HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL WHITES CYN MC 97 146 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approv<
Item to be presented
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: February 24, 1998
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF MASTER CASE
97-146 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR 46626), TO
ALLOW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF
FOXLANE DRIVE AND BAKERTON AVENUE 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 98-3$ upholding
the Planning Commission's denial of the project.
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 single family homes on 80 acres in
the RL (Residential Low) zone.
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 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 $600,600 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 -- —gZ
Acrencla Itea6't If
$240,341.
In lieu of providing these funds (which total $840,941) for the identified uses, the applicant is
requesting that these funds be used in conjunction with funds from Tract Map 47863, 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 P98-02, 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. P98-02
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 46626 (see City Clerk's reading file)
Previous Staff Reports for Approved Development Agreement (see City Clerk's reading file)
Approved Development Agreement for VTTM 46626 (see City Clerk'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\UWeston.flf
CITY OF SANTA CLAR.ITA
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 1. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: February 1, 1998
RESOLUTION. NO. 98-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING MASTER CASE 97-146 (REVISED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91.003) TO ALLOW FOR THE
MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF FOXLANE
DRIVE AND BAKERTON AVENUE IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. TheCityCouncil 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 lanes and park construction to be used
for median and landscape improvements.
d. 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.
e. On January 6, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted resolution P98-02 which
denied the applicant's request.
f. On January 12, 1998, the applicant submitted an appeal to the City Clerk
appealing the Planning Commission's denial of the project.
g. 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
Page 2
follows:
a. At the hearing conducted on the project, the City Council 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
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.B 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
Page 3
facilities, and sewers and sewage treatment facilities".
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby denies Master Case 97-146.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of '19—.
kvi § -
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
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
current\ccres988211f
February 9,1998
Ms. Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarity
23920 Valencia Blvd,
Santa Clarita, California 91355
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA.
FEB I I q zi PH '98
R i70 E I42D
CITY CLEi; %S oEiICE
Re: Opposition to the Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendations on the
Requested Modification to The Existing DevelopmentAgrcements 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 Commission'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. The 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 $300,000 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 this 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. (seethe attached minutes) Residents present at the hearings
willingly accepted and agreed to work on a committee with the appropriate staff 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 of the only sites
where land and money are currently available and therefore, should be worked up through the priority
February9,1998
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 parklibrary, thereby freeing up the stats'
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 fbr the appropriate stuff person 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
obtaining plans and funds for the completion of titin 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 ofthe 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 parkAibrary 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
ftmds 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 Parks 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
FLFdep
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager
Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
Rick Putnam, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services
`• Public`Speak&s-t
Phxvo=\Itrpraflf
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
1
OPPOSITION TO ROUEST TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS RELATING TO
. TRACTS 46626 AND 47863
RECEIVED,
Hearing Date December 2, 1997 NOV 2 0 1997
Time: 7:00 p.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Location: City Council Chambers CITY of SANTA CIARITA
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
h 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 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
a �
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 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 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 rear yards. The building of this panel wall would no longer that access .
�-%��•L
.fytsyYld�at.reJ
.A.t�(dQ.�n-f
�il�<� Gz.
,L� wtz &'- irnz 713
4.102 A A. L7,4
/t,etL«
t CL 6l -U eZ,. ez (✓yte
r7 7
W44 A e f
Utz.✓ <<r�.z< t
A-').. �4 /Lj c ( 7',c,: -t e c, .
Jv &-/Iw . ; 6-e:
7 e
t-'
Ga11►1j 0i:Y00UY:19
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMIS
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.
FLAG SALUTE
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 H; 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 HEARINGS
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
00-00
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.
Cominissioner 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 6' 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.
2
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.
ITEM 4 MASTER 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
11
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
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. 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.
Amotion 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
M
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. O. 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.
9
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.
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 Mllmeyer 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.
ITEM 6 MASTER CASE 97-147 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91.004,
OAK TREE PERMIT 96.026
Fred Follstad, Associate Planner, gave the staff report.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kellar and seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite to
adopt Resolution P98-03 which denies the requested amendment to Development Agreement
91-003. Said motion was passed by a vote of 5-0.
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 Killmeyer 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.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE 97-147
REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004
AND MASTER CASE 96-241
OAK TREE PERMIT 96-026
DATE: NovembW4,19OXI
TO: Ch ers ack and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: eff t AICP, Planning Manager
CASE PLANNER -00 ad AICP, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: White's Canyon Associates
LOCATION: The north side of Whites Canyon Road between Nadal Streetand
Wildwind Road in the Canyon Country area 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 fees towards 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. In
addition, the applicant is requesting permission to remove the existing
oak tree on the site.
BACKGROUND
On May 22, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution 90-74 which approved Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 47863. This allowed for the construction of 80 single family residential
units on 32 acres in the RL (Residential Low) zone. The Conditions of Approval prohibited
the removal of the one existing oak:tree on-site. The project was initially approved by the
Planning Commission and appealed to the City Council.
On October 22, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance 91-41 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 site; increased Bridge and Thoroughfare fees and a fee towards the
construction of bike lanes in the City.
1
Agenda Item:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING
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:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
Land Use
Single Family Homes (Under
Construction)
Single Family Homes, Open Space
Apartments
Single Family Homes, Open Space
Single Family Homes
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.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Staff has received four letters in opposition to the project, specifically with reference to the
removal of the oak tree. 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
Development Agreement Modifications
The applicant is requesting to modify the existing development agreement for VTTM 47863.
The modification pertains to two different sections of the agreement for this project and the
adjacent project of VTTM 46626. The first section is in regards to a required payment for the
improvement of the joint park and library site of $199,500 plus an increase based on the
Consumer Price Index for the time period from the approval of the tract map to the first 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 $239;400 if the
project were to record in 1998 which is what staff envisions to occur.
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 $95,659 if the
building permits were issued in 1998.
General Plan
Zoning
Project
RL
RL
North
RS
RS
South
RM
RM
West
RS
RS
East
RS
RS
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
Land Use
Single Family Homes (Under
Construction)
Single Family Homes, Open Space
Apartments
Single Family Homes, Open Space
Single Family Homes
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.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Staff has received four letters in opposition to the project, specifically with reference to the
removal of the oak tree. 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
Development Agreement Modifications
The applicant is requesting to modify the existing development agreement for VTTM 47863.
The modification pertains to two different sections of the agreement for this project and the
adjacent project of VTTM 46626. The first section is in regards to a required payment for the
improvement of the joint park and library site of $199,500 plus an increase based on the
Consumer Price Index for the time period from the approval of the tract map to the first 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 $239;400 if the
project were to record in 1998 which is what staff envisions to occur.
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 $95,659 if the
building permits were issued in 1998.
In lieu of the applicant providing these funds (which total $335,059), the applicant is
requesting the funds be used in conjunction with the funds from Tract Map 46626, 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. The applicant is already required to construct landscaped median improvements
along the 1,700 feet of the project's frontage.
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
allocated for this 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 the 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 grade a portion of a 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.
3
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.
4. Make no decision on the item and send it directly to the City Council without a
recommendation.
5. Deny the request.
Oak Tree Removal
The applicant is requesting removal of the one existing oak tree on the project site. Since the
original Conditions of Approval and the Tentative Tract Map were included within the
approved development agreement, the development agreement must be modified to allow
removal of the tree. If this condition was not part of the development. agreement, this
decision could be made at staff level.
The original condition of the approved tract map 084) states:
"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, the oak
tree shall be appropriately protected. No work shall be permitted within the protected
zone which shall be in conformity with City Standards."
The tree the applicant is requesting to remove is a 25 foot tall Coast Live Oak with a trunk
diameter of 22 inches. The assessed valuation of the tree $19,000. The tree would be located
in the front half of lot 65. _ The applicant is proposing to remove the tree based on the
requirement that the applicant install an underground de -watering subdrain recommended
by the soils report prepared for the project. The applicant is proposing to plant mitigation
trees at the projects entryway adjacent to Whites Canyon Road.
The applicant has submitted grading plans to the City's Engineering Department. These
plans included provisions for the installation of the subdrain with the retention of the tree
in its existing location. These plans were approved on July 15 of this year. The applicant
has subsequently begun the grading of the site.
The City's Oak Tree consultant has reviewed the information provided by the applicant and
has provided comments on the request. The Oak Tree consultant states that if the tree is to
remain without mitigation, there would likely be a long term adverse effect on the tree. In
addition, she feels that the tree is not a good candidate for transplantation since it is unlikely
that the tree will survive. If the tree is to remain in place, a supplemental irrigation system
should be in place until the tree can adapt to the revised condition. If the tree is removed,
she feels that there is ample room on site for the placement of mitigation trees.
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 of the November 18, 1997 meeting
with a Resolution which includes the Planning Commission rE commendations to the
City Council.
KP:FLF:lep
p1ngcom%sr97147.flf
5
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE 97-147
REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004
AND MASTER CASE 96-241
OAK TREE PERMIT 96-026
DATE: December 2, 1997
TO: Ch ' erson Hoback and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jet Lambert AICP, Planning Manager
CASE PLANNER: Fr Follstad AICP, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: White's Canyon Associates
LOCATION: The north side of Whites Canyon Road between Nadal Street and
Wildwind Road in the Canyon Country area 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 fees towards 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. In addition, the
applicant is requesting permission to remove the existing oak tree on the
site.
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 meeting with
additional information and continued this project to December 2, 1997. This 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 park/ library 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.
The Planning Commission inquired as to whether the intermittent spring adjacent to the oak tree
was discussed when the project was initially approved.
The spring was discussed in the Initial Study prepared for the project in November of 1989. The
initial study referenced a geotechnical report prepared by Leighton and Associates which fully
discussed the spring and the required subdrains.
The Planning Commission requested information on the owl reported to be on-site.
Staff visited the site on different occasions looking for the any raptors on or near the oak tree.
During the inspection, staff noted the absence of any nests or scat. There was one large snag
on the top of the tree that would serve as an excellent perch for a raptor such as an owl. In the
biology report prepared for the project in 1990 by Independent Environmental Consultants,
there were observations noted of Red Tail Hawk and Great Horned Owl. The report goes on to
say that once the development begins, it is doubtful that the tree would remain as a roosting
site for the Great Horned Owl. A copy of the report is attached to this report.
The Planning Commission requested that the City's Oak Tree Consultant review the latest
information for accuracy and report on the health of the tree.
The City's Oak Tree consultant reviewed the report prepared by Lee Newman and Associates.
She found the report to be accurate. Her inspection of the tree noted that the Valley Oak was
in average health with the exception of some mistletoe in its crown and was just begining to lose
its leaves for the winter. The tree seems to be receiving some water since the tree still had
green leaves and there were green annuals under the dripline of the tree, even though the water
source was removed last July.
During the last public hearing on this item, a member of the community presented information
from a previous staff reports. The Planning Commission requested some clarification on some
of the issues that were raised. First, clarification is needed that the tree is a Valley Oak
(Quercus Lobata), not a Coast Live Oak (Quercus Agrifolia) as written in the previous staff
report. Secondly, clarification was requested to find out if this tree is the furthest west that this
species of tree exists. In actuality, the tree is the most eastern specimen of the species known
in the City. The last clarification is the size of the tree. The oak tree ordinance requires a
measurement of the trunk of the tree at DBH (diameter at breast height) or approximately 4.5
feet. Since this tree is on a slope, DBH varies on which size is measured. In addition, the tree
is a single trunk tree and divides into three trunks. at the five foot level. The report for the
initial project calculated the tree with three trunks 30, 34 and 42 inches in circumference. This
measurement was probably taken on the up slope side of the tree. The latest oak tree report
was probably measured on the down slope side and was measured at 22 inches in diameter.
