed to mitigate soil run-off that may affect the Santa Clara River. 4. Use of contour grading See attached revised tentative maps for both tracts. Sculptured contours are shown for manufactured slopes in a few locations. 5. Traffic a.) Mitigation as it relates to existing neighborhoods has been addressed by the applicants. Both applicants furnished a letter at the December 19th hearing agreeing to fund a study to be conducted by the City that would identify necessary additional traffic controls in the existing neighborhood (Foxlane Drive,.Tambora Drive, Bakerton Avenue, Cabral Street, etc.). Should new traffic controls be deemed necessary, they will be installed at the Lt applicants' expense. b.) Cumulative impacts have been addressed in the traffic study. The roadway network assumed to be in place at the time of completion of .both tracts does include the Plum Canyon Road/Whites Canyon Road connection. All known approved and pending projects that would be considered as infill projects within this corridor have been accounted for in the cumulative impacts analysis of the traffic study. There are only two additional parcels in the vicinity that may support additional development. Each is 40 acres in size and is addressed in a supplemental traffic study. One of the 40 acre parcels has a major ridgeline running through it, and therefore has limited development potential. Potential applicants have talked to staff about 20 homes on the 40 acres. The conclusion of the supplement is that the two additional parcels do not change either the conclusions reached nor the prescribed mitigation measures of the original traffic study for each tentative map. In tae original traffic study, a total of 46 pending and approved projects were assessed, in .addition to all existing development in the Whites Canyon/Plum Canyon corridor. 6. General Plan As a new City, the City of Santa Clarita is currently in the process of developing its first general plan. In the interim, the County of Los Angeles General Plan has served as a general guideline. The County's Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan designation for these properties is HM, Hillside Management. This designation would allow approximately 12 to 67 units total on both sites. Pursuant to the Santa Clarita Valley Areavide Plan, residential densities in excess of the.low density threshold (12 units for both sites) would require performance review and a conditional use permit. The County General Plan also encourages clustering of residential uses in hilly and mountainous areas .to minimize grading and to preserve.the natural terrain where consistent with existing community character and specifies that a minimum of 70Z of a project site in this designation shall be retained in a natural or open condition. Since Tentative Tract 47863 is within the incorporated City limits, the County General Plan is not binding, however, it is used as a guideline at. the present time. Tentative Tract 46626 is currently under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles and the County General Plan governs this property until such time as it is annexed into the City. The County's recently released General Plan Update does not propose a General Plan Amendment in this area. (See attached vicinity maps of County General Plan Designations and Zoning.) The City's General Plan Advisory Committee has developed three preliminary general plan maps which are currently being refined into a composite to reflect a preferred land use alternative. Of the three preliminary maps, only one has applied a designation to these properties. It is believed that the other two maps were not completed in this vicinity. Preliminary Map No. 1 designates these properties and the general area for low density residential use. For the purposes of the preliminary • mapping, the low density residential designation was assumed to contain a broad density range .of from 1to 5.6 units per gross acre. More finite ranges are currently being considered, including a low density range of .9 to 3.2 dwelling units per gross acre. The submitted tentative. tract maps, which propose 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre, would be consistent with both of these density ranges.. Again, it must be emphasized that the general plan designations, density standards .and other goals and policies have not been adopted and are at a preliminary stage at this time. The draft goals and policies which are currently being prepared by the General Plan Advisory Committee have been reviewed for their relevance to the subject projects. In addition to policies regarding clustering similar to the County Plan, numerous draft policies relate to ridgeline preservation. One such po1_cy specifies that a ridgeline preservation' ordinance should be adopted that identifies prominent primary and secondary ridgelines which shall not be modified and which shall be preserved as open space, further incorporating sensitive slope and grading regulations for interface with such primary and secondary ridgelines. Although primary and secondary ridgelines have not yet been identified, it is believed that the ridgeline above the subject projects,, which separates Soledad Canyon from Plum Canyon and serves as a primary backdrop for the Canyon Country area, will be identified as either a primary or secondary ridgeline which should be preserved. Other draft policies indicate that hillside grading standards should be developed to minimize the hazards of erosion .and slo^e failure and that landform grading standards should be implemented which minimize the impact of grading operations and foster replication of naturally recurring lardforms. Although the subject projects do not propose clustering, development and grading activities have been pulled off of and are not proposed on the crest oP the ridgeline. House pad elevations would be approximately 106-200 feet below the main ridge above the property. The pad for the proposed water tank site in the northeast corner of the property would be approximately 100 feet belowthe main ridge. Certain contour grading techniques are being proposed which will lend a more natural appearance to the manufactured slopes.within the tracts. In addition, project development and grading will correct existing slope failure areas. The project engineer is currently restudying the up?er elevations of the proposed project and will be providing additional cross-sections and renderings for the Commission's consideration at the public hearing. The intent of the additional illustrations is to clearly show the proposed distance between the house rooflines and the top of the ridgeline, and provide a visual illustration of the projects as they would appear after construction. Areas of restudy include the northwest corner of Tentative Tract Number 46626 with respect to the distance between the top of the ridgeline and elevation of development activities as well as the visual impact of the proposed water tank in the northeastern portion of the tract. Other draft general plan policies which the proposed projects are addressing relate.to goals and policies to acquire future park land.and the high priority placed upon provisions for schools and roads. The.project proponents have gone beyond minimum requirements and have addressed these needs by agreeing (1) to pay double the current assessment of the Bridge and Thoroughfare District fee; (2) to dedicate a 30 acre park site and provide $700,000 in park and improvement monies; and (3) to pay fall School District fees. In consideration of the community benefits proposed in connection with -these projects and the hillside sensitivities incorporated into the design, staff continues to believe that these projects will be consistent with the General, Plan proposal currently being considered. The Commission should be aware that the decision an these projects may have implications for the undeveloped land to the east and north of these properties, some portion of which may be before the Planning Commission in the near future. Staff will be happy to address any additional questions the Planning Commission may have concerning these nearby -areas. 4�-/5-q, r Staff Requested Corrections to the Negative Declarations At the December 19, 1989, meeting some confusion was created by the trip generation volumes shown in the negative declarations of the 2 projects: Item 13a in both documents indicates the daily trips generated by both projects (over an average 24-hour day) and both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips. When the 2 negative declarations were made available, t:e trip generation numbers indicated for both projects were inadvertently indicated as being the same. The figures for the VTTM 47863 were indicated for both projects; at the Planning Commission Meeting the correct figures for VTTM 46626 were shown hand corrected in the negative declaration. However, some members of the public saw the early version (incorrect), while others saw the corrected version. Among the mitigation measures listed is No. 13a which proposes to -restrict any occupancy of either tract until the Vhites Canyon Road/Via Princess a/Highway 14 connection is completed. After the negative declaration was prepared, it was determined that this mitigation measure was not required. Therefore, it was not included within the conditions of approval. Accordingly, it should be deleted from the mitigation measures in the negative declaration. This circumstance arose from the fact that after writing the negative declaration, it was learned that the schedule for completion of Vhites Canyon Road to Highway 14 is due to occur by November, 1992. The applicants have indicated that the earliest possible occupancy of the two tracts is early 1993. Even if the schedule for the road and bridge improvements is delayed, it is anticipated that only a short period of time would occur, where the homes might be occupied and the road improvements may not yet be completed. Additional Conditions Reauested by the Applicant (VTTM 46626) 97. Prior to occupancy, the model homes for the project shall be located on A Street or to the north of A Street. 98. Prior to occupancy, the new extended streets of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive and 3akerton Avenue shall not be opened to through traffic until required to be opened by the city to obtain occupancy or inspection approval. 99. Prior to occupancy along the applicant's southerly property line next to the existing homes, the applicant agrees to remove the existing fences (subject to each homeowner's approval) and construct a six (6) foot block wall on the property line. In addition, the applicant agrees to install and pay for a six (6) foot block wall an the west side yard along Foxlane Drive of the homeowner located at 18921 Ermine Street. The applicant shall repair and replace any damaged landscaping and irrigation due to the wall installation. 100. Prior to occupancy, the property owners, whose.property is immediately, adjacent to the southern property line -of the proposed tract, will be notified by the applicant and solicited for their opinions and comments' as to the location, design andmaterials used in the construction of the walls, fencing, landscaping and irrigation which is immediately adjacent to the existing homes prior to the fencing and landscape plan being submitted to the City for review and approval. " y/ 5 L L f 101. Prior to occupancy, a study shall be conducted of the existing neighborhood to the south to determine if any additional traffic controls are required. The cost of the study and any controls deemed required shall be borne by the applicant. This may include any necessary signal mocifications at the -intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street. 102. Prior to occupancy and upon receiving individual approval from each hcmeowner adjacent to the applicant's southerly boundary, the applicant will :,ire, at his cost, an inspector to survey each home and property as to its existing condition to create a bench mark survey in which to determine if any grading on the applicant's tract causes any damage to tae adjacent existing :.owes. Any damage determined to be caused by the applicant will be repaired at the applicant's cost. Add'_t_onal Cond°tions Requested by the Applicant (VTTM 478631 89. Prior to occupancy, the property owners, whose property is immediately adjacent to the easterly property line .of the proposed tract, will be notified by the applicant and solicited for their opinions and comments as to the location, design and materials used in the construction of the walls, fencing, landscaping and irrigation which is immediately adjacent to the existing homes ,prior to the fencing and landscape plan being submitted to the City for review and approval. 90. Prior to occupancy, a study shall be conducted of the existing neighborhood to the east to determine if any additional traffic controls are required. The cost of the study and any controls deemed required shall be borne by the applicant. This may include any necessary signal modifications at the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street. 91. Prior to occupancy and upon receiving individual approval from each homeowner adjacent to the applicant's easterly boundary, the applicant will hire, at his cost, an inspector to survey each home and property as to its existing condition to create a bench mark survey. in which to determine if. any grading on the applicant's tract causes any damage to the adjacent existing homes.. Any damage determined to be caused by the applicant will be repaired at the applicant's cost. Staff re3uested modification (for both tentative mans) 31. Where off-site grading and street improvements are required, it shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant to acquire the necessary right of way and/or easements. Should the applicant be unsuccessful in making the necessary acquisition, the City shall be required to use its authority of eminent domain. If this occurs, the City's expense shall be borne by the applicant. Additional Community Develol3ment condition no. 103 for VTTM 46626 and no. 92 for VTTM 47863 The applicant shall comply, with the mitigation measure prescribed in the biological resources report for the site dated January 8, 1990. �- 5- 6 W N I v U2 uz N 2 VTTM 46626 P PZ 89-002 -a; u U2 VTTM 47863 4 N U2 c ul u 2 � u _ N 1 �N 2 u1 ~N2 ^�r 4/ PROJECT SITE gNj N t N2<-WESTON J CITY OF SANTA H M u 2,k ! r ti AMERICAN LANDMARK > �- AA AA U 3 M H ! w P90POSED PARKSITE N t F I _ C ;i P 1N1 W/ S �� �L • RI -_ M ILp 13 W 'U3 `. ...�.2.. U3' T 3z t i U 2/ v� .............. u s u i. L7 �' o i N ' = SOLEDAD /C P ,J b "DAD i c M i CCYN P U2 _ WAS U 2a u )1 u a S n (2� ) t I :IVI' • ..... . 3 N �• Us a U 3 : u3 SPI t V3� C __ •'SPI C P`t _._.._.... p IJZ taG�' NM . c� N h M ( HM ` COUNTY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS 1190 fI s' VTTM 4662 .. N.",rte'~ PZ 89-002 — . _-! � �w *.\VTTM 4786 o A-2-1 WESTON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SITE (� _ RPD-5-1.1U j AMERICAN A-1-10000 -1� LANDMARK µx �� • L _ ' - �. DEME PMENT R-1-10000 1R-1-8000 • WY PROP SED PARK-STM- R-3.1 SUS f A- -10000 -R-1-7000 " SII �"�'_ . ' .^ •, _ i � �_ rl ` /`. r'... ..._ • 7 .ate •�! � , J Ic f w �• � �3 `-• •\ `` M� .M .fes/ �. �1 .« j �''✓.�.:;.. a„ --,v is _ -�. ZONING 1190 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47863 TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Acting Director of Community Development�P(�'' DATE: December 19, 1989 APPLICANT: American Landmark Development, Inc. LOCATION: Whites Canyon Road, east side, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of Nadal Street and Whites Canyon Road. REQUEST - Proposed subdivision of 32 acres (gross area) into 80 lots for single family residences. RECOMMENDATION• 1. Approve the attached negative declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Approve modification of street grades in excess .of 1OX up to a maximum of 12.55. 3. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47863 based on the required findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. 