Therefore, due to the different measuring techniques, the numbers looked very different.
What is the possible mitigation if the tree is allowed to be removed.
Since the applicant has not submitted a full mitigation, plan staff was unable to review the
proposal. An ISA value for the tree of $19,000 has been given if it is removed. The applicant has
stated that a boxed oak tree(s) could be placed at the project entrance as possible mitigation.
Generally staff requires mitigation by four different means. The first is dedication of lands that
could accommodate oak trees. The next is to pay the valuation of the tree to an oak tree
preservation fund. The third is to replace the trees with oak trees based on the ISA valuation
for the tree to be removed. The last method is to replace the removed tree with an identical
amount diameter of trees: For example, this tree has a diameter of 69 inches. The applicant
could provide 35 two inch diameter trees; or 69 one inch diameter trees; or 138 half inch
diameter trees; or any combination there of.
The Planning Commission inquired as to the possible use of the spring water for non potable uses.
Staff has looked into the possibility of using the water for irrigation purposes. Staff feels that
while this use of the water merits consideration, it would be unfeasible at this time. The system
would require a storage tank, an additional set of water lines, and a pump facility. Also, due
to the limited amount and seasonality of water, it would be cost prohibitive.
The Planning Commission requested information on whether water was percolating into
neighboring parcels or if there were any code enforcement actions on the subject parcel.
The applicant's agent met with one of the neighboring residents regarding the issue of water
ponding in the rear yard. According to the applicant's agent, no problem was noted and the yard
was dry. Engineering staff has attempted to make contact with the homeowner. A
representative from Engineering will be available regarding this issue.
According to the City's Code Enforcement Officer for that area, one complaint was filed
regarding two issues. The. first issue was that construction was occurring prior to 7:00 a.m.
which is the earliest construction can begin according to the City's noise ordinance. The
applicant's agent was advised of the allowable working hours and the case was closed. The
second issue was the use of heavy earthmoving equipment within 500 feet of the neighboring
units. This was a condition placed on the project during the public hearing process. Since a
determination has yet to be made by the Engineering division as to what constitutes heavy
earthmoving equipment, this issue is yet to be resolved. However, the applicant is minimizing
work in this area.
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
pingwm\sr97f 472.Of
5
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairperson Hoback and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffery Lambert, AICP, Planning Manager
DATE: January 6, 1998
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR MASTER CASE 97-147
At the December 2, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to return
with a Resolution to deny Master Case 97-147, a request to modify an existing development
agreement. In addition, the Commission directed staff to prepare a letter to the Parks and
Recreation Department highlighting a number of the issues raised by the Commission and
members of the public during the hearing process. Both of these items are attached to this
report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Adopt Resolution P98-03 which denies the requested amendments to Development
Agreement 91-004.
JJL:FLF.lep
p1ngmm\st97147.f1f
a
RESOLUTION NO. P98-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 EXLSTING 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 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'
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. And 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 lane 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. 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.
Page 2
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.
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 97-147.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th dX of January, 1998.
D cback, erson
Planning Commission
A T:
r�
Ken Pulskamp
Secretary, Planning ommission
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
p1ngwm\res9808.f1f
v
CITY CLERK
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 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 Ydlhneyer
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 6' 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.
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
`A
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.
Pince Berton, 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
AE[N]UTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLAR.ITA
Tuesday
December 2, 1997
7:00 p.m.
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. Yollstad 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. 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
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.
MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMLSSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
January 6, 1998
Z:00 p.m.
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.
i
eCITY. OF SANTA CLARITA
�`- 23920VALENCIA. BLVD.. SUITE .300 •SANTA CLARITA 91355
C d
"'"•••••"' (8051259-2489
l CASH RECEIPT'-,'
D,A�TE: `. ZS
[ RECEIVED OF:
CITY & ZIP:.
PHONE NO: ( ) DRIVERS LICENSE NO
FUND , CCf.'N0. FOR TOTALAMOUNT
_ .. _
I.
I
❑ CASH ACHECK-N0.'�fp
CASH RECEIPT N6.75507
DEPARTMENT
DOLLARS.I CENTS)
RECEIVED BY
CSC 006
WHITE'S CANYON ASSOCIATES, LTD.
WITH<CANYON''VIEW PARTNERS AND,WHITE"S, ASSOCIATES„LTD::
` MASTER"CASE"97-146 and `97=147_
City of
Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd..
Phone
Suite 300 -
(805) 259-2489
Santa Clarita
Fax
Califomia 91355-2198
(805) 259-8125
January 23, 1998
John A. Ashkar, President
Weston Communities
10960 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1960
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Dear Mr. Ashkar:
On January 12, 1998, this office received your letter of appeal of action
taken by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1998 on requested
modifications to the eidsting development agreements with Canyon View
Partners and Whites' Associates, LTD., Master Case 97-146 and 97-147.
Your appeal has been scheduled as a public hearing before the City
Council at their meeting of February 24, 1998, to begin at or about 6:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita. The
notice of public hearing will be published in the local newspaper as
required by law.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
�4..v,
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Ken Pulskamp
Jeff Lambert
Fred Follstad
corres.westapl.gb
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
January 9, 1998
Ms. Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita CA 91355
WESTON
COMMUNITIES
RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE
REQUESTED MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
WITH CANYON VIEW PARTNERS AND WHITES' ASSOCIATES, LTD., MASTER CASE
97-146 AND 97-147
Dear Sharon:
This letter is to request.an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commissions
January 6, 1998. recommendations to deny our request of modification of the
Development Agreements for removal of a condition requiring the payment of fees of
approximately $899,000.00 toward future park improvements and $336,000.00 toward
future bike lane improvements to the city, which the city would then hold said fees until
an undetermined point in time in the future when the city had a minimum of an additional
$2,000,000.00 to contribute and add to the above fees in order to be used towards the
improvements.
In lieu of the above, we request the same cumulative dollar amount of fees ($899,000.00
+ $336,000.00 for a total of $1,235,000.00) would be used to immediately install
beautification treatments and improvements along White's Canyon Road from Soledad
Canyon to Steinway. The thematic improvements include the following in order of
priority of completion:
1. Six foot high wall or split rail fence along the City's right away.
2. Irrigation and landscaping along the parkways
3. Upon completion of 1 and 2 above any remaining funds are proposed to construct
landscape median island improvements on White's Canyon beginning at Soledad
Canyon Road and continuing north.
We feel that the remaining funds will complete about half the median islands between
Soledad Canyon Road and Steinway. If the City Council desires to complete the entire
median island construction we offer a solution. Since we will be paying approximately
$1,800,000.00 in bridge and thoroughfare fees, if the city would allocate $300,000.00
from the fee amount towards the median island improvements, that additional sum would
be sufficient to complete all of the improvements.
10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1960, Los Angeles, California 90024 (310) 479-9900 Fax: (310) 477-8519
C)
C.
a
A
�
�
O
ng
N
n
G
-a
a
to
RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE
REQUESTED MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
WITH CANYON VIEW PARTNERS AND WHITES' ASSOCIATES, LTD., MASTER CASE
97-146 AND 97-147
Dear Sharon:
This letter is to request.an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commissions
January 6, 1998. recommendations to deny our request of modification of the
Development Agreements for removal of a condition requiring the payment of fees of
approximately $899,000.00 toward future park improvements and $336,000.00 toward
future bike lane improvements to the city, which the city would then hold said fees until
an undetermined point in time in the future when the city had a minimum of an additional
$2,000,000.00 to contribute and add to the above fees in order to be used towards the
improvements.
In lieu of the above, we request the same cumulative dollar amount of fees ($899,000.00
+ $336,000.00 for a total of $1,235,000.00) would be used to immediately install
beautification treatments and improvements along White's Canyon Road from Soledad
Canyon to Steinway. The thematic improvements include the following in order of
priority of completion:
1. Six foot high wall or split rail fence along the City's right away.
2. Irrigation and landscaping along the parkways
3. Upon completion of 1 and 2 above any remaining funds are proposed to construct
landscape median island improvements on White's Canyon beginning at Soledad
Canyon Road and continuing north.
We feel that the remaining funds will complete about half the median islands between
Soledad Canyon Road and Steinway. If the City Council desires to complete the entire
median island construction we offer a solution. Since we will be paying approximately
$1,800,000.00 in bridge and thoroughfare fees, if the city would allocate $300,000.00
from the fee amount towards the median island improvements, that additional sum would
be sufficient to complete all of the improvements.
10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1960, Los Angeles, California 90024 (310) 479-9900 Fax: (310) 477-8519
Canyon View Partners and Whites' Canyon Associates Ltd. are abiding by the
commitments within the Development Agreement and have been performing accordingly.
We have purchased and dedicated the 28 acre park and library site to the City which the
City now owns.
Approximately ten months ago when we started processing our plans for: .the
commencement of construction of our projects, a meeting was held with Staff to find out
when the City was going to allocate the balance of funds needed to improve the park and
library site and commence construction and, in addition, provide the other funds needed
to fully improve the recreational facilities for the site. It was then that the realization
came about that not only are there no funds to improve this park site now, but there will
be no funds available within at least the next five to ten years or longer. Even if funds
became available there are current and future higher priorities that the City needs to
allocate their limited amount of funds towards. Therefore; the local community and
future homeowners of our projects would not be receiving any immediate or near future
amenities.
To further this point, the Planning Commission asked when funds would be available to
start and complete construction of the park/library site and I quote from the staff report:
"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 "
In order to provide an amenity that the neighborhood could receive now and enjoy the
benefits therefrom the thought was to beautify White's Canyon Road with a thematic
improvement package. This is something that could happen now, which would increase
the value of the entire neighborhood and the thousands of homeowners that use this
corridor. It would instantly increase the pride of ownership and property values for all
of the homeowners that live in the area and would be appreciated daily.
In order for the community and our future homeowners to receive a benefit now rather
than the probability of never receiving any community benefit at all, we would be willing
to construct these improvements which would be far more economical than if these were
public improvements done by the City. We would do this work on a no profit basis.
Since these improvements would immediately increase the value of the thousands of
homes surrounding this corridor, the City would be a beneficiary of the increase in
property taxes derived from that increased value and would help offset the annual
maintenance cost of the parkways and median islands.
Canyon View Partners and Whites' Canyon Associates Ltd., request either the park and
library site to be constructed now or the White's Canyon beautification improvements to
be constructed now. We would not like to see our fees paid to the City with no amenity
improvement to take place for the community and for our homeowners.
With the realization of the fiscal restraints and priorities communicated by staff our
choice is not a park and library site verses White's Canyon improvements, the choice is
(i) paying a portion of the amount of money needed for the -park and library site
improvement and have nothing happen (approximately $2,000,000.00 is still needed
from city funds in order to have a turn key completed project in addition to our funds)
or, (ii) have an immediate improvement, benefit, and amenity that the community could
realize now and that is the White's Canyon beautification. The City still owns the park
land and library site and can make some type of future plans, however far in the distant
future, to ultimately improve that property.
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $1,150.00 as required in order to appeal. I would
appreciate a copy of this letter being passed on to the City Council for their review.
Thank you for your.time and consideration of the above matters.