4. Adopt the attached resolution. BACKGROUND• General Plan Designation, Existing Zoning and Land Use: The 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan designation for the subject property is "Hillside Management" (HM). In terms of the amount of units for this site --3, 14, and 24 units represent the low, midpoint, and high end of the density range. It is proposed to be developed to a gross density of 2.5 du/ac. The existing zoning is A-1-10,000 (Light Agricultural). The site .is currently vacant. The General Plan designation, existing zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: General Plan Zoning Land Use North Hillside Mgt. RPD -5-1.1U Vacant Hillside East Hillside Mgt. R-1-7,000 Residential Single.Family South Urban 3 (U3) R -3-15U Residential Multi -Family West Urban 2 (U2) RPD -5-1.1U Residential Single Family £' Project Description: The site is proposed to be subdivided into 80 lots for future single family residences. All lots are proposed for development; no open space lots are proposed. No recreational amenities are proposed within the project site. Circulation consists of a new collector street, 64 feet wide, that would intersect Whites Canyon Road. "A" street, as it is shown on the tentative map would connect to the area to the northeast of this site to provide an extension of this collector street. "A" street also serves as a collector street for the adjacent proposed 201 -lot subdivision (please see map and staff report for tentative tract no. 46626, also appearing on the Planning Commission's December 19, 1989 agenda). From this collector are three side streets, "B", "D", and "G" street proposes to connect to the existing tract to the east as an extension of Nearview Drive. If tentative map 46626 to th. northeast is approved, tract 47863 will have three points of access beyond the site boundary. If tentative tract 46626 is not approved, this site would only have two points of access. The subdivision ordinance, section 21.24.100, limits street grades as follows: "21.24.100 Street Grades. No highway or street shall have a grade of more than six percent, except. -for short stretches where the topography makes it impracticable to keep within such grade, and in no event shall the grade exceed 10 percent, except where evidence, which is satisfactory to the advisory agency, is given that -a lower grade is not possible" Street grades of up to 12.5 percent are requested by this application. The Planning Commission must be provided evidence that this is necessary. The applicant has stated that the steepness of the existing contours and the grading required make it infeasible to limit the street grades to the 6-10 percent preferred slope. Substantially more grading would be required to reduce the street grades. The .applicant has adequately documented the need for this request. The A-1-10,000 zone requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet lots, with the following exception: Section 21.24.260 of the subdivision ordinance allows a reduced area, not to exceed 43 percent of the lots in the subdivision. For this proposed subdivision a minimum of 7,000 square feet is required. for a maximum of 43 percent of lots (34 lots) is permitted by the code. The applicant has requested only 16 of the lots to be reduced in area. To authorize this, a minimum average width of 70 feet must be maintained for each reduced area lot at time of final map approval. Each .lot appears to show compliance with all required standards.. To approve this request the Planning Commission must make -the following findings: 1. That due to sloping terrain, the topographic features within the division of land will be better utilized if a portion of the lots in such division are less in area than the applicable designation; 2. That a final map or parcel map of the division of land or any part thereof will not be filed unless the average area of all lots on such map or maps is not less LL than.the applicable zoning designation; ��5 3. That the lots having a reduced area will be compatible in design to design to adjacent facing and siding lots of abutting development; 4. That all lots which are not reduced in area shall comply with Subsection A of Section 21.24.240. A particular geologic condition exists with respect to the area adjacent to tentative tract 47863. In its natural condition, a slide area exists beneath Whites Canyon Road. Standard engineering practices can alleviate this condition. When buttress fills, shear. keys, and proper subsurface drainage system are. installed as part of the development of this site, these measures can reduce the potential for landslides in the area. Since no new roads are proposed that would provide a regional benefit, the applicant has agreed to pay double the bridge and thoroughfare fee. The City and the applicant have tentatively agreed to enter into a development agreement pertaining to this project. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council will be required to hold a public hearing on the agreement at a future date. The park obligation of both tentative tracts 46626 and 47863 are .proposed to be satisfied jointly as follows: 1. A 30 -acre parcel fronting on the west side of Whites Canyon Road diagonally opposite tentative tract 47863 (see vicinity map) is proposed to be dedicated to the City for park purposes. The acquisition cost of this is approximately $300,000. 2. Additionally, the applicants will provide $700,000. to the City to be used for grading and improvements to complete the park. The combined costs would be.shared by the applicants and would be 3 to 4 times the amount of their obligation under the City code. The -applicants have voluntarily agreed to provide -this park, as they have done in other cities, in the spirit of providing needed amenities for their projects. The park would be a public City park. One oak tree exists on the site, within lot 65. It is a Valley oak (Quercus lobata) and is unique in its location. It is believed to be the western most Valley oak in the Santa Clarita Valley. Furthermore, it is a B+ rated tree and has a triple trunk of 30, 34, and 42 inches in circumference. Condition No.83f requires this tree to be protected, saved, and incorporated into the landscaping of the tract. Correspondence Received: The applicant has provided a package of promotional material that was distributed to the same list of property owners who received the public hearing notice. (See attached gray envelope)., N ANALYSIS• The following General Plan objective applies to Hillside Management Areas. "Within these areas, it is intended that future development will occur in the most suitable and least environmentally sensitive areas, and will be designed in terms of scale and intensity in a manner compatible with the natural resource values and character of the area." To accommodate the intent of the Santa Clarita Valley General Plan, a common approach in subdivision design in the Hillside Management areas is to concentrate development within the less steep slope areas (0-25Z slope), enabling less grading to occur and protecting a significant amount of the hillside area. This project -is not designed in that fashion; the tract to the northwest was designed in this manner and approved by the County in 1983. The tentative map shows that the.80 lots are evenly distributed throughtout the project. A glance at the cut and fill map (available at the public hearing) shows that an extensive portion of the site, perhaps 85 percent of the surface area of the site, is proposed to be graded. Furthermore, grading as proposed would require grading within the required open space lot of the adjacent tract (38890) to the north (primarily to connect "A" street to Whites Canyon Road). Although the intent of the hillside management designation is to sensitively locate areas to -be developed, it would not serve a practical purpose to configure this subdivision in a cluster form since its site size is relatively small. The tract is -located within a logical infill development area. Mostly existing single family residences abut thetractor are located nearby; a large multiple family residential complex is located opposite the site across Whites Canyon Road. The size of the individual lots is larger than either of the two adjacent developments. Some potential environmental concerns are indicated in the attached negative declaration regarding grading, aesthetics, and traffic. Staff feels the finding can be made that the project would ultimately be consistent with the General Plan, once adopted. In summary the proposed project offers the following advantages: 1. It is compatible with the surrounding existing pattern of development and is an infill development. 2. Its circulation is designed to minimally affect the existing adjacent neighborhood. 3. The area devoted to landscaping that is visible from Whites Canyon Road should result in an aesthetically pleasing appearance. 4. The park site offered is a major community benefit. 5. The development of the site will pose the opportunity to safeguard against future landslides associated with Whites Canyon Road. U 6. The applicant has agreed to pay double. the bridge and thoroughfare fee. Disadvantages of the proposed project are: 1. The gradingrequired will change views presently enjoyed by adjacent homes. These homes presently have open space views of rolling hills, which will then change to views of a housing tract. 2. No new arterial streets are proposed. The tract merely carries its own traffic load to an existing arterial street. 3. Traffic generated by the project will further impact traffic on the Antelope Valley Freeway. No plans presently exists for improvements :o the affected portion of the freeway. Overall, the development is reasonable and logical for this site and vicinity. Therefore, the staff requests the Commission's favorable consideration of this request. MAR: rd LL 4/---�0 VICINITY MAP CASE NO. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46626 and Prezone No. 89-002 Vestinq Tentative Tract_ Mar, Nn- a7RA,i I ' r ;4 ! Canyon ;1 ! Country �.' proposed y park site ris�• ^�i :tea It - LL TR 4786 I . C TR 46626 Canyon Country + I --� �7, _ L � � .� i • •b "ig vaey ILL I �� `•wY/riY/ �J. � • T Y / / I �, „a •p J I �•`' 4� I �r RESOLUTION NO. P90-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP•NO. 47863 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS 'FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning. Commission does hereby find and determine as follows: a. An application for a vesting tentative tract map was filed with the City of Santa Clarita, June 5, 1989, by American Landmark Development, Inc. ("the applicant"). The property for which this entitlement has been filed is a 32 -acre parcel located on Whites Canyon Road approximately 600 feet northwest of the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street. The site is zoned A-1-10,000. The purpose of the vesting tentative tract map application is to create 80 lots within the subject site for single family residential units. Assessor Parcel No. 2802-001-037. b. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on October 26, 1989 and supplied the applicant's agent with recommended conditions of approval. C. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1989, continued to January 16, 1990, and February 20, 1990, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds and determines as follows: a. The City of Santa Clarita-is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project, including the density -controlled development, will be consistent with the general plan proposal currently being considered or studied, that there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed resolution is ultimately inconsistent with that plan, and that the proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. b. The division and development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject parcel map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete -exercise of any public entity and/or public utility right-of-way and/or easements within the parcel map. f o. The Planning Commission finds that satisfactory evidence has Cbeen provided, in accordance with Section 21.24.100 of the municipal code, that a lower street grade is not possible. The maximum street grade proposed is 12 1/2Z. p. The applicant has requested a reduction in lot area in accordance with Section 21.24.260 of the municipal code. Accordingly, the Planning Commission makes the following findings required of Section 21.24.250A: 1. That due to sloping terrain, the topographic features within the division of land will be better utilized if a portion of the lots in such division are less in area than the applicable designation; and 2. That a final. map or parcel map of the division of land or any part thereof will not be filed unless the average area of all lots on' such map or maps is not less than the applicable zoning designation; and 3. That the lots having a reduced area will be compatible in design to the design of adjacent facing and siding lots of abutting development; and 4. That all lots which are not reduced in area shall comply with Subsection A of Section 21.24.240: C, SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, and determines that it is in compliance with CEQA and that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. A negative declaration was prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the negative declaration. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the application for the vesting tentative tract map and conditional use permit subject to following conditions attached hereto as "Exhibit 1' and incorporated herein by reference allowing the creation of 111 lots for 104 additional single family residential uses. SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit a copy to the applicant, the Departments of Public Vorks, Fire, and Parks and Recreation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED.this 20th day of March, 1990. ✓ Louis Brathwaite, Vice Charman Planning Commission 1-3 N L t I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of March, 1990, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: Commissioners: Modugno, Worden & Vice Chairman Brathwaite NOES: ABSENT Sharar. . EXCUSED Garasi Mark Scott, Director Community Development Ir- RESOLUTION T RESOLUTION NO. 90-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47863 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOVS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows: a. An application for a vesting tentative tract map was filed with the City of Santa Clarita, June 5, 1989, by American Landmark Development, Inc. ("the applicant"). The property for which this entitlement has been filed is a 32 -acre parcel located on Vhites Canyon Road approximately 600 feet northwest of the intersection of Vhites Canyon Road and Nadal Street. The site is zoned A-1-10,000. The purpose of the vesting tentative tract map application is to create 80 lots within the subject site for single family residential units. Assessor Parcel No. 2802-001-037. b. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on October 26, 1989 and supplied the applicant's agent with recommended conditions of approval. c. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1989, continued to January 16, 1990, and February 20, 1990, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. d. On March 20, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P90-16, conditionally approving Vesting Tentative.Tract Map No. 47863. e. An appeal was filed by Karen Holder on March 30, 1990 which was within the appropriate period to file an appeal. f.. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 24, 1990 at the.City CouncilChambers, 23920 Valencia, Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. At the request of the applicant the hearing was continued to a date certain on May 22, 1990. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds.and determines as follows: a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the general plan proposal currently being considered and studied, that there is little or no probability of substantial detriment cc r or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed resolution is ultimately inconsistent with that plan. and that the proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. b. The division and development.of.the property in the manner set forth on the subject parcel map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity, and/or public utility right-of-way and/or easements within the parcel map. C. Approval of this vesting -tentative tract map will expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval. d. The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative tract map which depicts the arca proposed for the 80 lots within the subject site. e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems, since sewage disposal, storm drainage, fire protection, and geological and soils factors are addressed in the recommended conditions of approval. The discharge of sewage from the subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements prescribed by the California Regional Yater Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Yater Code. f. The subject property is of a size and shape which lends itself to the proposed use. g. The recommended subdivision will not result in a significant environmental effect. h. Implementation of this proposal will cause no -adverse effects in the environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the application of available controls. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wild life or their habitat, since the project site is not located in a mapped significant ecological area. i. The proposed lot sizes are consistent -with surrounding lot sizes. j. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible. for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in. the subdivision given the size and shape of the lots and their intended use.. k. The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake or reservoir. 1. The housing needs of ,the region were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents. L L ME M. Neither the design of the subdivision nor the type of improvements will conflict with public easements for access through the use of property within the proposed subdivision; since the design and development as set forth in the conditions of approval and on the tentative map, provides adequate protection for easements. n. The subject property is in a proper location for single family residential uses. o. The City Council finds that satisfactory evidence has been provided; in accordance with Section 21.24.100 of the municipal code, that a lover street grade is not possible. The maximum street grade proposed is 12 1J2Z. p. The applicant_has requested a reduction in lot area in accordance with Section 21.24.260 of the municipal code. Accordingly, the City Council makes the following findings required of Section 21.24.250A:. 1. That due to sloping terrain, the topographic features within the division of land will be better utilized if a portion of the lots in such division are less in area than the applicable designation; and Z. That a final map or parcel map of the division of land or any*part thereof will not be filed unless the average area of all lots on such map or maps is not less than the applicable zoning desighation; and 3. That the lots having a reduced area will be compatible in design to the design of adjacent facing and siding lots of abutting.development; and 4. That all lots which are not reduced in area shall comply with Subsection A of Section 21.24.240. SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, and determines that it is in compliance with CEQA and that the proposed project will not have a significant impact.on the environment. A negative declaration was prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated above, the City Council hereby approves the negative declaration. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves the.application for the vesting tentative tract map subject to following conditions attached hereto as "Exhibit 14 and incorporated herein by reference allowing the creation of 80 lots for single family residential uses. LL SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit a -copy -to the applicant, the Departments of Public Vorks, Fire, and Parks and Recreation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of May , 1990. ATTEST: "CkfY.Cleik I 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 22nd day of May 1990, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: Councilmembers: Boyer, Klajic, McReonr Darcy NOES: Councilmembers: Beidt ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ID 32 << EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47863 GENERALCONDITIONS 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47863 (the "VTTM") shall expire two years from -the date of its conditional approval. 2. The applicant (as hereinafter defined) may file for an extension of the VTTM by filing an application for extension at least 60 days prior to expiration of the VTTM. Said extension shall not exceed a period of one year. 3. Within 30 days of any change in the status of the applicant or upon designation' of a new engineer, the applicant (as hereinafter defined) shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community Development, in writing, of any such change. 4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Subdivision by the City, which action is provided for in the Government Code Section 66499.37.. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: (1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and (2) the City defends. the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the entitlement is approved by the applicant. 5. Details shown on the VTTM are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of• ordinances, these general conditions of approval, or City policies must be specifically approved. Page 1 LL 6. The subject property shall be subject to fees, at the rate being charged by the City at the time the applicant seeks building permit issuance, including but not limited to (1) Los Angeles County Residential Sewer Connection Fee; (2) Interim School Facilities Financing Fee; (3) Installation or Upgrade of Traffic Signals Fees; and (4) Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fee. This condition specifically does not address bridge and thoroughfare district fees, which are covered by Condition No. 67. 7. During construction of the improvements upon the property which is the subject of this land division, a stop -work order shall be considered in effect immediately upon the discovery of any historic artifacts and/or remains, at which time the City shall be immediately notified of the discovery. Said stop -work order shall remain in effect until City terminates said order, which shall not be unreasonably prolonged. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures on each lot at this time, the applicant shall develop the property in conformance with the City Code and other appropriate ordinances, including but not limited to the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Water Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. Improvements and other requirements may be imposed by the Department of Community Development and the Department of Public Works pursuant to such codes and ordinances. 9. A grading permit shall be required for any and all off-site grading which is done for the purposes of developing the property covered by these conditions. 10. The applicant shall make the required deposit to the City prior to City review of documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 11. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. 12. Easements shall be granted to the City, or other 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. 13. The applicant shall adjust, relocate and/or eliminate lot - lines, lots, streets, easements, grading, geotechnical protective devices, and/or physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the date the County determined the application to be complete, all of which shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Page 2 c- PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING CONDITION Map Requirements 14. All easements existing at the time of final map approval must be accounted for on the approved tentative map, including but not* limited to the location, owner, purpose, and recording_ reference for all existing easements. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the tentative map in lieu of its location. If all easements have not been accounted for on the VTTM at the time final map approval is sought, the applicant shall submit a corrected tentative map to the City Engineer.for approval. 15. All offers of dedication shall be noted by certificate on the face of the final map. 16. The final map shall be prepared by or under the -direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. 17. The final map must be ,approved by the City Engineer before filing with the County Recorder. 18. The applicant shall quit claim or relocate existing easements which would otherwise underlie or run through proposed structures. 19. If the applicant intends to file multiple final maps, he must so .inform the Department of Public Works and the Department ,of Community Development at the time the tentative map is filed. The boundaries of each unit of the final map shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Department of Community Development. 20. If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map,, a preliminary guarantee shall be required for each record title owner. A final guarantee shall be required for each record title owner at thetime of filing the final map. If said signatures do not appear on the final map, a title report/guarantee shall be provided showing all fee owners and interest holders and this account must remain open until the parcel map is filed with the County Recorder. 21. The applicant shall grant to the City or 'other appropriate agency. or entityfor the, purpose of ingress, egress, construction and, maintenance of all infrastructure constructed for this land division to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Page 3 F Road Improvements 22. Local street(s) shall be: aligned so that the central angles of the right-of-way radius returns do not differ by more than 10 degrees. 23. The applicant shall provide letter(s) guaranteeing the dedication of slope easement(s) and drainage acceptance by the applicant and the adjacent homeowners respectively, as required by the City Engineer or Director Public Works. 24. The applicant shall provide at least 40 feet of frontage at the front property line between radial lot lines for each lot fronting on a cul-de-sac or knuckle. 25. The applicant shall be required to install. distribution lines and individual service lines for community. antenna television service (CATV) for each lot in the: subject property. 26. The applicant shall place above ground utilities including, but not limited to, fire hydrants, junction boxes and street lights, outside of the sidewalk. 27. The applicant shall install mailboxes and posts for each lot on the subject property per City standards. Approval of the U.S. Postal Service shall be secured prior to installation of mailboxes and posts. 28. Existing trees in dedicated right-of-way or right-of-way to be dedicated shall be removed if they are not acceptable as street trees. The determination as to the acceptability of existing street trees shall be made in the sole discretion of the Director of Parks and Recreation. 29. The applicant shall be required to plant street trees to City standards and specifications unless this condition has been waived by the Director of Parks and Recreation because, in his sole discretion, sufficient trees have been placed within an abutting landscaped setback. The applicant shall contact the City Department of Parks and Recreation for street tree location, species, and approved method of installation and irrigation. 30. The applicant shall not grant or record any easements - within areas proposed -,to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other areas intended to be used by the public or restricted in use. until after the final map is filed with the County Recorder unless such easements are subordinated, in writing, by the easement holder to the_ proposed grant or dedication. Page 4 << 31. The applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer or Director of Public works, may guarantee installation of improvements as deemed necessary by the City Engineer or Director of Public works through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. 32. Off-site improvements may be required for "A" Street if in the sole discretion of the Director of Public Works such off-site improvements are necessary. 33. Where off-site grading and street improvements are required, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire the necessary right-of-way and/or easements, provided, however, that the provisions of Government Code Section 66462.5 shall be applicable. 34. The centerlines of all local streets shall be aligned without creating jogs of less than 150 feet. A one foot jog may be used where a street changes width from 60 feet to a 58 foot right-of-way. 35. The centerline radius of each street with (1) a grade in excess of 10%, or (2) a distance of 40 feet between curbs shall be a minimum of 350 feet. 36. The design of local streets shall have a minimum centerline curve radii which will provide centerline curves to 100 feet minimum length; provided, however, that reversing curves need not exceed a radius of 1,500 feet and no curve need exceed a radius of 3,000 feet. The length of curve outside of the beginning of curb return shall be used to satisfy.the 100 foot minimum requirement. 37. The minimum centerline radius on a local, street with an intersecting street on the concave side should comply with design speeds per Road Section's "Requirements for Street Plans" and sight distances per the current standards of the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. 38. Street grades shall be permitted in excess of 10% at the following.locationa "8" Street between "A" Street and "C" Street, not to exceed 12.5%. 39. The design for intersections of local streets with General Plan Highways shall provide sight distance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additional right-of-way dedication and/or grading.may be.required. 40. The design for intersections of local streets shall provide sight distances to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additional right-of-way dedication and/or grading may be required. Page 5 LL r 41. The central angles of the right-of-way radius returns shall not differ by more than 10 degrees on local streets. 42. The applicant shall provide standard property line return radii of (1) 13 feet shall be provided at all local street intersections, including intersections of local streets with General Plan Highways, (2) 27 feet where all General Plan Highways intersect, or (3) standard property line return radii which are satisfactory to the Department of Public.Works. 43. Compound curves are preferred over broken -back -curves, but broken -back curves, where used, shall be separated by a minimum of 200 feet tangent (1,000 feet for multi -lane highways). 44. The applicant shall construct drainage improvements and offer for dedication easements needed for street drainage or slopes. 45. The applicant shall construct full width sidewalks at all sidewalk returns. 46. The applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement on streets within or abutting the subdivision as required by the Department of Public Works. 47. The applicant shall construct a slough wall. outside the street right-of-way when the height of slope is greater than 5 feet above the sidewalk and the sidewalk is adjacent to the street.right-of-way. 48. The applicant shall provide and install street name signs prior to occupancy of the first unit in the subject property. 49. The applicant shall dedicate to the City, for public use, vehicular access right on Whites Canyon Road, unless construction of a wall is required. If the construction of a•wall is required, the applicant shall dedicate to the City for public use, complete access rights. 50. Driveways shall not be constructed within 25 feet upstream of any catch basin on a street with a grade in excess of 6�. Page 6 L L 51. The applicant shall construct the following required road improvements: Street Curb & Street Street Name Width Gutter Paving Lights Trees Sidewalk C,D,E,F,G 58 FT. X X X X X B 60 FT. X X X X X A 64 and 80 FT. X X X X X 52. The offer for Future Street and for Nearview Drive must be accepted prior to recording, the final map, if it is not already a dedicated street. Tha temporary turnaround on Nearview Drive shall be eliminated and curb, gutter, base, pavement and sidewalk shall be constructed. WATER CONDITION 53. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, including fire hydrants of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land division. Domestic flows required for the land division are to be determined in the sole discretion of the City Engineer or Director of Public Works. Fire flows required are to be determined in the sole discretion of the Fire Chief. 54. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the proposed development, the applicant shall file with the City Engineer a statement from the water purveyer indicating that the water system will be operated by, and water service will be provided to, the project by the purveyor and that under normal operating conditions, the system will meet the requirements for the land division, and that water service will be provided to each lot. 55. The applicant shall provide all documents or materials necessary to substantiate to the City's satisfaction that there is an adequate water supply and a firm commitment from the water purveyor that the necessary quantities of water will be available to the proposed development. SEWER CONDITIONS 56. The applicant shall submit an area study. to determine whether capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outlet for the sewers in this land division. If the system is found to have insufficient capacity, the problem must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Page 7 LL 57. The applicant shall, prior to the issuance of the first building permit for this land division or at such time as required by the Director of Public Works, (1) install and offer for dedication the local_ main line sewers and separate house laterals to serve each lot of the land division, or (2) have on file with the City a City approved and bonded sewer plan which provides in detail for the installation and dedication of the main line sewer and separate house laterals to serve each lot of the land division. Determination of whether or not the applicant shall install and dedicate the above -required improvements or file a plan and bond shall be in the sole discretion of the Director of Public Works. 58. An hydrology study shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to filing the final map. GRADING, DRAINAGE. AND GEOLOGY CONDITIONS 54. A grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to approval of the final map. 60. The grading plan required. by these conditions must be based on a detailed engineering Geotechnical report and must be specifically approved by the City's geologist and/or sails engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. The grading plan shall agree with the tentative map and conditions as. approved by the Planning Commission. All buttresses shown on the grading plan to be in excess of 25 feet high shall be accompanied by calculations. 61. Because portions of this project are within a mapped landslide area, (1) all geologic hazards associated with the development proposed for this land division must be eliminated, or (2) the applicant shall delineate a restricted use area approved by the consultant geologist to the. satisfaction of the Geology and Soils Section of the City Public Works Department and dedicate to the City by legal means approved by the City Attorney the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other. structures within the restricted use areas. Page 8 LL it - 62. 62. Because portions of the property lying in and adjacent to natural drainage courses are subject to flood hazard because of overflow, inundation, and debris flows and because portions of the property are subject to sheet overflow and ponding and high velocity scouring action, the applicant shall provide, prior to filing the final map, drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with the following requirements which shall be to the satisfaction of, and be approved by, the Director of Public Works: (a) Provide for the proper distribution of drainage; and (b) Provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard and dedicate and show necessary easements and/or rights-of-way on the final map and show on the final map the City's/Flood Control District's right-of-way for stormdrains. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the right-of-way or facilities; and (c) 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; and (d) Comply with the requirements of the approved drainage concept to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 63. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Director of Public: Works, a final geotechnical and soil report. That report shall be based upon adequate test borings or excavations, and shall: (1) describe any soil or geologic condition(s) which, if not corrected, might lead to structural damage or slope failure; and (2) recommend action likely to prevent. structural damage- or slope failure. A soil expansion index test shall be required and shall be done in accordance with the procedures of Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2. 64. A drainage benefit assessment district shall be established and ratified prior to recordation of the final map to insure the continued maintenance of any drainage improvements and subdrains. The first year's maintenance costs shall be paid by the applicant prior to approval of the final map. 65. The applicant shall include in covenants, conditions and restrictions applicable to the subject land division notifications to homeowners of all recommendations and ' requirements of the geotechnical engineer. 66. The applicant shall construct the project in compliance with the required and approved drainage plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Page 9 << t - PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONDITIONS 67. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall pay a bridge and thoroughfare fee in the amount of $5,300 per dwelling unit. Said fee amount shall be fixed for the duration of the VTTM approval. 68. The following traffic mitigations shall be required by the applicants for both this VTTM and VTTM No. 46626. Costs for these requirements shall be assessed for each of the two tractsas follows: (a) On.a 50/50 basis, a traffic signal with appropriate signs and street. striping shall be installed at the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and "A" Street. (b) On a pro rata basis, "A" Street shall be extended between the boundaries of 'Tentative Tract Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 to complete a continuous length from Whites Canyon Road to the easterly boundary of the VTTM. This shall include acquisition of right-of-way between the two tracts including off-site easement for future public streets and off-site grading necessary to accommodate.the proposed street. (c) On a pro rata basis, peak -hour parking restrictions shall be installed on Whites Canyon Road on both the east and west sides, north of Nadal Street for which the applicant shall provide and install signage and/or striping as determined in the sole: discretion of the City's Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall stripe the approach and departure lanes to the intersection of whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street (within the existing right-of-way) by restriping and shall provide and install any related signing of the northbound and southbound.approaches to Whites Canyon Road to provide one additional northbound and southbound lane. All work shall be funded by the applicant and completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 69. The applicant may use the non -alternate street section only with the approval of the Director of Parks & Recreation, the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. FIRE CONDITIONS 70. This property is located within the area described by the Forester -.and Fire Warden as Fire Zone 4 and future construction shall comply with applicable Code requirements. Pace 10 t- 71. The applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the map to be recorded. All fire hydrants for the subject property shallhave a fire flow over and above maximum daily domestic use of 1,250 gallons per minute @ 20 psi for a duration of two hours. 72. The applicants shall provide and install 9 Public Fire Hydrants which shall each meet the measure 611x 4"x 2 1/211, be made of brass or bronze and conform to current American Water Works Association Standard C503 or approved equal. 73. All hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25' from a structure or where a structure is a distance less than 25' from a fire hydrant that structure shall be protected by a two hour fire wall as per map on file, oras otherwise approved by the Fire Department. 74. The applicant shall provide Fire Department and City approved street signs, and building address numbers prior to occupancy. 75. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access to the required fire hydrants must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. 76. The applicant shall participate in an appropriate financing mechanism to provide funds for fire protection facilities which are required by new commercial, industrial or residential development, in an amount proportionate to the demand created by this project. .PARKS AND RECREATION CONDITIONS 77. An in -lieu park and recreation fee, or. dedication of park land, as determined by the City, or a combination of the two shall be required prior to approval of the final map and iTF—accordance w the Municipal. Code. 78. Either a special landscape maintenance assessment district or a homeowner's association (a "HOA") shall be formed to have the responsibility and authority to maintain all slopes, and street trees if the non -alternate street section is used, in the land division. including, but not limited to, landscaping, irrigation and street trees. The formation of a landscape assessment district or HOA must be disclosed in real estate documents to homeowners. 79. The applicant shall provide access to, and egress from, slopes which are to be maintained by a Landscape Assessment District or HOA by the dedication of easements or other legal means satisfactory to the City Attorney. Page 11 80. Median landscaping improvements shall be made to the mediansfrom adjacent to the tract frontage on Whites Canyon Road to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks & Recreation. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS 81. Three copies of a landscape plan and fencing plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Community Development and the Director of Parks and Recreation prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall show size, type, location of all plants, trees, and water facilities and locations dimensions, and details of the project fencing and/or walls and shall be in conformity with the following standards: (a) Fencing for each lot shall be provided in the form of a decorative masonry block wall, with a cap, at a height of six (6) feet, or other materials as approved by the Director of Community Development. (b) View lots may be fenced using a combination of a base fencing of three (3) courses of masonry with wrought iron the remainder of the distance to the. six (6) feet height. Masonry pilasters shall be provided at the intersection of a rear property with a side property line. Lots to be.fenced as view lots shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. (c) Fencing for each lot shall end at the end of the pad for each lot. All remaining slope areas shall be fenced to give the appearance of a single open space lot. (d) Entrances to side yards shall be constructed of masonry wall and wooden gates. No wrought iron shall be permitted at side yard entries except a side yard entry which is not visible from the street. 82. Prior to occupancy, landscaping and fencing for the tract shall be provided and installed in conformity with the landscape and fencing plans. 83. A subdivision entry sign may be permitted in accordance with Section 22.52.970(b) of the Municipal Code and may be incorporated into tract fencing and .landscaping. 84. The existing oak tree on the site shall be incorporated into future landscaping of the tract, and shown on the landscape plan. During grading and construction, that oak tree shall be appropriately protected. No work shall be permitted within the protected zone which shall be in conformity with City standards (5 feet from the dripline). Page 12 LL I 85. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the specific zoning for the subject property unless provisions to the contrary are set forth in any approval issued with -respect to the development of the subject property or shown on the approved tentative map. Any deviation from zoning requirements shall be made only with the proper approval. 86. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the tentative map. 87. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed with the Director of Community Development their affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. 88. Any violation of any condition hereof or of any law, statute, or ordinance applicable to this land division and the development of the subject property shall result in suspension of the entitlement granted hereby and lapse of all privileges granted hereunder; ' provided that the applicant has. been given written notice to cease .such violation and has failed to cease such violation for a period of 30 days following the giving of such notice. 89. Pursuant to approval and agreement of the applicant; final map approval shall not be granted until the applicant enters into an agreement for school. mitigation with the William S. Hart Union High School District, the Saugus Union School District and the Sulphur Springs Union School District. 90. Prior to submitting the fencing and landscaping, plans required above, the applicant shall solicit from the existing property owners whose property abuts the southerly boundary of the subject property for opinions and comments of those homeowners regarding the location, design and materials to be used in the construction of the walls, landscaping and irrigation on the subject property which lies immediately adjacent to those existing homes. Page 13 M 91. Prior to occupancy, a traffic study shall be conducted by the City in the existing neighborhood to the east of the subject property to determine if any additional traffic controls are required. The cost of the study and controls deemed required shall be borne by the applicant. Additional controls which may be required by the City as a resolution of the traffic study may include, but shall not be limited to, any necessary signal modifications at the intersections of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street, and potential use of speed bumps or humps or raised ceramic pavement markers. Property owners within 400 feet of the eastern boundary of the subject property shall be notified by the City of the results of the study. 92. Prior to commencement of any grading, the applicant shall hire, at applicant's cost, an inspector to inspect each home: and property within 400' of the eastern boundary of this land division, from whose owner the applicant receives a written request so to do, to help determine its existing conditions and to create a bench mark by which to determine if any grading on the applicant's tract cause any damage to the .adjacent existing homes. Any damage determined to be caused by the applicant will be repaired at the applicant's expense. CITY COUNCIL AMENDED CONDITION (5-22-901 In implementing this condition, the City will send copies of the .final conditions approved for this project to each property owner within 400' of the.project, as set forth above. The City shall include a cover letter explaining the purpose of the documents and the owner's right to request inspection per this condition. A form will be included which property owners will be invited to return as a request for inspection. The results of all inspections performed by the applicant shall be made available to the City. Upon their receipt, the City shall notify each property owner who returned the form that the results.have been filed with the City and shall make these results available to individual property owners who may, if they chose, obtain a copy of their own inspection report. All property owners will in addition have access to public information on file. Page 14 << ,• 93. A monitoring system for ground movement . shall be established within the off-site tract street and sidewalk network to establish a baseline reference six (6) months prior to commencement of any proposed grading activity. Such monitoring shall continue through the grading process until the grading is completed, within five hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. Thereafter, such monitoring shall continue for a. period of six (6) months following the completion of grading activity in said area. Said monitoring system shall be read and examined once a month. The survey points shall be established in an area within five hundred (500) feet of the tract boundaries. In addition to the monitoring devices required above, the applicant shall establish survey monitoring points along its southern tract boundaries near the off-site property corners three (3) months prior to the commencement of grading activity. These survey points shall be read on a monthly basis until such, time as construction activity commences. Thereafter, these survey points shall be read once per week until such time as grading activity is completed within five hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. The survey points shall then be read on a monthly basis for a period of six (6) months following completion of said area. 94. Prior to the, commencement of the monitoring required by conditions noted above, the applicant- shall notify the City. The applicant shall make all survey data and monitoring results available to the City of Santa Clarita, to its representatives, and to the applicant's consultants for the purpose of analysis and review. 