Very truly yours,
CANYON VIEW PARTNERS
By: Westwood Communities Corp.,
General Partner
A. Ashkar, President
WHITES CANYON ASSOCIATES LTD.
By: Bretari Inc.,
General Partner
Jo shkar. President
cc. Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager
Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
PLANNING COMMSSION MEETING
January 6, 1998
7:00 p.m.
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Council Chambers
Santa Clarita, California
WELCOME
Please fill out a speaker's slip from the back table and present it to the Commission Secretary if you wish to address the Planning
Commission on any subject The Commission may only take action on Items listed on this Agenda unless they can determine an urgency
exists.
If you wish to have an item placed on the Agenda, please direct your request, in writing, to the Director of Planning and Building Services
at least seven days prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission meets on the first and third Tuesday of each month.
In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Clerk's Office at (805) 2554375. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the .City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to this meeting. (28CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II)
CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A- CONSENT CALENDAR
RECAP AGENDA
7:01 P.M.
COMMISSIONER KIL1,MFYER
ALL PRESENT
APPROVED 5-0
All matters under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by one motion unless a request is made for discussion, in which case, the item(s)
will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately following this portion of the agenda.
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
CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH ONE
5.0
B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 5 MASTER CASE NO. 97-146 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-
003)
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 a 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.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution P98-02 which denies the requested amendments to Development
Agreement 91-003.
APPROVED 5-0
ITEM 6 MASTER CASE 97-147 (REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91.004,
OAK TREE PERMIT 96-026
Applicant: White's Canyon Associates
Location: The north side of Whites Canyon Road between Nadal Street and
Wildwind Road in the Canyon Country area 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 fees towards 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. In addition, the applicant is
requesting permission to remove the existing oak tree on the site.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution P98-03 which denies the requested amendments to Development
Agreement 91-003,
APPROVED 5.0
C. PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 7 MASTER CASE NUMBER 97.223 (PREZONE NUMBER 97-002,
ANNEXATION NUMBER 1997.02, RESOLUTION P98-05)
Applicant: The Newhall Land and Farming Company
Location: Northwest corner of Newhall Ranch Road, and McBean Parkway,
adjacent to San Francisquito Creek.
Request: The City proposed to prezone the project area from Los Angeles
County A-2-5 (Heavy Agricultural, 5 acre minimum lot size) zoning to City CC
(Community Commercial).
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1)
Conduct a public hearing; 2) 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 3) adopt the proposed
ordinance approving Prezone No. 97-002 (Master Case No. 97-233, Annexation
No. 1997-02).
APPROVED 5.0
ITEM 8 MASTER CASE 97-170 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-014,
ADJUSTMENT 97-008, RESOLUTION NUMBER P98-04)
Applicant: The Newhall Land and Farming Company
Location: Southwest corner of Magic Mountain Parkway and McBean Parkway,
behind the currently developed Spectrum Athletic Club.
Request: A conditional use permit to allow for the following: 1) the
development of 198 apartment units and 12. townhouse units in the CTC
(Commercial Town Center) zone; 2) a maximum building height of 42'-0" and, 3)
the installation of gates for the residential project.
An adjustment to decrease the project's parking requirement by approximately
16%, to accept 34 tandem parking stalls as required parking, and to accept
mature shade trees as cover over the 34 tandem parking stalls.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Adopt
the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring &
Reporting Program, fording that the proposed project will not have a significant
effect upon the environment; and, 2) Adopt Resolution No. P98-04 approving
Master Case 97-170 (Conditional.Use Permit 97-014 / Adjustment 97-008) for the
development of 198 apartment units and 12 townhouse units in the CTC
(Commercial Town Center) zone, allowing for a maximum building height of 42',
permitting the installation of gates for the project, and decreasing the project's
parking requirement by 17%, subject to the attached conditions of approval.
CONTINUED TO JANUARY 20, 1998
D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT - REPORT RECEIVED
ITEM 9 PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING
E. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORTS - RECEIVED
F. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR - RECEIVED
G. ADJOURNMENT: 10:56 P.M.
Complete packets are available for public inspection at the City Hall front counter, the Planning and Building Services Department front
counter, the Sheriffs substation at 23740 West Magic Mountain Parkway, and the Valencia Branch of the Los Angeles County Public Library
located at 23743 West Valencia Boulevard.
Thank you for attending your City Planning Commission meeting. It you have any questions or wish to know more about the City and the
Planning and Building Services, please call (805) 255-4330 Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Fridays 8:00 a.m, to 5:00
D.M.
p1ngcom\jan6-98.rcp
FAX NUMBER:
FROM:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
TRANSMITTAL SHEET
m
PAGES (INCLUDING TRANNSMITTAL SHEET)
REMARKS: & "� �7
TRANSMITTED BY: . Sharon L. Dawson. City Clerk
PHONE: 805-255-4391
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk Division
OPPOSMON 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 CMta, 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 tobeused 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 wale' 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. Afterthecountless 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 inquestionwill 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
r
ul
FSa�fh
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 tight 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 27493E
Y /
L
cay
I
%tirrard L. Bradf�:rd
:.. .._1 via::
.c:'ti:i�i�r :�.11C'\Ilmtlei"'/i-1 -(?�Y ��-;1'f}�ey7>cd 1%�yeii7i7t1'1Cni ���r: CinCtlt _''+-il'1 raC[�
nilnt with the White': i
am•an iands.aplm_. fencing & median improvements
mCniiVIlCd in yi?ur of Public Hearutg.
^.� aareemcnt modifications are reUuested by the developer because it grill be hard to
:i nr_c nous -s if the piospc;,tii.e buyers need to drive thaougtt the perceived " Alias s
C ju%on '•arn,.)" TO �.'t W. irk �ilodL:is.
is :,Ulidnw auno�t ml" the number of homes .hat >hould be built in those
ra .. i to .;could he required to offer some additional money for these modifications.
-Inmc library funds should be transferred to the existing library on 5oledad & Sierra for it's
i _ oiauon and unprovement.
me fun,!s �houid also remain and oo toward the development of additional bike trails
c:r,d oihcr r,�crcation vnprovements in the area.
R pccm::h submitted,
i.d Bradford
RECEIVED
0 C T 2 8 1997
:,Ctd41UNITY CE•:ELOPAtENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARI`A
October 24, 1997
Citv of Santa Clarita
23920 W. Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita. CA 91355
1ttn: Mavor Ch de Smyth and the Citv Council
Re: TR. 47863 Oak Tree MC 97-146 or IMC. 97-147
Dear Mr. Mayor:
I am writing to you regarding an oak tree which is on property being developed by Weston
Development on «bites Canyon Road between Nadal and Wildwind in Canyon Country.
I had hopes since spring that this oak tree would be spared, but now I see a meeting
scheduled on November 4, 1997 at City Hall because the developer wants permission to
remove it.
I would like to urge you to oppose this, as I do. There are so few remaining oak trees in
the Canyon Country area. This small tree almost stands as a symbol of survival against all
odds since it has survived previous tract development to the east many years ago, before
so many oak protection laws were enacted. Personally, I enjoy seeing it each morning on
my walk up and down Whites Canyon Road and would like to see it grow and continue
growing into the nest centum. I have seen this tree in many seasons, it is roost to a red-
tailed hawk, and, again, it seems to me it is the very symbol of why we have created
protection for these wonderful trees.
I would appreciate anything you could do concerning this tree in hopes of satiing a small
but very important part of Canyon Country's natural heritage.
Sincerely, ��—
D c Schelling
5fA
28219 Stanley Court
Canyon Country, CA 91351
(805)252=9407
blarch 23, 1997
City of Santa Clarita
23920 W. Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196
Attn: Cindy Chau, Planning Tech.
Planning Commission
Re TR 47863 Oak Tree
Dear Ms. Chau
Thank you for taking the time to speak to me last week regarding the oak tree off White's Canyon
near Foxlane and Nearview in Canyon Country. I understand that permission has been requested
to remove this tree by the developer. I also understand that this is not a publicly debatable issue.
But I would like to support the idea of sparing this oak tree. As I think of listing reasons to do so,
the least obvious yet most important one seems to be that the oak tree just exists in this area where
I don't know of too many other oak trees for several miles around. That in itself is quite amazing
considering where the tree is and all of the other developments that have gone in over the years in
Canyon Country before there was an Oak Tree Ordinance.
I am a person who exercises on White's Canyon and I have observed the oak tree in question
for many seasons. Looking at it now in light of the development I don't see that it would be too
much of an imposition on the developer to save it. The tree is roost to a red -tail hawk and probably
home for some birds and small animals. Being so singular in this area it seems to me that it is the
very symbol of why we have protection for these wonderful trees.
I would very much appreciate it if you would show this letter to the Oak Tree Consultant and to anyone
else in charge of making a decision to save this tree. I thank you for your time again and would
appreciate hearing from you regarding the outcome. I can be reached at (805)252-9407. My address
is 28219 Stanley Court Canyon Country 91351.
Sincerely,
'124 v c.._. BSc i+iQ Drw
Dente Schelling 1
encl. Pi.o+e e V -i An
T 73 r.,d tci'd
Ad i IMki !loaf
91 1-1
'al
ile: Masterf.-aye 'vjmmer-)6-2.1; Wak Tree Permit (A-026�
i)�:�,r F �A
... z V -
Leave the tree, cut down the developer.
I
/3
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 lst 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 regard to
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 of application 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, 21 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.
The amended 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
f5
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, and Paragraph (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
16
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:
Project Description
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
Delete Condition No. 84, which prohibited removal of an oak
tree within Tract 47863.
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:\DoalWestoM065Z-Clarb\Attachto Entitlement App
Attachment to Entitlement Application
17
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[ X ] Proposed [ ] 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 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.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and
pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[ ] City Council
[X] Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or 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
[ ] are not required. [ X ] are attached. [ ] are not attached
X\
Prepared by: ���i� Fred Follstad. Associate Planner
(Signature)
Reviewed by: Jennifer Reid, Associate Planner
(Signatur
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
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA '
Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. Ste. 300
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
[]
Recreation
[ ] Geological Problems
[ ]
Noise
[x]
Aesthetics
[] Water
[]
Hazards
(]
Cultural Resources
[ ] Air Quality
[I
Mandatory Tests of
Ix]
Utilities and Service
Significance
System
[]
Energy and Mineral
Resources
-3-
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[ J I 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.
[ j 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
'13
Fred Follstad/Associate Planner 10/15/97
(Namerritle)
Jennifer Reid/Associate Planner
4-
(Namerritle)
(Date)
10/15/97
(Date) .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source # )
b) Conflict with 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 ( )
11. 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-
Potentlaliy
Significant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
[1
[1
11
1x1
I1
[1
I1
[xl
[1 [1 [] Ixl
[1 II Il Ixl
Il
[l
Il
1x1
[7
p
II
[xl
[1
[l
I]
Ix1
[]
[]
Il
Ixl
[1
[1
11
Ixl
[1
[1
II
Ixl
[l
[]
Il
Ixl
[1
[1
11
[xl
[1
[1
Il
Ix)
[1
[I
Il
[xl
[]
Il
Ix]
[1
[1
11
Ixl
[1
[I
11
Ixl
[)
[]
Il
[xl
7 Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
yards or more? ( )
j) Development andlor grading on a slope greater than
25% natural grade? ( )
it) Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone? ( )
1) Other ( )
111. WATER Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
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 (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity) ( )
d) bandy? ( in the amount of surface water in any water
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) Attered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
1
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 TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
M -M
L
r J
[]
Potentially
[]
IXI
[l
Significant
[1
[XI
U
Impact
[]
[XI
Potentially
unless
Leu than
[XI
Slgnin"rit
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
[1
[I
[1
IXI
[]
[I
[]
[XI
[I
[1
[I
[X]
II
[1
[]
[XI
[I
[]
[I
[XI
[1
[1
[I
[XI
[]
[1
[]
[XI
[l
[l
[1
[X]
Il
Il
[1
[XI
[]
[I
[]
IXI
[l
[1
[1
[XI
U
[1
[]
[XI
U
[1
[1
[XI
[]
[1
[1
[XI
[1
I]
[1
[XI
II
II
[]
IXI
[1
11
IX]
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Il
Potentially
❑
IXI
Significant
b)
Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and
[]
Impact
[]
[X]
Inefficient manner? ( )
Potentially
Unless
Less than
c)
•
significant
Mitigation
significant
No
resource that would be of future value to the region
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?( )
I1
Il
II
Ix]
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e g. sharp
I l
II
I I
IXI
DL
curves dangerous intersections) or incompatible
a)
(r
Il
Il
I l
IXI
c)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
[]
[]
[]
[X]
uses? ( )
d)
Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?
(]
(]
(]
[X]
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
e)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
( )
f)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
I1
I I
11
1X1
alternative transportation (mg. bus stops, bicycle
racks)( )
g)
Disjointed pattern of roadway improvements ( )
(]
[]
(]
[X]
h)
Other ( )
[]
[]
[]
IXI
VII.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
I I
I1
I I
IXI
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds) ( )
b)
Oak Trees( )
[1
[]
II
IX1
c)
Wetland habitat or bluelme stream? ( )
[]
[]
[]
[X]
d)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( )
[]
[]
(]
[X]
e)
Other ( )
[1
[1
[1
1X1
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Il
Il
❑
IXI
b)
Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and
[]
[]
[]
[X]
Inefficient manner? ( )
c)
Result in the kiss of availability of a known mineral
I I
[ I
U
IXI
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State? ( )
d)
Other f )
[1
[1
[I
1X1
DL
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
Il
Il
I l
IXI
hazardous substances (including but not limited to
oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( )
b)
Possible interference with an emergency response
[]
[]
[]
[x]
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
.7.
14
�c
.8-
a�
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Unless
Leas than
Significant
Mitigation
Signhflcant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
c)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
[]
[]
(]
[x]
( 1
d)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
[]
[]
[]
[x]
health hazards (mg. electrical transmission lines,
gas lines, oil pipelines)? ( )
e)
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
(]
[]
[]
[x]
grass, or trees? ( )
f)
Other ( )
[]
[1
[1
Ixl
X.
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a)
Increases in existing noise Levels? ( )
I1
I1
I1
[xl
b)
Exposure of people to severe noise levels or
I7
I1
❑
Ixl
vibration? ( )
c)
Other ( )
❑
I1
❑
Ixl
XL
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect on. w result in a deed for new or altered government
services in any of tate following areas:
a)
Fire protection? ( )
I I
I I
I I
1x1
b)
Police protection? ( )
[I
I]
[]
Ixl
c)
Schools? ( )
[]
I]
II
1xI
d)
Maintenance of pubic facilities, including roads?
1 )
[]
Ix]
I]
II
e)
Other governmentsewices? [ )
❑
II
II
Ixl
Xll.
UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a)
Power or natural gas? ( )
I
II
II
Ixl
b)
Communications systems? ( )
I]
II
I]
[xI
c)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
I
I
II
Ix]
facilities? ( )
d)
Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
l7
[]
I1
Ix1
e)
storm water drainage? ( )
[]
[1
I]
1x7
f)
Solid waste disposal? ( )
[]
11
11
Ixl
g)
Local or regional water supplies? ( )
I l
Ixl
11
[ 1
h)
Other ( )
[1
11
11
Ix]
XIII.
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a)
Affect a scenic vista open to public view? ( )
[ ]
[ ]
(]
[x]
.8-
a�
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
Mmgatlon
significant
No
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
b)
Have a negative aesthetic effect? ( )
[]
[]
II
Ix]
C)
Create light or glare? ( )
[]
II
❑
[A
d)
Other ( )
II
[]
I]
Ix]
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
II
Ixl
have environmental effects which []
resources?
will cause substantial
adverse effects on human
b)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
I1
Il
I]
Ix]
. would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( )
c)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
[]
[ ]
[]
[x]
potential impact area? ( )
d)
Affect recognized historical site? ( )
I]
I]
II
IxI
e)
Other ( )
❑
Il
[]
IxI
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?
.9-
l
XVIII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR • EARLIER ANALYSES AND IF
NECESSARY MITIGATED MEASURES:
Section Evaluation of Impact
1. 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
-10-
r�.
��l
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
1. 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
-10-
r�.
��l
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.
30
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented
PUBLIC HEARING Ken Pulskamn
DATE: April 24, 1990
SUBJECT: Prezone 89-002 and Appeal of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 46626
and 47863
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
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 site has 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 100 -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 [tern: _
r
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
L
F
ORDINANCE NO. 90-8
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE.CITY OF SANTA CUR TA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL 20NING MAP
(Prezone Case No. 89-002)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine
as follows:
a. An application for a prezone and vesting tentative tract
map were filed simultaneously with the City of Santa
Clarita, June 6, 1989, by Weston Development Corporation
("the applicant'). The property for which these
entitlements have been filed is an 80 -acre parcel located
north of the existing northerly terminus of Foxlane Drive,
Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue. The purpose of the
vesting tentative tract map application submittal' is to
create 201 lots within the subject site for family
residential units. The purpose of the prezone is to
request the A-1-10,000 zone (Light Agricultural --one
d.u./10,000 sq. ft.) priorto- annexation to the City.
Assessor Parcel Nos. 2802-002-010 and 2812-010-008.
b. 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.
c. On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted
resolution no. P90-15 conditionally, approving Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 46626, and recommending approval to
the City Council of Prezone No. 89-002.
d. 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.
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 the City Council and on their
behalf, the City Council further finds and determines as follows:
a. The subject property is an 80 -acre -parcel.
b. The subject property is presently zoned A-2-1 Heavy
Agricultural --one d.u./acre (northerly 40 acres) and
A-1-10,000 (southerly 40 acres) in the County of Los
Angeles.
c. The request is for a prezoning of A-1-10,000 (Light
Agricultural --one d.u. 10,000 sq. ft.) for the entire site
to authorize the establishment of 201 lots for single
family residences.
14
r�
Q1
d. The subject property is of a size and shape which lends
itself to the proposed uses that would be established as a
result of this request.
e. That the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable
probability that this rezoning will be consistent with the
general plan proposal which will be studied within a
reasonable time. There is little or no probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if this rezoning is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan. This rezoning complies with
all other applicable requirements of state law and local
ordinance.
f. The prezoning of A-1-10,000 will not result in a
significant environmental effect.
g. A Negative Declaration has been approved for this project
pursuant to the California Environmental quality Act
(Public Resources Code Sections 21000 at seq.').
SECTION 3. In acting an the prezoning application. the
City Council has considered certain principles and standards, and
finds and determines as follows:
a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning
plan as it pertains to the subject property;
b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists
within the area of the subject property;
c. That the subject property is a proper location for the
A-1-10,000 zone classification;
d. That the requested prezone at the subject property will be
in the interest of public health, safety and general
welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice;
e. That prezoning the subject property will not ,result in a
need for greater water supply for adequate fire protection;
and,
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does
hereby ordain that the application for a prezoning is approved, and
that the official zoning .map of .the City of Santa Clarita is hereby
amended so that the subject property is prezoned A-1-10,000, and
shown on the attached map (Exhibit 1).
SECTION S. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01
a.m. on the thirty-first day after adoption, or upon the effective
date of the annexation (No. 1989-02) of the subject property to the
City of Santa Clarita, whichever occurs last.
SECTION 6.
of this Ordinance
prescribed by law;
The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage
and cause it to be published in the manner
PASSED AND APPROVED this 12th day of June , 1990.
J MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, George Caravalho , City Clerk of the City
of'Santa Clarita, do hereby. certify that the foregoing Ordinance No.
90-_.A_ was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council an the 12th day
of June 1990. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly
adopfl& and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on
the day of June , 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boyer, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
x .. ki�2
CITY CLERK
ID 33
I
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46626
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46626 (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.
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
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. 68.
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.
PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Map Requirements
11. 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 indeteiminate 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.
Page 2
fT-
12. All offers of dedication shall be noted by certificate on
the face of the final map.
13. The final map shall be prepared by'or under the direction
of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer.
14. The final map must be approved by the City Engineer before
filing with the County Recorder.
15. The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate existing
easements which would otherwise underlie or run through
proposed structures.
16. 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.
17. 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 final parcel map is
filed with the County Recorder.
18. 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.
19. 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 easements,
until after the final map is filed with the County
Recorder unless such easements are subordinated to the
proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted
after the date of the tentative approval, a subordination
must be executed by the easement holder prior to the
filing of the final map.
Road Improvements
20. 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.
Page 3
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. The applicant shall place above ground utilities
including, but not limited to, fire hydrants, junction
boxes and street lights outside of the sidewalk.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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. .
29. 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.
Page 4
L
r
30. Off-site improvements may be required for "A" Street and
Foxlane, Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue if in the sole
discretion of the Director of.Public Works such off-site
improvements are necessary.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. The centerline radius of each street with (1) a grade in
excess of 10%, or (2) a distance of 40 feet betweencurbs
shall be a minimum of 350 feet.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Street grades shall be permitted in excess of 10% in the
following locations:
a) "C" Street between "A" Street and "H" Street, and not
to exceed 12.4%.
b) "C" Street between "G" Street and "H" Street, not to
exceed 12.0%.
c) "B" Street between "C" Street and "E" Street,.and not
to exceed 12.58.
37. 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.
Page 5
Ir
38. 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.
39. The central angles of the right-of-way radius returns
shall not differ by more than 10 degrees on local streets.
40. 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.
41. The.applicant shall construct drainage improvements and
offer for dedication easements needed for street drainage
or slopes.
42. The applicant shall construct full width sidewalks at all
sidewalk returns.
43. Theapplicantshall 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.
44. 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.
45. The applicant shall provide and install street name signs
prior to occupancy of the first unit in the subject
property.
46. The applicant shall provide temporary turnarounds with a
radius of 24 feet within the right-of-way at the terminus
of streets.
47. The applicant shall either (1) offer for dedication that
portion of the project which lies between the terminus of
temporary turnarounds and the tract boundary for or (2)
extend the turnarounds beyond the tract boundaries within
the adjacent ownerships.
48. Where.applicable, the applicant shall pay fees for signing
and striping of streets as determined by the City Traffic
Engineer.
49. The applicant shall prepare signing and striping plans for
all multi -lane streets and highways within or abutting
this land division to the satisfaction of the Department
where applicable.
Page 6
50. Driveways shall not be constructed within 25 feet upstream
of any catch basin on a street with a grade in excess of
6%.
51. The applicant shall offer for dedication to the City or
the appropriate assessment district all slope easements at
the front property line of "A" street and "B" street, as
required by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
52. The applicant shall construct the following required road
improvements:
Street Curb & Street Street
Name Width utter Paving Lights Trees Sidewalk
L, D, E, F, G, H 58 FT. X X X X X
I, J, K, B, C 60 FT. X X X X X
A 64 FT. X X X X X
WATER CONDITIONS
53. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water systems
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
Page 7
L
V
problem must be resolved to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works prior to theissuanceof the
first building permit.