95. Prior to the commencement of grading, and as soon as practicable, the applicant shall hydroseed all places where plant life has been removed from the easterly slope of the site during the exploratory trenching completed on February 3, 1990. 96. During grading of the site, small equipment shall be used within five hundred (500) feet of any existing residences to minimize vibration. Any- excessive vibration may be reported to the City which may recommend additional .mitigation measures. 97. Subject to written approval from the property owner of the residence at 28135 Foxlane Drive, the applicant shall be permitted to enter the property to correct a localized surficial slump in the vicinity of the rear yard of that property. It is recognized that, to accomplish the task, outlined herein, the applicant will require access through two adjacent properties at 28129 and 28143 Foxlane Drive and that written permission of the owners of those properties will be required to ingress and egress to the slump area described above. Page 15 LL 98. To reasonably insure the safety of the adjacent property during the grading process, the applicant shall install two chain link fences, one near and surrounding any portion of the subject property upon which the applicant is grading and another near the property line of the subject property with adjacent homes. The fence shall be designed to perform beyond normal standards in protecting adjacent homes from the results of grading. Such fences shall require approval by the Department of Public Works before installation. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITION _{1-16- 99. The applicant. shall comply with the mitigation measure prescribed in the biological resources report for the site dated January 8, 1990. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITION (3-6-90) 100. During grading and construction, no traffic shall be permitted ingress and egress the site via Foxlane Drive, Nearview Drive, Tambora Drive or Bakerton.Avenue. All vehicles entering the site shall berequired to use whites Canyon Road as the point of ingress and egress. CITY COUNCIL NEW CONDITIONS (5-22-90) 101. In addition to the monitoring devices required above, the applicant shall establish survey monitoring points along its southern tract boundaries near the off-site property corners three (3) months prior to the commencement of grading activity. These survey points shall be read on a monthly basis until such time as grading activity commences. Thereafter, these survey points shall be read once per week until such time as grading activity is completed within five hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. The survey points shall then be read on a monthly basis for a period of six. (6) months following completion of said area. 102. In furtherance of Condition No. 92 above, the applicant shall maintain throughout construction or for six (6) months after the date the City has certified for rough grading for the last fifteen (15) homes, whichever event occurs later, its General Liability Insurance with limits of not less than six million dollars ($6,0001000.00), insuring, the applicant and the City against damage resulting from such grading to any home or property within 400 feet of the east boundary of this land subdivision. 16 LL 103. The number of residentialCertificates of Occupancy which may be obtained by the applicant(s) for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 prior to November 1, 1992, or the completion and opening of the Whites Canyon Bridge over the Santa Clara River, whichever comes first, shall not exceed a combined maximum total of one hundred (100). Per agreement of the applicant(s), VTTM 46626 shall be eligible to request and obtain a maximum of seventy-two (72) of these Certificates of Occupancy, with VTTM 47863 eligible to request and obtain a maximum of twenty-eight (28). Transfer of the Certificates of Occupancy allocation is not precluded by this condition, but is subject to written agreement between the applicants and approval by the Department of Community Development. Upon completion and opening of the Whites Canyon Bridge or November 1, 1992, whichever comes first, the applicant(s) may request any remaining Certificates of Occcupancy as normally required for completion. Page 17 L L CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T.E R 0 F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M ,r t7_ C E V" %i DEC 2 7 1990 TO: Mayor Boyer and Councilmembers FROM: George A. Caravalho, City Manager DATE: December 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Follow-up to Council Approval of Weston Landmark Project In May, Council approved -the above project with direction to staff to develop language to be added as.conditions in response to resident testimony at the public hearings. The concerns were noise and vibration, a need for protection for adjacent and area homeowners in the event of -damage resulting from grading or construction and occupancy restrictions tied to infrastructure. These new conditions have been written and are attached (Conditions number 101, 102, and 103). Community Development staff has scheduled a meeting with homeowners representatives to acquaint them with the language and the applicant has agreed with the language. Staff made sure these conditions were achievable before presenting to the developer and homeowners. The Council will approve the final map for this project in an estimated four to eight months. This is an information item only. Please call me or Dick Ropecky if you have any questions. cc: Dick Ropecky, Office Manager of Building and Safety hT=-1L. Fiad:siaw 8i7Mct©r p -Eo nnitg Development LMH:rd:758 L L 98. To reasonably insure the safety. of the adjacent property during the grading process, the applicant shall install two chain link fences, one near and surrounding any portion of the subject property upon which the applicant is grading and another near the property line of the subject property with adjacent homes. The fence shall be designed to perform beyond normal standards in protecting adjacent homes from the results of grading. Such fences shall require approval by the Department of Public Works before installation. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITION (1-16-901 99. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measure prescribed in the biological resources report for the site dated January 8, 1990. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITION (3-6-90 100. During grading and construction, no traffic shall be permitted ingress and egress the site via Foxlane Drive, Nearview Drive, Tambora Drive or Bakerton Avenue. All vehicles entering the site shall be required to use Whites Canyon Road as the point of.ingress and egress. CITY COUNCIL NEW CONDITIONS (5-22-901 101. In addition to the monitoring devices required above, the applicant shall establish survey monitoring points along its southern tract boundaries near the off-site property corners three (3) months prior to. the commencement of grading activity. These survey points shall be read on a monthly basis until such time as grading activity commences. Thereafter, these survey points shall be read once per week until such time as grading activity is completed within five hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. The survey points shall then be read on a monthly basis for a period of six (6) months following completion of said area. 102. In furtherance.of Condition No. 92 above, the applicant shall maintain throughout construction or for six ,(6) months after the date the City. has certified for rough grading for the. last fifteen (15) homes, whichever event occurs later, its General Liability Insurance with limits of not less than six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), insuring, the applicant and the City against damage resulting from such grading to any home or property within 400 feet of the east boundary of this land subdivision. M 103. The number of residential Certificates of Occupancy which may be obtained by the applicant(s) for vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 prior to November 1, 1992, or the completion and opening of the Whites Canyon Bridge over the Santa Clara River, whichever comes first, shall not exceed a combined maximum total of one hundred (100). Per agreement of the applicant(s), VTTM 46626 shall be eligible to request and obtain a maximum of seventy-two (72) of these Certificates of Occupancy, with VTTM 47863 eligible to request and obtain a maximum of twenty-eight (28). Transfer of the Certificates of Occupancy allocation is not precluded by this, condition, but is subject to written agreement between the applicants and approval by the Department of Community Development. Upon completion and opening of the Whites Canyon Bridge or November 1, 1992, whichever comes first, the applicant(s) may request any remaining Certificates of Occcupancy as normally required for completion. Page 17 LL f CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development FROM: Donald M. Williams, Associate Planner / DATE: July 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Conditions Imposed on Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 46626 and 47863 by the City Council on May 22, 1990 Per the direction of the City Council at their hearing on May 22, 1990, I have drafted one of the -two new conditions imposed on the above -referenced projects. It was. the Council's direction, as you may recall, that the two tracts combined could obtain no more than 100 building permits prior to November 1, 1992, or the completion and opening of the Whites Canyon Bridge, whichever comes first. I have also included language to close possible loopholes, and to allow the two affected developers flexibility in mutually determining which will use the permits. If this draft language meets with your approval, please let me know and I will have it added to the already approved final conditions. (Or do we need to have it reviewed by the Council?) 01R.144 CONDITION NO. 103 (Added by the Citv Council on 05122L901 "The number of residential building permits which may be obtained by the applicant(s) for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 prior to November 1, 1992, or the completion and opening of the Whites Canyon Bridge over the Santa Clara River, whichever comes first, shall not exceed a combined maximum total of one hundred (100) permits. Per agreement of the applicant(s), VTTM 46626 shall be eligible to request and obtain a maximum of seventy-two (72) of these permits, with VTTM 47863 eligible to request and obtain a maximum of twenty-eight (28) permits. The 100 permit maximum limit includes all residential unit building permits, including those obtained for the construction of model homes. Transfer of building permit allocation is not precluded by this condition, but is subject to written agreement between the applicants and approval by the Department of Community Development. Upon completion and opening of -the Whites Canyon Bridge or November 1, 1992, whichever comes first, the applicant(s) may request and obtain any remaining building permits required for project completion." << e 10 Lynn M. Harris -2- July 18, 1990 As you know, the second condition (regarding the Council's direction to the developers that "safety bonds" be obtained to protect existing residential properties adjacent to these projects) has become problematic. I will be working with Mr. John Ashkar (Weston Development Corporation) next week to identify a mechanism to implement the Council's direction. I will keep you apprised of this effort. If you have any questions concerning this memo, please let me know. Thank you. cc: Chris Trinkley DMW:sw CITY OF SANTA CLARITA N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I 0 N May 22, 1990 CERTIFICATION DATE: February 20, ±998 APPLICANT: American Landmark Development. Inc. TYPE OF PERMIT: Vesting Tentative Tract May FILE.NO.: VTTM 47863 ====va=xvs=as=====_______---- =................. _______..... =... ___________ LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Whites Canyon Road, east side, approximately 600 . feet north of the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: 80 -lot subdivision for single family residences. [ ] City Council It is the determination of the [X] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development upon review that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Mitigation measures Form completed by: [X] are attached Michael A.. Rubin, Associate Planner (Name and Title) Date of Public Notice: November 29. 1989 [X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice. L L—Y-q- 14 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CASE NO. VTTM No. 47863 Prepared by: Michael A. Rubin Project Location: -Whites Canyon Road. east side. approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street. Project Description and Setting: Vacant hillside land proposed to be subdivided into 80 lots for single family residences. General Plan Designation Hillside Management (HM) Zoning: Light Agricultural A-1-10.000 Applicant: American Landmark Development, Inc. Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside terrain, traffic. aesthetics A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .................. [X] [ 1 [ ] b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ............... [X] [ ] [ ] C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ........................... [XI [ I [ I d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .................................. [ 1 [ 1 [X1 e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ I [ I [Xj f. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?.. ................................... [ I [XI [ 1 g. Changes in deposition; erosion or siltation? ................................. [ l [ I [XI h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ l [X] [ I << << 114 - 2 - `f_Yf YES MAYBE NO i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ....................... [X] [ ] [ ] j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [X] [ ] [ ] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ I [XI Development proposed in a mapped 1. Other? landslide area [XI I 1 [ 1 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] [ 1 [X] b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ] [ I [X] C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? .............. [ I I I [XI d. Development within a high wind hazard area? ...................................... [X] [ 1 [ I e. Other? [ I [ I [XI 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ [X] I I I I b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ............................... [ I I I IX] C. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ......................... I l I I [X] d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] [ ] [X] e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [X] [ I I l f. Change in the quantity of. ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer.by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ] [ ] [XI g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ [ I I I IXI `f_Yf e - 3 - YES MAYBE NO [ I (I q --q-7 h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ ] i. Other? [ ] 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [ ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ...... ( ] C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? ........... [ ] d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ...................................... I I 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and insects or microfauna)? .................... ( ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ] 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [X] b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ] C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ] 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? ................. [X] 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ....................... [X] << b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... [X] [ I (I q --q-7 - 4 - 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing', or create a demand for additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X] b. Other? [ ] [ ] [X] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] I ] [X] YES MAYBE NO C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? ............................... [j I 1 IX] d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ ] [X] [ ] 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ................................. [ ] I J [XJ b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? ......................... .