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. The applicant shall send a print, of the land division map
to the.County Sanitation District, with the request for
annexation to that District. Such annexation must be
assured in writing prior to issuance of the first building..
permit for this land division.
59. Sewer reimbursement charges as determined by the Director
of Public Works shall be paid to the County of Los Angeles
before the filing of this land division map.
GRADING, DRAINAGE. AND GEOLOGY CONDITIONS
60. A grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to approval of the final
map.
61. The grading plan required by these conditions must be
based on a detailed engineering Geotechnical report and
must be specifically approved by 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.
62. 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 useareaapproved 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
M
63. 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 storm drains. 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.
64. 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.
65. The applicant shall offer for dedication, and said offer
shall be accepted, for a Future Street for Foxlane Drive,
Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue prior to recording the
final map, if said streets are not already dedicated
streets. Prior to release of the first house in the
subject land division for occupancy, the applicant shall
eliminate the temporary turnarounds on Foxlane Drive,
Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue and construct curb,
gutter, base, pavement and.sidewalk adjacent to or thereon.
66. 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.
Page 9
67. The applicant may
only with approval
the City Engineer
Development.
use the non -alternate street section
of the Director of Parks & Recreation,
and the Director of Community
PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC ENGINEERIN
68. 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.
69. The following traffic mitigations shall be required by the
applicants for both this VTTM and.Tentative Tract Map No.
47863. 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 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 provideandinstall 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.
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.
Page 10
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. The
required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this
location is 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a
duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily
domestic demand.
72. The applicants shall provide and install 15 Public Fire
Hydrants which shall each meet the measure 6"x4"x2 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, or as 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 in accordance with the Municipal Code.
78. Either a special landscape maintenance assessment district
or 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, intheland '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
01'
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITION
80. 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.
81. Prior to occupancy, landscaping and fencing for the tract
shall be provided and installed in conformity with the
landscape and fencing plans.
82. A subdivision entry sign may be permitted in accordance
with Section 22.52.970B of the Municipal Code and may be
incorporated into tract fencing and landscaping.
83. 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.
84. The property shall be developed and maintained in
substantial conformance with the tentative map.
Page 12
�r
85. 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.
86. 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 hereby 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.
87. 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.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS_REQUESTSD BY THE APPLICANT (1-18-90)
88. All model homes for the project shall be located on "A"
Street or to the north of "A" Street at a location
approved by the Director of Community Development.
89. Prior to occupancy, the new extended streets of Foxlane
Drive, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue shall not be
opened to through traffic until required to be opened.by
the City to obtain occupancy or inspection.approval.
90. Prior to occupancy of the homes along the applicant's
southerly property line next to the existing adjacent
homes, the applicant agrees to remove the existing fences
(subject to each adjacent homeowner's approval) and
construct a six (6) foot block wall on the property line
common to the adjacent homes and those on the property
which is the subject of this land division. In addition,
the applicant agrees to install and pay for a six (6) foot
block wall.on the west side yard of the homeowner located
at 18921 Ermine Street with that homeowner's approval.
The applicant shall repair and replace any damage to the
landscaping and/or irrigation system of any adjacent
homeowner which is caused by the construction of any wall
required by this condition.
Page 13
rA
91. 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 the
opinions and comments of those homeowners regarding the
location, design and materials to be used in t he
construction of wall, landscaping and irrigation on the
subject property which lies immediately adjacent to those
existing homes.
92. Prior to occupancy, a traffic study shall be conducted by
the -City in the existing neighborhood to the south of.the
subject property 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.
Additional controls which may be required by the City as a
result of the traffic study may include, but shall not be
limited to, any necessary signal modifications at the
intersectionofwhites Canyon Road and Nadal Street, and
potential use of speed bumps or humps or raised ceramic
pavement markers. Property owneis within 400 feet of the
southerly boundary of the subject,property shall be
notified by the City of the results of the study.
93. Prior to commencement of any grading, the applicant shall
hire, at applicant's cost, an inspector to inspect any
home and property within 400' of the southern boundary of
this land division, from whose owner the applicant
receives a written request so to do, to create a bench
mark inspection from which to help 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 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 written 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
L
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS (1-16-90)
94. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measure
prescribed in the biological resources report for the
site, dated January 8, 1990.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT 12-20-9
95. To reasonably insure the safety of the adjacent property
during the grading process, the applicant shall install a
chain link fence, along the southern 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.
96. A monitoring system for ground movement shall be
established within the southern off-site tract street and
sidewalk network to establish a baseline reference six (6)
months prior to the 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 stall be
established in an area within five.hundred (500) feet of
the tract boundaries.
97. 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.
98. 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 applicant's consultants for
the purposes of -analysis and review.
Page 15
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS (3-6-901
99. During grading and construction, no traffic shall be
permitted ingress and egress of the site via Foxlane
Drive, Nearview Drive, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue.
All vehicles entering the site shall be required to use
Whites Canyon Road as the point of ingress and egress.
100. The applicant shall request and support annexation of the
subject property to the City of Santa Clarita. Successful
annexation to the City and recordation of said annexation
by the County Recorder shall be required prior to approval
of the final map.
CITY COUNCIL NEW CONDITIONS (5-22-90)
101. 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.
102. In furtherance of Condition No. 93 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 south boundary of this land subdivision.
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 16
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: September'24, 1991
19 .
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
Lynn M. Harris
SUBJECT: Request for Development Agreement 91-003 to allow ten years
for the build -out of Weston's approved Vesting Tentative
Trart Map 46626 for 201 homes on 80 acres. VTTM 46626 is
located north of Whites Canyon Road, north of the terminus
of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Weston, is requesting a development agreement for ten
years to .develop VTTM 46626 in accordance with standards currently in
effect. The City Council approved VTTM 46626 on May 22, 1990. Other
project approvals considered with VTTM 46626 are Zone Change and Prezone
89-002 and Annexation 89-002.
On August 6, 1991, the Planning Commission unanimously approved
Resolution P91-34 certifying the negative declaration and recommending
approval of this development agreement, with' modifications, to the
Council.
ANALYSIS
Under VTTM 46626 approval, Weston was- conditioned to pay double the
Bridge and Thoroughfare. District fees ($5,300 per unit), pay 50Z of the
cost of a traffic signal' at the intersection of "A• Street and Whites
Canyon Road, and construct off-site improvements for "A' Street. Weston
together with American Landmark, the applicant for VTTM 47863, proposed
to satisfy the park obligation for both projects by donating a 28 acre
park site and $700,000 to the City. These developers also agreed to try
and obtain an additional 7 acres of land adjoining the 28 acres for
dedication to the City as a possible library site. On July 16, 1991, the
Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 22398 which includes
the donation of the 7 additional acres to the City. The costs of
processing the parcel map are being paid by Weston and American Landmark.
The development agreement includes the following additional consideration
beyond that of the original tract approval:
* 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 Weston or
American Landmark tracts record. The 35 acre park/library site is valued
at $510,000.
O
* $500,500 (Weston's share of the $700,000) would be given to the City upon
the issuance of the first building permit for VTTM 46626. This cash
donation would now be increased yearly based'on the January CPI from the
date of original tract approval, so thatthe actual amount is already
greater than $500,500.
* The $5,300 per unit BTD fees would now be increased yearly based on the
January CPI from the date of original tract approval, so this amount is
already greater also'.
* A new fee of $1,067.62 per unit for development of bicycle lanes in the
City is proposed and would be increased yearly by the January CPI from the
effective date of the P,evelopment Agreement. The Development Agreements
for Weston and American Landmark would result in $300,000 plus CPI for
bicycle lane development in the City.
The advantages of approving the requested Weston and American Landmark
Development Agreements are that the dedication of the park/library site would
occur regardless of whether or not VTTM 46626 or VTTM 47863 record. The City
would. receive $700,000 plus CPI for park/library site grading. The City would
receive $300,000 plus CPI to design and construct new bicycle trails, removing
the need for a bicycle lane on Soledad Canyon Road. Additional traffic lanes
could be added to Soledad Canyon Road within the existing right-of-way,
providing circulation benefits for the community.
The disadvantages are that the improvements related to the project may not be
constructed as quickly and the project will be exempt from any new. ordinances
or moratoriums.
RECOMMENDATION
Since publication. of this public hearing for this project, the applicant has
requested that the.project be continued to the next available meeting. This
request is based on the following: (1) The Assistant City Manager, Pulskamp
has been the lead staff person for this project from the date that he was the
acting Community Development Director; (2) Mayor Boyer has also requested that
the project be continued in order that he may participate in the hearing.
Staff recommends the project be continued until October 8, 1991.
1. Ordinance 91-40
2. Development Agreement 91-003.
3. Minutes of Planning Commission dated August 6, 1991, and July 16, 1991.
4. Staff Reports dated August 6, 1991, and July 16, 1991.
5. Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment.
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-34.
7. Project Site Plan.
1441414,HWIVA
L
SWAM
�S
VICINITY MAP
1 CASE N O . PREZONE 89-002
-b
t N 0 3 8 8 9 0
4 B 1030 - 29 - 35
SEC 17
T4N R ISN
as �•n
i
O
� 3s
t9
U
1
lD
yHR'
F'
lD
P
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
1
m
-
A-1-10,000
r
1
lD
lD
P
U
Q
Prezone co
m
-
A-1-10,000
r
1
Ul
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R 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 r
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?)
DRAFT
CONDITION NO. 103 (Added by the City Council on 05/22/90)
"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."
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
L
r
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ' v M ,
STAFF REPORT SAME CM -R F -POR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 46626 and 47863 !C
PREZONE 89-002
TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Mark -Scott, 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, Tdmbora 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 projects will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
2. Approve modification of street grades in excess of 102 up to a maximum of
12.55.
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.
6. Relationship to the General Plan.
L
�r
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 this classification normally is designed in a cluster arrangement so that
grading and development in the 501 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 wixh 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 501 and above slope
areas are dispersed throughout the two sites. VTTM 46626 indicates 16 acres
of the 80 -acre site is in the 501 and above slope area. Approximately 201 of
the site is in the 501 and above areas. VTTM 47863 has 8 acres of the 32 -acre
site in the 501 and above slope areas. Approximately 251 of the site is in
the 501 and above 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' (separate report
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
applicants' expense.
t
r
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 the 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 Areawide 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 702 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 1 to 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.
` - MI5- 3
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
policy 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 slope failure and that landform grading standards
should be implemented which minimize the impact of grading operations and
foster replication of naturally recurring landforms.
Although the subject projects do not propose clustering, development and
grading activities have been pulled off of and are not proposed on the crest
of 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
below the 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 upper 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 full School District fees.
Inconsideration 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 on 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.
` X15 -q,
0
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, the 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 ofthepublic
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 Whites Canyon Road/Via Princessa/Highway
14 connection is completed. After the negative declaration was prepared, it
wasdetermined 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 Whites 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 Requested by the Applicant (VTTM 46626)
97. Prior to occupancy, themodelhomes 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 Bakerton 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 on 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 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.
pt-.
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
modifications at the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street.
102. Prior to occupancy and upon receiving individual approval from each
homeowner adjacent to the applicant's southerly 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.
Additional Conditions Reouested by the Applicant (VTTM 47863)
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 reouested modification (for both tentative maps)
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 theapplicant 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 Development 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.
N Q U2 ut N 2 `` VTTM 46626
M.
1 - P PZ 89-002
Uz VTTM 47863
U
ark 4 N
\P4- CU 2
U2 USM y, U2.
n _U3 ur
GI N2 Ul ,N2
N4PROJECT SITE
Nil
<— WESTON
CITY OF SANTA, HM
U 2
AMERICAN LANDMARK
g
HM PROPOSED PARKSITE 2
C i
t N I F \ P
a W/ S G��' CL�v'
g U3 W U3 /
M U2. U3 �� !U"cam
. IP, ,.
...
��y � 3 U 2 / u4;Fp b
�
�V 3 N' 3 s SOLEDAD /C L t
p . I r
LI DID G\
M CCYN P U21 — W/S
c / (2:)
U ZU 4 �.spi l u 4
U 3
U3 SPI
\
. � p .•:
�� ,.•SPI•
U3
C
_ c P\�
-- . AJ� Gam' HM .
p
St.
P -
` HM
COUNTY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS 1190 `'15' 7
VTTM 46621E
PZ 89-002
owe
*Owe *Oweow
' 3 �%%NVTTM 47863
A-2-1
WESTON DEVELOPMEN , ` R
'
` A'
,. , .... _ %PROJECT SITE
RPD-5-1.1Ua ..�
_ Ohl AMERICAN A-1-10000
-'DEVPMENT I
1 !• 7 \ � ( II :1 � :� x�
'� Q•1 . � ��, _�ro �` A i 10000 1� 1 I�
1, ! R-1-10000
1 � b»# � xY•K 3. 1
A-1 •.aoo L___
a.. PROP SEDIPM rvS11
R
A-1-10000
R-1-60000. `R-1-7000
+•ter..: •i,l;�. �\ \ L'_ i i� 'J �.�� \� \ �... ..c
— Ian-_r --_ ''I•� �. - I�I�`- `11 'l��i I Myr .: J�~ )y
fr
f lam"]-1� N3iY�.'.\ M•l� � 1 � i
Uj
I VER i ...
\ f.f 7 \\ V/✓� �Lti.f�f � � \�M1
'v
ZONING 1/90
r
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46626
PREZONE -89-002
TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Acting Director of Community Development�����'"
DATE: December 19, 1989
APPLICANT: Weston Development Corporation
LOCATION: North of the northerly terminus of Foxlane Drive, Tambora
Drive, and Bakerton Avenue.
REQUEST•
Proposed subdivision of 80 acres (gross area) into 201 lots for single
family residences and prezoning of the property to A-1-10,000 to
accommodate the proposed density.
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 12.52.
3. Approve Vesting .Tentative Tract Map No. 46626 -based on the
required findings and subject to the attached conditions of
approval.
4. Recommend approval to the City Council of a prezoning of
A-1-10,000.
5. 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 --11, 17, 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 and A-2-1. 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 Urban 1 (Ul) A-2-1 Vacant Hillside
East Hillside Mgt. A-1-10,000/ Vacant Hillside
(HM) A-2-1
South Urban 2 (U2) R-1-7,000 Residential Single
Family
West Hillside Mgt. RPD -5-1.1U/ Vacant Hillside
(HM) A-2-1
Project Description: The site is proposed to be subdivided into 201 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 ("A" street on the map),
64 feet wide, that would intersect Whites CanyonRoad(off-site) to the
southwest of the site, beyond the tract boundary. "A" street serves 'as a
collector street for this tract and the .adjacent proposed 80 lot
subdivision (please see map and staff report for tentative tract no.
47863, also appearing on the Planning Commission's December 19, 1989
agenda). From this collector, a "loop" street system is proposed. The
site also proposes to connect to the existing northerly terminus of the
following streets: Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue,
located to the south of the project site. As proposed, "A" street would
provide an additional point of access, only if the adjacent tentative
tract 47863 is approved. If 47863 is not approved, "A" street would
serve as a stub -end street at both ends; additionally "B" street is
designed as a stub -end street that would enable future development beyond
the tract boundary to connect this tract.
The A-1-10,000 zone requires a minimum of 10,000 square foot lots, with
the following exception:
Sec. 21.24.260 of the subdivision ordinance allows a reduced area, not to
exceed 431 of the lots in the subdivision. For this
proposed subdivision a minimum of 7,000 square feet is
required for a maximum 431 of lots (86 lots) is permitted
by the code. The applicant has requested 81 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. Each lot appears to show compliance
with all required standards. Presently, some lots appear
deficient in meeting. these standards. To approve their
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;
S-31
I-
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;
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.
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.
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 obligatin 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.
9
Prezonine•
The applicant has filed for an annexation (No. 1989-02) and a prezone of
A-1-10,000 concurrently with the tentative map. The requested prezoning
will establish a zone classification appropriate for the site and
vicinity upon annexation.
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 envelopes).
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 (0-25X
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 (38890 shown also on the tentative tract map) to the west was
designed in this manner and approved by the County in 1983. The
tentative map shows that the 201 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 80 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 the tract or are located nearby; a
large multiple family residential complex is nearby across Whites Canyon
Road. The size of the individual lots is larger than either of the
adjacent and nearby developments. .
Some potential environmental concerns are indicated in the attached
negative declaration regarding grading, -aesthetics, and traffic.
Staff feels that the finding can be made that this project would
ultimately be consistent with the General Plan, once adopted.
` 33
P
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 park site offered is a major community benefit.
4.. The applicant has agreed to pay double the bridge and
thoroughfare fee.
Disadvantages of the proposed project are:
1. The grading required 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 to 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
VICINITY MAP
CASE N 0 , Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46626 -and
Prezone No. 89-002
\`�•• - Vestina Tentative Trarf M., ki, d7RG7
6 � ■
11 N
SLC �
TR 47863
�l'r-fid �. - I _ ,'•' ._1 .
l Canyon= Lw`
1 Country b '
proposed
�l park site 3
r -t.% •e -..r tom,,,. psi.-.1�'�, .\\ � -�`3_
I
1 I
I
Fnendty =
Yell ^`"
�a�'
adG4iH•�V'C. ..
i
S
R%
TR 46626
1
Canyon f
_ Country +
�._
: ° � � X41.;�,s:..„/s; •�m.•.:,�.r � f
RESOLUTION NO. 90-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE'CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46626
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 prezone and vesting tentative tract map
were filed simultaneously with the City of Santa Clarita, June
6; 1989, by Weston Development Corporation ("the applicant').
The property for which these entitlements have been filed is an
80 -acre parcel located north of the existing northerly terminus
of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue. The
purpose of the vesting tentative tract map application submittal
is to create 201 lots within the subject site for family
residential units. The purpose of the prezone is to request the
A-1-10,000 zone prior to annexation to the City. Assessor
Parcel Nos. 2802-002-010 and 2812-010-008.
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. P90-15, conditionally approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 46626.
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 Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. At the request of the
applicant the hearing'vas 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 an 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
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 lav 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 area proposed for the 201 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 sever system will not violate the requirements prescribed
by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant
to Division 7 (commencing vith Section 13000) of the Water 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 significant ecological area.
i. The proposed parcel sizes are consistent with surrounding parcel
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.
L
f'r
1. The housing needs of the region were considered and balanced
against the public service needs of local residents.
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 andon 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 the lot area in
accordance with Section 21.24.260 of the municipal code.
Accordingly. the City Councial 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;
2. That a final map or parcel map of the division land or any
part thereof will not be filed unlessthe average area of
all lots on such.map or.maps is not less than the
applicable zoning designation;
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;
4. That all lots which.are not reduced in area shall comply
with Subsection A of Section 21.24.240.
SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained in this
resolution, the City Council has considered certain principles and
standards, and finds and determines.as follows:
a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan
as it pertains to the subject property; and
b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within
the area of the subject property; and
C. That the subject property is a proper location for the
A-1-10,000 zone classification; and
d. That placement of the proposed zone at the subject property will
be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare,
and.in conformity with good zoning practice.
a�
SECTION 4. 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 5. 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 201 lots for single family
residential use.,
SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution and shall transmit a copy to the applicant, the Departments of
Public Yorks, Fire, and Parks and Recreation, and shall give notice of
this recommendation in the manner prescribed by Section 22.60.190 of the
City's Planning and Zoning Code.
PASSED, APPROVED. AND ADOPTED this 2—jyi day of May 1990.
Mayor
ATTEST: /
ty
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution
adopted by the City Councial of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular
meeting thereof, held.on the 22M day of __JS3y 1990, by the
following vote of the Councils
AYES: Councilmembers: Boyer, Klajic, McKeon. Darcy
NOES: Councilmembers: Heidt
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Now
ID 31
L
i
f
CRESOLUTION NO. P90-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO..46626
AND
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PREZONE NO. -89-002
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 prezone and vesting tentative tract map
were filed simultaneously with the City of Santa Clarita, June
6, 1989, by Weston Development Corporation ("the applicant").
The property for which these entitlements have been filed is an
80 -acre parcel located north of the existing northerly terminus ,.
of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue. The
purpose of the.vesting tentative tract map application submittal
is to create 201 lots within the subject site for family
residential units. The purpose of the prezone is to request the
A-1-10,000 zone prior to .annexation to the City. Assessor
C Parcel Nos. 2802-002-010 and 2812-010-008.
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; 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.
L
C 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 area proposed for the 201 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 Water Quality Control Board pursuant
to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water.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
Cenvironmental 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 significant ecological area.
i. The proposed parcel sizes are consistent with surrounding parcel
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.
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 Planning Commission 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 the lot area in
accordance with Section 21.24.260 of the municipal code.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings required of Section 21.24.25OA;
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 land or
any part thereof will not be filed unlessthe average area
of all lots on such map or maps is not less than the
applicable zoning designation;
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;
4. That all lots which are not reduced in area shall comply
with Subsection A of Section 21.24.240.
SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained in this
resolution, the Planning Commission has considered certain principles and
standards, and finds and determines as follows:
a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan
as it pertains to the subject property; and
b. That a need for.the proposed zone classification exists within
the area of the subject property; and
C. That the subject property is a proper location for the
A-1-10,000 zone classification; and
d. That placement of the proposedzone at the subject property will
be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare,
and in conformity with good zoning practice.
-3-3
C SECTION 4. 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 S. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission
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 201 lots for
single family residential use.
SECTION 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission
hereby recommends approval to the City Council of the request for a
prezone to the A-1-10,000 zone classification.
SECTION 7. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution and shall transmit a copy to the applicant, the Departments of
Public Works, Fire, and Parks and Recreation, and shall give notice of -.
this recommendation in the -manner prescribed by Section 22.60.190 of the
City's Planning and Zoning Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of March, 1990.
-rouis Brathwaite, Vi6e Chairman
Planning Commission
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{-
/ v Cti✓/G lv'�%v' n'
Mark Scott, Director
Community Development
�i-4
W
C
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46626
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Vesting Tentative _Tract -Map No. 46626 (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-
MRG/CON46626
r-
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.
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.
S. 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.
PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Mab Requirements
11. 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
Page -2-
MRG/CON46626
C
C
A
L
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.
12. All offers of dedication shall be noted by
certificate on.the face of the final map.
13. The final map shall be prepared by or under
the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered
civil engineer.
14. The final map must be approved by the City
Engineer before,filing with the County Recorder.