[ ] ( ] (X] 10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal: a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of -hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ [ J [ J IXJ C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ...................................... [ ] I J IX] d. Otherwise expose people.to potential safety hazards? ................................... [ ] I J [XJ 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ..................... [X] [ ] I ] b. Other? [ ] [ J [X] 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing', or create a demand for additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X] b. Other? [ ] [ ] [X] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] I ] [X] f- - 5 - YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ... [ ] [ ] (X] C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? ............................ [X] [ J [ 1 d, Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. [X1 [ ] [ 1 e. Increase in traffic.hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [XJ [ I [ I f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. ( ] [ 1 [X] 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ........................... [ ) t I (X) b. Police protection? ......................... [X] [ ] [ ] C. Schools? ................................... [X] [ l [ 1 d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... (X] [ ] [ ] e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... [ 1 [ I 1X1 f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ ] [X] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy . .................................... t I [ ] [XI b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? [ ] [ 1 [X] 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ] [ ) [XJ b. Communications systems? .................... ( ] [ J [X] C. Water systems? ............................. [ I [ I 1X1 d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [ ) [X] e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] U YES MAYBE NO f. Solid waste and disposal systems? ........... [ ] [ J [X] g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of delivery system improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ] [ J [X] 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ] [ ] [XJ b. Exposure of people to potential health . hazards? ................................... [ ] I ] IX] 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ................... [ ] [X] [ ] b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ....................... [ ] [X] [ ] C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ J [XJ [ J` 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in.an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] I J [X] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [ J [X] b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] [ J [XJ C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] [ ] [XJ d. Will the..proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses'within the potentialimpactarea? ..................... [ J [ J [X] - 7 - Discussion of Impacts r The following is a discussion of the 'yes' and *maybe' responses in the Initial Study. Responses to 'no' items are optional. 1 a. Changes in geologic substructures will occur. As a result,, major geologic corrective measures are need such as, but not limited to, shear keys, buttress fills, stabilization fills, subdrain systems, and removal and recompaction. 1 b. These impacts are inherent in grading operations. Compaction and fill will be required. 1 c. A major change in topography will occur as a result of this project proposal. An area of gentle to moderately rolling hills will- be graded to accommodate a housing development. An estimated 851 of the surface area of the site is proposed to be graded. 1 d. Landslide hazards are known to exist within the project site. Standard engineering practices such as the recommendations in the preliminary geotechnical report for this project will reduce these potential hazards to an insignificant level. 1 i. Cut and fill in the amount of approximately 580,000 cubic yards will be required to accommodate the proposed project. Construction impacts, though short term, will generate temporary nuisance impacts. Noise and exhaust from grading equipment, as well as truck traffic to and from the site will pose an inconvenience to residents in the immediate vicinity. 1 j. Approximately 501 of the site is located on terrain of greater than 251 slope. 1 1. The project site is located within a mapped landslide area as per the Mint Canyon quadrangle of the Geology Maps of the California Department of Mines and Geology. Standard engineering practices for earthwork design -as well as state and municipal code requirements for grading operations can reduce these impacts to insignificant levels. 3 a. The site is presently in a vacant condition. Any development would increase the amount of surface area impervious to water, .thus increasing the rate and amount of runoff. Existing storm drains in the vicinity are expected to accommodate the increased runoff. 3 e. In the vicinity of lot 65, an intermittent spring exists. Water from the spring presently flows off-site to the east. Standard grading and engineering practices, including the recommendations for subdrains contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Review, dated October 16, 1989, ,by Leighton Associates, shall be incorporated into the grading plan. 4 a. One Valley Oak tree (Quercus lobata) exists on the project site within lot 65 and may be adversely impacted by grading and/or the future location of a residence within that lot. See attached Mitigation Measures: Plant Life q"!51 - 7a- 6 a. Since the site is presently vacant, any new development will increase existing noise levels. Noise sources are likely to emanate from construction equipment and traffic, and after occupancy of the tract from vehicular traffic and typical ambient residential noise sources such as stereos, power tools, household appliances, barking dogs, etc. Since the project is. proposed only for residential uses and is located adjacent to existing residences, no significant impacts from .noise are anticipated. 7. Because development is proposed where none presently exists, new light and glare will be created. Headlight glare from vehicular traffic will be the primary source. Other sources will include street lights and interior lighting of the individual residences. No significant impacts from light and glare are expected. 8 a. A substantial alteration of the present land use of the area will occur. Due to the presently vacant condition of the site, the change to an 80 -lot single family residential subdivision will entirely change the existing land use. 8 b. A -substantial alteration of the planned land use of the area will occur. The 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan, classifies the vicinity as Hillside Management, therefore, Nonurban, by definition. A density formula normally applied to the nonurban category for this site would'allov a minimum of 3.6 units and a maximum of -24 units with a preferred limit of 14 units (representing the midrange). The referenced general plan has been adopted by the City of Santa Clarita as a policy guide only, and is not a regulatory document. It is noted that the. existing zoning of the site is Light Agricultural A-1-10,000. This allows development of single family residences of a minimum 10,000 square foot lot sizes. A provision exists in the City's subdivision ordinance to permit a reduction in the required area to a minimum 7,000 square foot lot size for up to 432 of this proposed subdivision. Only 18 lots are proposed to have a reduced area. The existing zoning would permit approximately 113 lots. The average lot size for this project is 14,157 square feet. 8 d. The proposed use does not conform to established development criteria in that it is in an area designated by the General Plan as Hillside Management (HM). In this designation the intent is to develop residential lots in cluster form, thus avoiding grading in steep sloped areas; lots would then -be developed in the shallower areas 0-251 slopes. The proposed project shows lots evenly distributed throughout the site. Again, an estimated 851 of the surface area will require grading. lla. The project will alter -the location, distribution, density, and growth rate of the area. Since new development is proposed where none presently exists, these impacts are inevitable. The impacts generated are addressed elsewhere in this Environmental Assessment. primarily within sections Al, A13, A14, and A18. 13a. The number of vehicular trips generated per day by this project is estimated to be 828, with a morning peak hour of 66 trips and and afternoon peak of 89. These figures alone represent a negligible impact on the local street system. However, when considered with the �L cumulative impacts of other proposed developments that will be utilizing the same street system, the impact is considered significant. �� S� le - 7b - 13c. The cumulative impacts of this project and others proposed that will be located on the existing and future planned. extensions of Antelope Valley Freeway (State Highway 14). Only mimimal improvements to this freeway are budgeted in the near future (one to three years). A widening is planned from Via Princessa to Sand Canyon Road from the two existing lanes each direction to three lanes total each direction. Since freeway traffic generated by this tract will enter the freeway at Via Princessa, and the primary travel direction is west (toward Los Angeles), this improvement will not directly improve traffic conditions generated by this project. No improvements are contemplated within the State Transporation Improvement Plan (STIP) within the next five years. The true cumulative impacts of this and other projects affecting the Antelope Valley Freeway are difficult to quantify at this time since much of the development which would impact the freeway is expected to occur outside of the City's jurisdiction. The cities of Palmdale, Lancaster, and the County of Los Angeles are other jurisdictions whose land use decisions impact the freeway. 13d. The design of the proposed project will alter present patterns of circulation. The project proposes a new collector street that will intersect Whites Canyon Road. This will create a new turning movement that does not presently exist, thereby altering circulation in this segment of Whites Canyon Road. 13e. Inherent in new development is the potential for increased traffic hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedistrians. Mitigation measures identified for this project will alleviate additional traffic hazards. See attached Mitigation Measures:. Transportation/Circulation 14b. Police services will be further utilized by the additional population of this project creating additional demands for services. 14c. Schools are all ready at or above capacity levels at all levels serving this project site. 14d. Park and recreation services in this portion of the City are at a minimum level. The additional population generated by this project will additionally burden these services. See attached Mitigation Measures: Public Services. 18a. The area in which the site is located consists of rolling hills. Many homes to the northwest of the site and some to the east have a view of this area. Grading of these hills will come within close proximity to these existing homes, and will .change the view that these homes presently enjoy. Subsequent construction of homes within the site will change the character of the view of the open space now afforded by the homes presently above and below this site. The .impact of this development is that the close range view that both areas to the east and northwest of this site have will be dramatically changed. The distant views that the homes.to the northwest have will be unaffected; however the homes to the east may possibly have distant views blocked to the. northwest. ` �- 53 04- . 7c _ 18b. The change in view from open space, chapparral covered hills, to a housing development could be considered offensive by those most affected by the changes in new described in No. 18a above. 18c. Those who perceive the view to be offensive, could consideY the visual impact detrimental. See attached Mitigation Measures: Aesthetics In general, changes, in views that presently exist will be unavoidable. The degree of significance in these changes will vary on an individual basis, and is a difficult subject to assess in terms environmental impacts. B. DISCUSSION OF YAYS'TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED 4. Plant Life The existing oak tree on the site shall be incorporated into future landscaping of the tract. During grading and construction, the tree shall be appropriately protected. No work shall be permitted within the protected zone (five feet from the dripline). 13. Transportation/Circulation b. A traffic signal shall.be installed at the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and "A' Street. C. Parking restrictions on Whites Canyon Road shall be installed and restriping of Nadal and Whites Canyon Road. 14. Public Service Park land shall be dedicated to improve the existing public park availability in the vicinity. 18. Aesthetics Uniform landscaping and fencing shall be required. The City shall have the authority to review and approve both. A landscape maintenance assessment district shall be formed to ensure continued maintenance. C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any`of the following'can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. f- - 8 - YES. MAYBE NO 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish.or wildlife species, cause•a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ................. [ ] [ ] [X] 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... [ J [ J [X] 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A -project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. [ ] [ ] [XJ 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ ] [XJ D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this Initial Study, itis determined that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILLBE PREPARED . .................................... [ ] Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this Initial Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED ..................................... [X] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.( J .................................... DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA November 29. 1989 , l Date Signature Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner L Name and Title Y__55- P LIST OF SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORKATION Initial Study Vesting. Tentative Tract Map 47863 7. LIGHT & GLARE Traffic Analysis, Aug., 1989. 8. LAND USE city of Santa Clarita Dept. of Community Development Environmental Subiect Source of Information 1. EARTH City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Public Works and Preliminary Geotechnical Review, Oct. 16, 1989, by Leighton Associates 2. AIR South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District Air Quality Handbook 3. WATER Santa Clarita Water Co., Geotechnical Review, and Drainage Analysis, Aug.,. 3, 1989, by Sikand Engineering Associates 4. PLANT LIFE City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Community Development Maps of Significant Ecological Areas and Oak Tree Survey, July 19, 1989 by James Henrickson, Ph.D. 5. ANIMAL LIFE City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Community Development Maps of Significant Ecological Areas 6. NOISE Traffic Analysis, Aug., 1989, by Crain & Associates. 7. LIGHT & GLARE Traffic Analysis, Aug., 1989. 