15. The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate
existing easements which would otherwise underlie or run
through proposed structures.
16. 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.
17. 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 final parcel map is filed with
the County Recorder.
18. 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.
19. 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
easements, until after the final map is filed with the
County Recorder.unless such easements are subordinated to
the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted
Page -3-
MRG/CON46626
rim
after the date of thetentative approval, a subordination
must be executed by.the easement holder prior to the filing
of the final map.
Road Improvements
20. Local street(s) shall be aligned so that the
central angles of the right-of-way radius returns do not
differ by more than lo.degrees.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. The applicant shall be required to install
distribution lines and individual service lines for
community antenna television service (CATV) for each lot in
Cthe subject property.
24. The applicant shall place above ground
utilities including, but not limited to, fire hydrants,
junction boxes and street lights outside of the sidewalk.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
Page -4-
a
MRG/CON46626
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. Off-site.improvements may be required for "A"
Street and Foxlane, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue if in
the sole discretion of the Director of Public Works such
off-site improvements are necessary.
31. Where off-site grading and street improvements
are required, it shall be the responsibility of the
C 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
Page -5-
MRG/CON46626
F
C36. Street grades shall be permitted in excess of
10% in the following locations:
a) "CO Street between "A" Street and "H" Street,
and not to exceed 12.4%.
b) "C" Street between "G" Street and "H" Street,
not to exceed 12.0%.
C) "B" Street between "C" Street and "E" Street,
and not to exceed 12.5%.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. The central angles of the right-of-way radius
C returns shall not differ by more than 10 degrees on local
streets.
40. The applicant shall provided 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.
41. The applicant shall construct drainage
improvements and offer for dedication easements needed for
street drainage or slopes.
42. The applicant shall construct full width
sidewalks at all sidewalk returns.
43. 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.
44. 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.
Page -6-
t
MRG/CON46626
\1
A
e
45. The applicant shall provide and install street
name signs prior to occupancy of the first unit in the
subject property.
46. The applicant shall provide temporary
turnarounds with a radius of 24.feet within the right-of-way
at the terminus of streets.
47. The applicant shall either (1) offer for
dedication that portion of the project which lies between
the terminus of temporary turnarounds and the tract boundary
for or (2) extend the turnarounds beyond the tract
boundaries within the adjacent ownerships.
48. Where applicable, the applicant shall pay fees
for signing and striping of streets as determined by the
City Traffic.Engineer.
49. The applicant shall prepare signing and
striping plans for all multi -lane streets and highways
within or abutting this land division to the satisfaction of
the Department where applicable.
50. Driveways shall not be constructed within 25
feet upstream of any catch basin on a street with a grade in
excess of 6%.
51. The applicant shall offer for dedication to
the City or the appropriate assessment district all slope
easements at the front property line of "A" street and "B"
street, as required by the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
52. The applicant.shall construct the following
required road improvements:
Street
Name
Curb &
Street Street
Width Gutter Paving Lights Trees Sidewalk
L,D,E,F,G,H,
58 FT.
X X
X X
X
I,J,K,B,C,
60 FT.
X X
X X
X
A
64 FT.
X X
X X
X
WATER CONDITIONS
53.
All lots
shall be served by adequately
sized
water system
facilities, including
fire hydrants of
Page -7-
MRG/CON46626
C
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.
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 plans 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.
Page -8-
L MRG/CON46626
58.
The applicant shall send a print
of the land
division map
to the County Sanitation District,
with the
request for
annexation to that District. Such
annexation
Page -8-
L MRG/CON46626
d
must be assured in writing prior to issuance of.the first
building permit for this land division.
59. Sewer reimbursement charges as determined by
the Director of Public Works shall be paid to the County of
Los Angeles before the filing of this land division map.
GRADING. DRAINAGE. AND GEOLOGY CONDITIONS
60. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved
by the Department of Public Works prior to approval of the
final map.
61.- The grading plan required by these conditions
must be based on a detailed engineering Geotechnical report
and must be specifically approved by 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.
62. Because portions of this project are within a
C 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.
63. 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 ofPublic
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
Page -9-
MRG/CON46626
C
show on the final map the City's/Flood Control
District's right-of-way for storm drains. 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.
64. 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.
65. The applicant shall offer for dedication, and
said offer shall be accepted, for a Future Street for
Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue prior to
recording the final map, if said streets are not already
dedicated streets. Prior to release of the first house in
the subject land division for occupancy, the applicant shall
eliminate the temporary turnarounds.on Foxlane Drive,
Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue and construct curb,
gutter, base, pavement.and sidewalk adjacent to or thereon.
66. 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.
67. The applicant may use the non -alternate street
section only with approval of the Director of Parks &
Recreation, the City -Engineer and the Director of Community
Development.
Page -10-
L NRG/CON46626
C
PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
68: 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.
69. The following traffic mitigations shall be
required by the applicants for both the VTTM and Tentative
Tracts Map No. 47863. Costs for these requirements shall be
assessed on a pro rata basis for each of the two tracts:
(a) A traffic signal with appropriate signs and
street striping shall be installed at the
intersection of Whites Canyon Road and "A" Street.
(b) "A" Street shall be extended between the
boundaries of tentative tracts 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(c) 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.
FIRE CONDITIONS
70. This property is,located within the area
described by the Forester and Fire Warden as Fire Zone 4 and
future construction and shall comply with applicable Code
requirements.
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
Page -11-
L
MRG/CON46626
recorded. The required fir flow for public fire hydrants at
this location is 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a
duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily domestic
demand.
72. The applicants shall provide and install 15
Public Fire Hydrants which meet the shall each measure
61Ix41lx2 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, or as
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,
C 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.
'.. � � : _ •� • • Eiji t•]��7
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
L Page -12-
MRG/CON46626
C
L
or-
Landscape Assessment District or HOA by the dedication of
easements or other legal means satisfactory to the City
Attorney.
80. 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 issuanci 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
mataerials 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.
8i. Prior -to occupancy, landscaping and fencing
for the tract shall be provided and installed in conformity
with the landscape and fencing plans.
82. A subdivision entry sign may be permitted in
accordance with Section 22.52.9705 of the Municipal Code and
maybe incorporated into tract fencing and landscaping.
MRG/CON46626
Page -13-
C
r -
83. -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 thesubjectproperty or shown on the approved
tentative map. Any deviation from zoning requirements shall
bemadeonly with the proper approval.
84. The property shall be developed and maintained
in substantial conformance with the tentative map.
85. 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.
86. 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
C lapse of all privileges granted hereby 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..
87. 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.
88. All model homes for the project shall be
located on "A" Street or to the north of "A" Street at a
location approved by the Director of Community Development.
89. Prior to occupancy, the new extended streets
of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue shall
not be opened to through traffic until..required to be opened
by the City to obtain occupancy or inspection approval.
90. Prior to occupancy of the homes along the
applicant's southerly property line next to the existing,
adjacent homes, the applicant agrees to remove the existing
fences (subject.to each adjacent homeowner's approval) and
construct a six (6) foot block wall on the property line
L Page -14-
MRG/CON46626
c
d.-.
common to the adjacent homes and those on the property which
is the subject of this land.division. In addition, the
applicant agrees to.install and pay for a six (6) foot block
wall on the west side yard of the homeowner located at 18921
Ermine Street with that:homeowner's approval. The applicant
shall repair and replace any damage to the landscaping
and/or irrigation system of any adjacent homeowner which is
caused by the construction of any wall required by this
condition.
91. 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 the
opinions and comments of those homeowners regarding the
location, design and materials to be used in the
construction of walls, landscaping and irrigation on the
subject property which lies immediately adjacent to those
existing homes.
92. Prior to occupancy, a traffic study shall be
conducted by the City in the existing neighborhood to the
r south of the subject property 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. Additional controls which may be required by the
City as a result of the traffic study may include, but shall
not be limited to, any necessary signal modifications at the
intersection 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
southerly boundary of the subject property shall be notified
by the City of the results of the study.
93. Prior to commencement of any grading, the
applicant shall hire, at applicant's cost, an inspector to
inspect any home and property within 400' of the southern
boundary of this land division, from whose owner the
applicant receives a written request so to do, to create a
bench mark inspection from which to -help 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
expense.
ADDITIONAL• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS (1-16-901
94. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation
measure prescribed in this biological resources report for
the site dated January 8, 1990.
Page -15-
MRG/CON46626
C
r--
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT (2-20-90),
95. To reasonably insure the safety of the adjacent
property during the grading process, the applicant shall
install a chain link fence, along the southern 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.
96. A monitoring system for ground movement shall be
established within the southern off-site tract street and
sidewalk network to establish a baseline reference six (6)
months prior to the 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
C(500) feet of the tract boundaries.
97. 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 with 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..
98. 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 applicant's consultants for the
purposes of analysis and.review.
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS (3-6-90)
99. During grading and construction, no traffic shall
be permitted ingress and egress of the site via
Page -16-
L MRG/CON46625
C
Foxlane Drive,-Nedrview Drive; Tambora Drive and Bakerton
Avenue. All vehicles entering the site shall be required to
use Whites Canyon Road as the point of ingress and egress.
100. The applicant shall request and support
annexation of the subject property to the City of Santa
Clarita. Successful annexation to the, City and recordation
of said annexation by the County Recorder shall be required
prior to approval of the final map.
L Page -17-
MRG/CON46626
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND:
n.
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager.Approval
Item to be presented
Ken Pulskamp
April 24, 1990
Prezone 89-002 and Appeal of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 46626
and 47863
Community Development
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 site has 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 100 -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
Director Jeff Kolin,. and by Dr. Smythe
considered to be of significant benefit to
L. district.
Continued To: s a�
accepted by Parks and Recreation
of the school district and is
the commmunity and the school 501
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
524000,
L
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA "
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
12.51.
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 prpposed 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
theapplicantsand 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.
MS/MAR/lb
,-3
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTE;
STAFF REPORT \SAM COVE RG 1701
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 466276 and 47863 G r !C
PREZONE 89-002
TO: Chhaairwwonm�jany)G')arasi and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: M�ar�k'Scott; birector 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 projects will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
2. Approve modification of street grades in excess of 10Z 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. -.5-Yb.) Cumulative impacts. .
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 Areavide General Plan is Hillside Management (HM). A subdivision proposed
in this 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 501 and above 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" (separate report
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
400*0 applicants' expense.
S'
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 the 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 702 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 1 to 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
policy 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 slope failure and that landform grading standards
should be implemented which minimize the impact of grading operations and
foster replication of naturally recurring landforms.
Although the subject projects do not propose clustering, development and
grading activities have been pulled off of and are not proposed on the crest
of 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
below the 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 upper 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 full 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 on 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.
L
7
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, the 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 Whites Canyon Road/Via Princessa/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 includedwithin 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 Whites 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 Requested 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 Bakerton 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 on 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 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. /
�J
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
modifications at the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street.
102. Prior to occupancy and upon receiving individual approval from each
homeowner adjacent to the applicant's southerly 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.
Additional Conditions Requested by the Applicant (VTTM 47863)
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 ifanyadditional 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 requested modification (for both tentative maps)
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 Development 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.