8. LAND USE city of Santa Clarita Dept. of Community Development dr - 9. NATURAL RESOURCES City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Community Development 10. RISK OF UPSET/HAZARDS County of Los Angeles Fire Dept. 11. POPULATION City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Community Development 12. HOUSING City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Community Development 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Traffic Analysis, Aug., 1989. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES City of Santa Clarita Depts. of Parks and Recreation, and Public, Works. County of Los Angeles Depts.. of Fire and Sheriff, Saugus Union, Sulphur - Springs Union and Wm. S. Hart. High School Districts 15. ENERGY So. Calif. Edison and So. Calif. Gas 16. UTILITIES So. Calif. Edison, So. Calif. Gas, Santa Clarita Water Co. 17. HEALTH Los Angeles Co. Health Dept. and Sanitation District 18. AESTHETICS City of Santa Clarita Depts. of Community Development, and Parks and Recreation 19. RECREATION City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Parks and Recreation 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES State of California Dept. of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation LL T- 67 f INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS James Henrickson Ph.D., Department of Biology, California. State University (213) 2243518 Los Angeles, California 90032 (213) 224-3258 RECEIVED JAN 0 9 1990 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF TENTATIVE TRACT 47863 COCIIY'_SAN—- I;aiA" Los Angeles County, California This report presents data on the biological resources of the approximately 32 acre Tentative Tract No. 47863, that borders and lies north of Whites Canyon Road in the city of Santa Clarita. The biological survey was undertaken during on -foot reconnaissance of the entire site on January 7, 1990 by James Henrickson.Ph.D., Botanist and Richard Clements M.S., Vertebrate biologist -Ornithologist. The site previously had been surveyed by Dr. Henrickson on July 28, 1989 during preparation of an oak tree survey for the site, and data taken on the two surveys are have been combined in this report. The winter survey was done at a time of minimal biological activity on the site. As no significant rains had occurred during the late 1989 -early 1990 growing season and most plants were in a dormant state. Very little active growth was observed in the plants except near the springs and seepages on the site. However, it was possible to examine fragments of plant material gathered under shrubs with a dissecting miscroscope to determine the presence of many species otherwise not apparent. This report presents a description of the biological resources of the site, and.presents inventories of plant and animal resources, discusses the significance of these resources, and the impact of the proposed development on these resources. Special emphasis has been placed on Federal - and State -listed rare and/or endangered species. . BOTANICAL RESOURCES: The site occurs along a.series of south -facing ridges and ravines that extend from an area of higher elevation to the north. The northernmost border of the site ranges from 1660 to 1570 feet in elevation and the site slopes towards White's Canyon Road to a minimal elevation of 1410 feet in the extreme southeastern corner of the site giving a total elevational range of 250 feet. The eastern half of the site consists of an -open ridge that gradually increases in elevation to -the north, while the western half of the site is more dissected, containing a deep canyon bordered with steeper east and westerly facing slopes and rises to a small hill just north of, and off of the site. The hills are mostly covered with an open Coastal sage scrub vegetation mixed with some Chaparral elements on the upper and more protected slopes. The slopes and flats bordering Whites Canyon Road have been graded at the time of the road development and have since developed an open vegetation dominated largely by Coastal sage scrub species mixed with a stronger weed component. The site contains two separate spring or seep areas that are of interest. Most of the vegetation on the slopes is relatively undisturbed, but past grading for construction of Whites Canyon Road, and for hillside cuts along the development to the east has left recovering.but disturbed areas along the southern and eastern borders of the site, and recent grading associated with geological studies on the site have greatly modified portions of the site. Vegetation on the site is here divided into Coastal Sage Scrub -Chaparral on << 4-9 f- the undisturbed slopes, Disturbed Habitats where native vegetation has been distured or modified in the past, and Wet habitats at the spring -seepage areas on the site. Coastal Sage Scrub -Chaparral: The upper undisturbed slopes contain a low and moderately open scrub vegetation dominated by Coastal sagebush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonium fasciculatum ssp. fasciculatum), Black sage (Salvia mellifera); Our lord's candle (Yucca whipplei) on the more exposed slopes, and usually by Chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) on the upper, more protected slopes. These occur mixed with less frequent individuals of White -leaved sage (Salvia leucophylla), White sage (Salvia apiana), Beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris), Wishbone plant (Mirabilis californica), Bush groundsel (Senecio douglasii), Elderberry (Sambucus mexicanus), Mormon tea (Ephedra viridis), and Bush Encelia (Encelia virginensis ssp. actonii). The shrubs species are not uniformly distributed over the site, but form a vegetation mosaic, with Coastal sagebrush, California buckwheat, Our lord's candle and Bush Encelia being more common and exhibiting an overall shrub density of 15 to 40 percent on the southerly facing slopes while Chamise, Black sage, often White -leaf sage with an overall shrub density of 40-80 percent occur on the more protected slopes. Some species such as Black.sage, occur on all slopes, and also may be dominant on west- and east -facing slopes, but their overall density of each species will vary with their abilities to cope with environmental stresses.. Through most of the site the spacing of the shrubs is such that travel through the scrub is easy. As this season is characterized by a lack of rains, understory vegetation has failed to developed. But the associated understory species can be identified from remains from the previous growing season. They consist of several native perennial herbs including Stonecrop (Dudleya lanceolata), Yellow yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), and native perennial grasses Blue grass (Poa scabrella), Melic Grass (Melita imperfecta), Needle grass.(Stipa cernua) and less frequently, Giant rye grass (Elymus condensatus). Interesting native herbs included Mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus), Blue dicks (Dichelostemma pulchella), Turkey mullein (Eremocarpus setigerus), Chia (Salvia columbare), and many others, reported in the checklist for the site, were recognized from old remains. Throughout southern California the understory of Coastal sage scrub -Chaparral also contains a weedy, adventive component of introduced annual grasses such as Chess grasses (Bromus rubens, B. diandrus and B. mollis), Wild oats (Avena barbata and A. fatua), Shismus grass (Schismus barbatus), Wild barley (Horedum leporinum), and Fescue grass (Festuca megalura). In a normal spring, Black mustard (Brassica nigra), Tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), and Storksbill (Erodium cicutarium) would be common. Later in the summer Turkey mullein (Eremocarpus setigeris), Vineger weed (Trichostema lanceolata), Telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), Tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), Horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and Stephanomeria become more common as they do in disturbed areas. Though this winter is particularly dry, the Coastal sage scrub -Chaparral vegetation on the site is in moderately good condition and would be expected to 3 er recover well from the drought if given opportunity. It shows average, but not high, species diversity, and has shown good recovery from previous fires. This . vegetation type is, of course, capable of supporting wildfires, as is evidenced by the broad areas that have burned off further to the north of the site. Disturbed Habitats: The southern border of the site is marked by Whites Canyon Road, and during the construction of the.roadway, the slopes were out back leaving a series of terraces and disturbed flats. These areas have developed a sparse covering of Bird's Foot trefoil (Lotus scoparius), a species that typically comes in after fires in Coastal sage scrub and Chaparral. Mixed with this are a scattering of California buckwheat, Coastal Sagebrush, Goldenbush (Haplopappus squarrosus ssp. grindelioides) a wide assortment of weedy grasses such as Wild oats, Chess, Fescue, and Schismus grasses and also weedy herbs as.Black mustard, Telegraph weed, Tocalote, Horseweed etc. The slopes immediately below Whites Canyon road have been planted in various shrub Saltbushs including Atriplex canescens, A. polycarpa, and A. lentiformis ssp. breweri and Spanish broom (Spartium junceum), that occurs with various weeds and a scattering of native shrubs such as California buckwheat, Great Basin sage (Artemisia tridentata ssp. parishii) and another Goldenbush (Haplopappusap lmeri ssp, pachylepis). Distrubed areas also occur on the eastern margin of the site where terraces were formed during construction of the adjacent housing development. These sites contain some cultivated plants (Eucalypus and Bottlebrush) but many of them have:been invaded by native Coastal Sage shrub species. Wet Habitats: The most interesting habitats on, thesiteare the.seeps and springs. They occur in two separate areas. Two seeps, one with the potential to develop into a flowing spring, occur in the far southern portion of the site near the lone.Valley.or Roble oak (Quercus lobata). While much of this area and part of one spring has been graded recently, there still exists a series of interesting native plants that are typically associated with seeps and springs. These include Saltgrass (Distichlis s icata), various Rushes (Juncus mexicanus, J. xiphioides, and J. oxymeris), Rye grass (Elymus triticoides , Cattails.(Typha domingensis), Mulefat (Baccharis glutinosa), Beardgrass (Polypogon monspeliensis) and other, more weedy species. Saltbushes have also developed near this seepage. The other seep area occurs in the deep ravine in the western half of the site and is marked by the presence of two moderately small, multi -trunked Sycamores trees-(Platanus racemosa). During the summer this area does not exude much water due to the transpirative pull of adjacent plants, but during the winter. survey a flow of water was recorded and the site was the only area characterized by green, flowering plants at the time of the survey. This small site contained a few plants not observed elsewere on the site including Western thistle (Cirsium occidentale), and Acourtia (Perezia microcephala), and the Coastal sage scrub plants there were large and robust. Neither of the seep areas contain Willows or Cottonwoods and they can not be considered to be riparian habitats. It can be considered the most diverse and interesting habitat on the site. Unfortunately, a recently constructed roadway that continues up and adjacent ridge has graded the lower portions of the site ravine y and has visually modified the remainder of the site. A Red-tailed hawk's nest was observed in one of the.sycamores. WILDLIFE RESOURCES: As animals are generally secretive during daylight hours lists of species expected to occur on the study site have been prepared based on the literature. The list of reptiles (Appendix Table 2) is based on R. E. Stebbins "A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians" (1966); the list of birds (Appendix Table 3) is based on K. Garrett and J. Dunn "Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution" (1980), and the listing of mammals (Appendix Table 4) is based on E. R. Hall and K. R: Kelson "Mammals of North America" Vol::. 1 and 2 (1959) and L. G. Ingles "Mammals of the Pacific States (1965). Animals actually observed or observed through sign during the survey are so indicated. Amphibians and Reptiles: --Appendix table 2 lists one species of Amphibia and 10 species of Reptilia whose range includes the site and that might be expected on the vegetational associations the site. All are adapted to grassland and open Coastal sage scrub -Chaparral habitats. Due to the cool winter season, no amphibians or reptiles were observed on the site during the survey. Birds: Appendix table 3 lists 13 species of birds seen on the site and an additional 23 species that.may be expected to occur on the site either as permanent or summer residents or as wintering species given a total listing of 36 species. Many additional species might briefly -visit the site during migration. All species observed or expected are residents of grassland and dry Coastal sage scrub -Chaparral communities. Brown towhee, California quail, and Raven were the common species observed on the site. Rufous -crowned sparrow and House finch were generally common in the ruderal and grassland areas. Pellets of the -Great horned owl were.observed under.the lone Valley oak on the site. Mammals: Appendix table 4 lists five species of mammals that were observed on the site or were identified as present by sign (tracks, diggings, scat). Based on their known ranges and habitat preferences, an additional 26 species, including eight species of bats might be expected to occur on the site. All are dry -adapted species associated with grasslands, low Chaparral and Coastal sage scrub habitats. California ground squirrels, Audubon cottontail and California jackrabbit are the common diurnal species. Tracks and other sign indicate that Coyotes and Pocket gophers are numerous and Gray fox scat was seen on the site. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES --BOTANICAL: A total of 101 species of vascular plants were observed on -the site of which 73 (72.3 percent) were native and 28 (27.7 percent) were introduced, naturalized species. It is expected that a spring time survey made in a wet year would increase the, number of plants .found on the site, but not significantly. Most of the species observed on the site are those expected in Coastal sage scrub -Chaparral and around seeps. As in all'' grassland and scrub habitats in Southern California, the vegetation has been altered by the influx of weedy European annual grasses, which in this site largely dominant in the understory and constitute the flora of the more disturbed areas. L Y-- iz f` The site contains one native Valley or Roble Oak (Quercus lobata) of moderate size and of good condition. It was graded as a B+ tree in the previous oak survey. The close proximity of springs to the tree undoubtedly has benefited the tree. The site contains one species of vascular plant listed by the California Native Plant Societies "Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California" (Special Publication No. 1, edition 4, 1988) on list 4 "Plants of Limited Distribution --a watch list." The plant is Pierson's Morning-glory, (Calystegia peirsonii) of the Convolvulaceae or Morning-glory Family. It was found to be relatively infrequent on the site. It is given a Rarity- Endangerment- Distribution code of 1-1-3, indicating that it is (1) -Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction is low at this time; (1) -not endangered, and (3) -endemic to California. The species does not have any federal status. It is a native morning-glory appearing much like the weedy Hedge bindweed Convolvulus arvensis, and blooms during the early -mid -summer. The species was initially thought to be rare as it was known only.from a few collections prior to 1970 from this area. It is, however, quite common in Coastal Sage Scrub throughout the Santa Clarita-Mint Canyon region and and its Endangered listing has been revised downward to a watch list. Several other species listed by the California Native Plant Society as "Rare and Endangered" were searched for on the site. They were the slender -horned Centrostegia, Chorizanthe (Centrostegia) leptoseras, the San Fernando Valley Chorizanthe, Chorizanthe. ap rryi var. fernandia, Nevin's barberry, Berberis (Mahonia) nevinii and Davidson's bush -mallow Malacothamnus davidsonii. The Chorizanthe and Centrostegia species were not found on the site and would not be expected on the site because due to the lack of proper sandy habitats. The Berberis nevinii and Davidson's bush mallow would be very conspicuous and easy to observe if they were present. The only bush mallow found near the site'(south of Whites Canyon road) was the common Malacothamnus faseiculatus var. fasciculatus. One additional species possibly expected in this area is the Catalina Mariposa lily Calochortus catalinae. This was not found on the site. The Mariposa lily native to the site was Calocortus clavatus, a yellow-gold-flowered.species with a different branching pattern. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES --WILDLIFE: The site would be expected to contain a low to moderately diverse vertebrate fauna and function as a viable community as it has areas of undisturbed scrubland and a series of seeps or springs that would be attractive to wildlife. Also the proximity of housing tracts with irrigated habitats will increase adjacent rodent populations as the animals will have a permanent supply of green foliage during the dry summer months. Of the species of amphibians and reptiles potentially occurring on the site, only one reptile species appears on state lists of species of concern. . This is the San Diego subspecies of the Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatus blainvillei), which is listed as a species of Special Concern by the State of California. This is a species of dry, sandy Coastal sage scrub habitats. It could possibly occur in Coastal sage scrub habitats on the site, but would not be expected to be common as areas of deep sand, its preferred I habitat, are few, though its primary food source', ants, are abundant on the site. The Federally and state listed Least Bell's vireo, is known to occur in the general region, but would not be expected to occur on the site as the site contains no riparian habitat, its perferred habitat. The site potentially could be used by as part of the forage area of the state and federally listed endangered California condor. This area is included in what is considered to be their past feeding range. The site contains no potential nesting sites and is too close to other housing developments to be valuable as Condor habitat. Only two species of mammals listed are of Special Concern: the Western or Greater mastiff bat and .the American badger. The Western mastiff bat, listed as a species of Special Concern by the State of California, occurs over much of California, but has decreased in numbers recently for unknown reasons. This species roosts in crevices on cliffs, but also in buildings, and hunts widely for insects at night. No specimens have been collected near the study site (D. F. Williams, Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California, 1986) and there are no suitable roosting locations on the site or in nearby areas for this species. Although the site is included within the potential range of this species, its occurrence on the site is very unlikely. The American badger occurs widely over nearly all of California and much of the United States. It has declined in numbers due to habitat destruction and poisoning of rodents, part of its food supply, and is listed by the State of California as a species of Special Concern. The habitat on the site does not constitute preferred habitat for Badgers. They would not be expected on the site. IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT: Development of the site into housing units will result in the loss of most of the natural habitat on the site. While many of the lots are large, much of.the non -pad site will consist of graded, modified slopes. The steepness of the site will necessitate large amounts of grading potentially allowing for runoff of soils onto adjacent downstream sites. However the presence of Whites Canyon Road to the south will focus the runoff into established drainages where settling ponds could be constructed to collect most of the silt runoff except during large storms. Replacement of the scrub communities by housing would result in destruction of the biological resources over those portions of the site. Where development occurs, animals that are not outright killed by the grading process, would be forced from their home territories and will have to compete for habitat with adjacent, already established populations. Such competition is usually not successful and results in the demise of the evacuees. While the site contains certain biological values, none 1s unique to the site and overall wildlife utilization of open Coastal sage scrub habitats is not as high as other habitats with more dense vegetation and increased biological diversity. Similar habitats occur throughout the general region and better LL O;k, 17 shrub communities occur in adjacent areas of the Angeles National Forest. However, piecemeal development of these habitats will eventually reduce the quantity of such habitats in the region and will reduce the habitat available for larger vertebrates of concern such as raptors and larger mammals. The saving of the loan Oak tree is considered a positive action. It is doubtful if it would remain a roosing site for the Great horned owl after the housing tract is completed, but as long as landscaping is not placed within its dripline, it should survive for a long time. Development of the site will also impact adjacent populations of animals in the surrounding areas as children and domestic pets will negatively affect and disturb animals in these areas by hunting and other activities. However, children and pets from adjacent developments are already impacting adjacent areas including this site. The area lies about 1.5 miles north of the Santa Clara River which considerably reduces the potential for impact by siltation on the State and Federally rare and endangered Unarmored threespine stickleback, which occurs in downstream populations west of Interstate 5. Water siltation, such as that which would run off from this sort of development during rainy seasons, is considered a severe negative impact on that species as it destroys potential breeding habitats by covering the substrate with silt. MITIGATION: The most important mitigation required is to control runoff from the site during development. Even though the site is about 1.5 miles north of the Santa Clara River, such runoff overloads drainages into the River and during heavy rains silts could travel into the Santa Clara river from this site. Development of series of catchment basins and using standard runoff control measures during construction should control excessive siltation of downstream areas. LL /S Appendix Table 1. Vascular Flora of Tentative Tract 47863 Los Angeles County, California White's Canyon road GYMNOSPERMAE Ephedra - Joint -fir Family Ephedra viridis Mormon -tea Cupressaceae - Cypress Family Juniperus californica California Juniper ANGIOSPERMAE DICOTYLEDONEAE Aizoaceae - Ieeplant Family *Mesembryanthemum edule Iceplant Asteraceae - Sunflower Family Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed var. californica 0 Artemisia californica Coastal Sagebrush Artemisia dranuneulus Wormwood Artemisia tridentata Great basin sage asp, parishii T Baccharis glutinosa Mule fat *Centaurea melitensis Tocalote Chrysopsis villosa Golden aster var. fastigata P B Cirsium occidentale Western thistle Conyza canadensis Horseweed Corethrogyne filaginifolia Corethrogyne var. piersonii A Encelia virginensis Goldenbush ssp. actonii A Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden yarrow var, confertiflorum Filago californica Filago Gutierrezia bracteata Matchweed 12 G C D R 0 I 0 A S W S C T T T H U H A A R L P B H A E A S R D B A R I G A T E L S F S R P R P R S C C S S I F S A C C P I I W E T H A B I T A T S I MI A I I A C F I S I I S F S I A I I S I R * = non-native species; C = common throughout.area; F = frequent, seen in,5-10 stations; I = infrequent, seen in 2-5 stations; R = Rare, seen in 1 station. Nomenclature follows P.A. Munz; "A Flora of Southern California," 1974. ,01 G C D W R 0 I E Appendix Table 1. 0 A S T W S C T T T H U H Vascular Flora of Tentative Tract 47863 H A A R A Los Angeles County, California L P B B White's. Canyon road H A E I A S R D T B A R A I G A T T E L S Haplopappus palmeri Goldenbush 5 I ssp, pachylepis Haplopappus squarrosus Goldenbush S I ssp. grindelioides. Hemizonia fasciculata Tarweed A F I Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed A I F "Lactuca serriola Wild lettuce A R I Perezia microcephala Acourtia P I Senecio douglasii Shrub groundsel S I var. douglasii •Sonchus oleraceus Sow thistle A I I Stephanomeria exigua Stephanomeria A I F Boraginaceae - Borage Family Amsinckia menzeisii Fiddleneck A F I Cryptantha intermedia Popcorn flower A C I Heliotropium curassavicum Heliotrope P R var. oculatum Plagiobothrys canescens Popcorn flower A C R Brassicaceae - Mustard Family *Brassica nigra Black mustard A C C •Brassica tournfortii Hairy mustard I I Lepidium lasiocarpum Peppergrass A I R *Sisymbrium altissimum Tumble mustard A C R Cactaceae - Cactus Family Opuntia basilaris Beavertail cactus S F var. basilaris Caprifoliaceae - Honeysuckle Family Sambucus mexicana Elderberry S R Chenopodiacae - Goosefoot Family Atriplex canescens Four-winge saltbush S R C I Atriplex lentiformis_ Saltbush S R F I asp. breweri Atriplex polycarpa Saltbush S F Convolvulaceae - Morning-glory Family Calystegia peirsonii Pierson's-morning-glory P R Cuscuta of. californica Dodder A F I Crassulacae - Stonecrop Family Crassula erecta Pigmy weed A I I G C D W R 0 I E Appendix Table 1. 0 A S T W S C T T T H U H Vascular Flora of Tentative Tract 47863 H A A R A Los Angeles Countyf California L P B B White's Canyon road H A E I A S R D T B A R A I G A T T E L S Dudleya lanceolate Stonecrop P I Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Family Eremocarpus setigerus Mullen weed A F F Euphorbia albomarginata Rattlesnake weed P I I Stillingia linearifolia Stillingia P R Fabaceae - Pea Family Lotus scoparius Bird's foot trefoil S C C var. scoparius Lupinus bicolor Lupine A I I var. microphyllus *Medicago polymorpha Bur-clover A I *Melilotus indicus Sweet clover A I *Spartium squamatum Spanish broom S F Fagaceae - Oak Family Quercus lobate Valley oak S R Geraniaceae - Geranium Family *Erodium botrys Storksbill A R *Erodium cicutarium Storksbill A C C Hydrophyllaceae-.Waterleaf Family Eremocarpus crassifolius Yerba santa S R Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia Eucrypta A R var. chrysanthemifolia Phacelia cicutaria Wild heliotrope A F var. hispida Lamiaceae - Mint Family *Marrubium vulgare Horehound A I Salvia apiana White sage S I Salvia columbariae Chia A I I Salvia leucophylla White-leafed sage S F I Salvia mellifera Black Sage S C F Trichostema lanceolatum Vinegar weed A I I Myrtaceae - Myrtle Family *Callistemon speciosus• Bottle-brush S R *Eucalyptus sp. Red-flowered gum tree T R Nyctaginaceae - Four O'clock Mirabilis californica Wishbone bush S C I var. californica L F Viscaceae - Mistletoe Family Phoradendron tomentosum Mistletoe S R ssp. maerophyllum (on Quercus) MONOCOTYLEDONEAE Agavaeeae - Agave Family G C *Agave americanum D W R Yucca whipplei R 0 C F I E Appendix Table 1. 0 A S T Mariposa lily P W S C T F I var. pulchella T T H U H Vascular Flora of Tentative Tract 47863 H A A R A Los Angeles County, California P F L P B B White's Canyon road H ��19 A E I A S R D T B A R A I G A T T E L S Onagraceae - Evening -primrose Family Camissonia californica Camissonia A I I Clarkia unguiculata Farewell -to -Spring A I Papaveraceae - Poppy Family Eschscholzia californica California poppy A I Platanaceae - Sycamore Family Platanus racemosa California sycamore T R Polygonaceae - Buckweat Family Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat S C C var. fasciculatum Eriogonum gracile Buckwheat A I •Rumex crispus Curly Dock P R Rosaceae - Rose Family Adenostoma fascieulatum Chamise S C I Solanaceae - Nightshade Family *Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco S I Solanum umbelliferum Nightshade S I var, incanum Viscaceae - Mistletoe Family Phoradendron tomentosum Mistletoe S R ssp. maerophyllum (on Quercus) MONOCOTYLEDONEAE Agavaeeae - Agave Family *Agave americanum Centuary plant S R Yucca whipplei Our lord's candle S C F ssp. intermedia Amaryllidaceae - Amaryllis Family Calochortus clavatus Mariposa lily P I Dichelostemma pulchella Blue dicks P F I var. pulchella Juncaceae - Rush Family Juncus mexicanus MexicanrushP F Juncus oxymeris Rush P F Juncus xiphioides Iris -leaved rush P I ��19 r f. f. ' SAO G C D W R 0 I E Appendix Table 1. 0 A S T W S C T T T H U H Vascular Flora of Tentative Tract 47863 H A A R A Los Angeles County, California L P B B White's Canyon road H A E I A S R D T B A R A I G A T T E L S Poaceae - Grass Family *Aveno barbata Slender wild oat A I C *Avena fatua Wild oat A C C *Bromus diandrus Ripgut chess A' C C *Bromus mollis Soft chess A- C C *Bromus rubens Foxtail chess A C C I *Bromus tectorum Cheat grass A I I *Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass P R Distichlis spicata Salt grass F Elymus condensatus Giant rye grass P I I Elymus triticoides Rye grass P I *Festuca megalura Foxtail fescue A C C *Hordeum leporinum Wild barley A I I Melica imperfecta Melia grass P C I Poa scabrella Blue grass P C I Polypogon monspeliensis Beardgrass A F *Schismus barbatus Schismusgrass A C C Stipa cernua Needlegrass P F I Typhaceae - Cattail Family Typha domingensis Cattail P F ------------------------------------------------------------ Total Families Genera Species Native Intro. Total 29 837 1 73 28 101 Native species 72.3 percent Introduced species 27.7 percent f. f. ' SAO f Appendix Table 2: Amphibians and Reptiles of Tentative tract 47836 Amphibians California toad Reptilia Great Basin fence lizard Calif. side -blotched lizard San Diego horned lizard Coastal whiptail San Diego alligator Lizard California striped racer Red racer San Diego gopher snake California kingsnake Southern pacific rattlesnake Buffo boreas halophilus Sceloporus occidentalis biseriatus Uta stansburiana hesperis Phrynosoma coronatus blainvillei Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus Gerrhonotus multicarinatus webbii Masticophis lateralis lateralis Masticophis flagellumip ceus Pipuophis melanoleucus annectens Lampropeltisetg ulus californiae Crotalus viridis helleri Appendix Table 3: Species r Birds of Tentative Tract No. 47863 Status Occurrence Red-tailed hawk R 0 (Nest in sycamore tree) American kestrel R 0 California quail R 0 Rock dove R 0 Mourning dove R 0 Greater roadrunner R E Great horned owl R 0 (Pellets) Common poorwill S E Black -chinned hummingbird S E Annals hummingbird R 0 Northern flicker R 0 Ash -throated flycatcher S E Scrub jay R 0 American crow R E Common raven R 0 Bushtit R E Bewick's wren R 0 Blue -gray gnatcatcher R E Hermit thrush R 0 Wrentit R 0 Northern mockingbird R 0 California thrasher R 0 Loggerhead shrike R E Yellow-rumped warbler W E Rufous -sided towhee R 0 California towhee R 0 Rufous -crowned sparrow R E Black -chinned sparrow R E Sage sparrow R 0 White -crowned sparrow W 0 Western meadowlark R 0 Brewers blackbird R 0 House finch R 0 Lesser goldfinch R E European starling R E House sparrow R 0 --------------------------------------------------- Status R = Resident species; S = Summer only; W = Winter only. Occurrence: E = Expected; 0 = Observed Appendix Table 4: Opossum Ornate shrew Broad -footed mole Long-eared myotis California myotis We*tern pipistrelle Big brown bat Red bat Hoary.bat Townsend's big -eared bat if Mammals of Tentative tract 47836 Pallid bat Mexican free -tailed bat Greater mastiff bat *Audubon cottontail •Calm"Ornia jackrabbit *California ground squirrel Southern pocket gopher California pocket mouse Pacific kangaroo rat Western harvest mouse Deer mouse Brush mouse Dusky -footed wood rat California vole ;Coyote *Gray fox Racoon Long-tailed weasel American badger Striped skunk Mule deer Didelphis marsupialis virginiana Sorex ornatus ornatus Scapanus latimanus occultus Myotis evotis evotis otis californicus californicus Pipistrellus hesperus hesperus Eptesicus fuscus bernardinus Lasiurus borealis teliotis Lasiurus cinerius cinerius Plecotus townsendi intermedius Antrozous pallidus pacificus Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana Eumops perotis californicus Sylvilagus audubonii sanctidiegi Lepus californicus Spermophilus beecheyi beecheyi Thomomys bottae Perognathus californicus dispar Dipodomys agilis agilis Reithrodontomys megalotus longicaudus Peromyscus maniculatus gambelii Peromyscus boylii rowleyi Neotoma fuseipes macrotis Microtrus californicus sanctidiegi Canis latrans ochropus Urocyon cinereoargenteus californicus Procyon lotorsp ora Mustela frenata latirostra Taxidea taxus neglecta Mephitis mephitis holzeri Odoeoelius hemionus * = observed or evidence (scats, burrows, footprints) observed.