.51
V vv
U 2 uz I
_ P
u
ark 4
�U p4V 2
uz U M�rN v2
.n. . /1 AU _ Ut
=„�
+ .}/ VTTM 46626
i
PZ 89-002
VTTM 47863
N 2�
v rN 2 - � N2
N t 4
� �.; PROJECT SITE
1 N 1N] <-- WESTON
CITY OF SANTA H M
J U2
AMERICAN LANDMARK -->
fl
H M ...,, z
PROPOSED PARKSITE
N I I .F rrlN) ��•
I W/S I �� F CLA v'
° 1 y 3 W - `_U3
U 2 u3 �`� ( U.2
.. M .. 3s ��-J .
u
3
U r
N 3 SOLEDAD • /C 4,)
C CYN P U 2 C
_ W/5 �' a
u/ (23)
_ S nta :0 u•4 .sol I U a
_ .0 t M
t
M
-U.3D• _ \
U5 U3 SP` \
' p •SPI::
U3
C
c
P•
E S
N1
H M �� HM (oC�
nn,riury &I±VAICOA1 01 Au nCCl/"%A6lA"d%Am- . ter,.,
`rJVTTM 46620
CN-0%�
3 PZ 89-002
s,,,,VTTM 47863
•-=- WESTON DEVELOPMENT�< '
�1 PRO, R C
JECT SITE
•--' _ 1y�1 `$sem
RPD -5-1.1U'
AMERICAN A-1-10000
DMARK`
PMENT
,) a•t Lam"
R-1-10000
1-6000•
PROP SEE)VA 1£ 1 = R315U
r
A-1-10000 !�
/y
1Ii=R-1"-7000f�-j
A�. -.--__ • .=��i1tr 1— _�.MYII—•,.` M.I. � �r.
\ \ `N — Jam- •^ ',
-
\.�� \ • •.��� 1 Mme•. -
3 •\ •� �y .ter � ..I.�r r.- .r\
N `
,.. wft
\�.
• „ H � 1
t�
// 712A11A1c 4 tan ' / V
L
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,6:f (m�1
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 12.51.
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 Areavide 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 (LightAgricultural). 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
03)
R -3-15U
Residential
Multi -Family
West
Urban 2
(U2)
RPD75-1.1U
Residential
Single Family
CG c�G
Proiect 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 Ghites 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 the northeast is approved, tract 47863 will have
three points of access beyond the site boundary. 'Tf 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 isnot 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
w than the applicable zoning designation; 601"T'158—
U
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).
L
(o�
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 protectinv 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 the tract or 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.
G
6. The applicant has agreed to pay double the bridge and
thoroughfare fee.
Disadvantages of.the proposed project are:
1. The. grading required 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 to 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
n
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46626 and
Prezone No. 89-002
Vesting Tentative Tract Mao Nn_ 47A61
l Canyon `&
1 Country A
1 proposed '
Ir
park site
A ,l
1 . I
1
I c
1
1111\\1�
i
1 I
I
i I
1 1
1 I _
I I
I I �
� 1
` I
l� I
n�
TR 47863
1
\ � TR 46626
Canyon
Country
1
1
Santa
S
A
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
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 an 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 vas 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
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
tventy=four (24) months from the date of approval.
d. The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative tract map which
depicts the ar§a 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 sever 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.
67
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 10 and incorporated
herein by reference allowing the creation of 80 lots.for single family
residential uses.
[1
/ 6
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adaption 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 22n day of May ,
M111 �
KC/1 M—ed("
ATTEST:
C Clerk
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: Bayer, Rlajic, McKeon, Darty
NOES: Councilmembers: Heidt
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Ncne
ID 32
7/
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47863.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
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.
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.
Page 1
2 Z
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.
8. 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.
I�) Page 2
L
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 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 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
ire
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 homeownersrespectively, 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
73
L
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: "B" 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
74
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?c .
7 1
Page 6
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
B. 60 FT. % K 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 eliminated 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.
L 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.
/�� 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
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
i satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Page 9 �/A
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 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 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
£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.
; 1 Page 10
L
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 bronzeandconform 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 wherea 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 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 CON
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 t=ees 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
medians from 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).
q) Page 12
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 Qf
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
Mo
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 (5-22-90)
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.
q<00 - Page 14
L
93. k 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
VO
47
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 (1-16-90)
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.
ITY COUNCIL NEW CONDITIONS f5-22-90
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 ($6,000,000.00),
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.
S
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 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
81 i
ORDINANCE N0: 91-40
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-003
FOR ZONE CHANGE AND PREZONE 89-002, ANNEXATION 89-002
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46626
FOLLOWS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HERESY ORDAIN AS
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 Weston Corporation ("the
applicant"). The property for which this entitlement has been filed
is an 80 -acre parcel located north of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal
Street, west of Foxlane Drive. The Assessor's Parcel Numbers are
2802-002-010 and 2812-010-008.
b. The request is for a development agreement to allow ten years for
the build -out of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626 ("the Development
Agreement,). VTTM 46626 consists of 201 single-family residences
and the site is currently vacant. The General. Plan designation oT
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 P90-15
conditionally approving VTTM 46626 and the negative declaration
prepared for the project, and recommending annexation of the project
site and prezone the site to A-1-10,000.
d. On May 22, 1990, following the public hearings conducted April 24,
1990, and May 22, 1990, the City Council introduced Ordinance No.
90-08 rezoning the project site to A-1-10,000 and .approving the
negative declaration. On May 22, 1990, the City Council also
adopted Resolution 90-75, approving VTTM 46626, the annexation of
the project site, and the negative declaration prepared in
connection therewith. Ordinance No. 90-08 was approved on June 12,
1990, and became effective July 13, 1990.
e. The project site was annexed to the City on October 1, 1990.
f. The applicant is proposing to provide public benefits, as part of
the Development Agreement, in addition to those proposed under the
original VTTM 46626 approval including the following:
I. 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 Weston or American Landmark tracts record. Weston .and
Landmark 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.
L
2. The $500,500 (Weston's share of the $700,000) would be given to
the City upon issuance of the first building permit for VTTM
46626. This cash donation would be increased yearly based on
the January CPI from the date of VTTM 46626 tract approval.
3. The $5,300 per unit BTD fees would be increased yearly based on
the January CPI from the date of VTTM 46626 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.
g. 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 this agreement to the City Council. On August 8, 1991',
the Commission adopted Resolution P91-34, certifying the negative
declaration and recommending approval of the agreement to the City
Council.
h. 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 follows:
a. The Initial Study .prepared for VTTM 46626 is. applicable to this
project. The Development Agreement does not alter the environmental
factors previously considered for VTTM 46626 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.
L
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.
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. Basee--upon the findings stated above, the
City Council hereby approved the Negative Declaration.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby
ordain that the Development Agreement is approved and shall be executed by the
Mayonr 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 execution
by the City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22id day of Or -to , 1991.
ea,t-�'0 D'Y
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as
CITY OF SANTA'CLARITA)
I,. Donna M. Grindev, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91-40 was regularly introduced
L
L
RESOLUTION NO. P91-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
THE CITY ENTER INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-003 FOR
ZONE CHANGE AND PREZONE 89-002, ANNEXATION 89-002
AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46626
WHEREAS, applications for a vesting tentative tract map, annexation
of the project site to the City, and the negative declaration have been
considered and approved by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita on
May 22, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita introduced
Ordinance No. 90-08 rezoning the project site to A-1-10,000 and approving the
negative declaration on May 22, 1990, and .adopted it following the second
reading on June 12, 1990; and
WHEREAS, determination has been made by the Planning Commission that
a mitigated Negative Declaration be certified for these applications; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement does not alter the
environmental factors previously considered for these approved application`s;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning C.iamission has determined that the existing
certified mitigated Negative Declaration adequately. addresses the proposed
Development Agreement for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,. that the Planning Commission of the
City of Santa Clarita does hereby .certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and recommends to the City Council approval of Development Agreement 91-003,
subject to non -substantive revisions approved by the City Attorney or his
designee.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED is 6th f August, 1991.
L
Jerry Cherrington
Chairman of the Planning Commission
I 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 August, 1991, by the following vote:
�.�...
/V/__ /
L
K
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OFSANTACLARITA )
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cherrington, Woodrow, Brathwaite and Modugno
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
;7fin M. Harris
Deputy City Manager/
Community Development
LHS:234
- 2 -
L
Recording Requested By
and When Recorded Return to:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Suite 300
Santa Clarita, California 91355
ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AND WESTON DEVELOPMENT CORP/
WESTON CO. -CANYON COUNTRY, A PARTNERSHIP,
RELATIVE TO THE SUBDIVISION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT
OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 46626
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
L
ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Annexation and Development Agreement
("Agreement") is made this day of
1991, by and between the City of Santa Clarita, a municipal
corporation, organized and existing under the general laws
of the State of California ("City"), and Weston Development
Corp and the Weston Co. -Canyon Country, a California
Partnership (collectively the "Developer")7
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 for entitle-
ments and the owner of certain 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. The Project Site consists of
approximately 80 acres and is located in what was an
unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, but within the
City's planning area.
C. The Parties desire to enter into this
Agreement relating to the Project Site in conformance with
the Government Code and theSantaClarita 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.
entitlements
Approvals"):
WPX/T6M/AGR700763f
L
The Developer has applied for the following
(collectively referred to as the "Project
-1-
(1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46626
(the "Tract Map").
(2) Zone Change, Prezone Case No. 89-002.
(3) Annexation No. 1989-02.
(4) Development Agreement No 90-_
The development as currently proposed by the
Developer for the Project Site consists of 201 single family
homes and related amenities (the "Project").
E. On February 20, 1990, following the public
hearings conducted on December 19, 1990, January 16, 1990
and February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City
approved the negative declaration prepared for the Project,
recommended annexation of the Project Site from Los Angeles
County to the City, and adopted Resolution No. P90-15
conditionally approving the Tract Map and recommending that
the City Council annex the Project Site to the City and
prezone the Project Site to A-1-10,000. On
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 a public hearing
conducted on April 24, 1990, the City Council of the City
introduced ordinance No. 90-08 rezoning the Project Site to
the A-1-10,000 Zone and approving the negative declaration
prepared in connection therewith. The second reading of
Ordinance No. 90-08 was -approved on June 12, 1990 and became
effective on August _, 1990. On May 22, 1990, the City
Council of the. City also adopted Resolution No. 90-75
approving the Tract Map, the annexation of the Project Site
to the City and the.negative declaration prepared in
connection therewith. on , 1991, the City
Council of the City introduced Ordinance No. approving
this Agreement with the Developer. The second reading of
Ordinance No. was approved on , 1991, and
Ordinance No. became effective on ,
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 $500,500.00 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 American Landmark to the City
for said park/library improvements and facilities, and
-2-
WP%/TBM/AGR700763f
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.
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 rezoning the Project Site and
approving the Tract Map, 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
-3-
WPX/TSM/AGR700763f
L
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
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
planning and provides 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
services appropriate to the development of the Project Site,
and generally serves the public interest within the City of
Santa Clarita and the surrounding region.
AGREEMENT
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:
(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.
-4-
YP%/TBM/AGR700763f
t
(b) "Consumer Price Index" or "CPI" is the
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,
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 isnot 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 46626 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 46626, 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 46626 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
-5-
WPx/TBM/AGR700763f
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
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 based on 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
-6-
UPVTBMIAGR700763f
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 201
detached, single family residences and related
amenities.
(b) "Development -Standards" All design and
development standards applicable to the development
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
-7-
4PX/TBM/AGR700763f
l
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:
(a) Annexation. The Developer has consented to,
and will not protest .or contest, the annexation of
the Project Site to the City of Santa Clarita.
(b) 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
conditions of this Agreement, the conditions of the
Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules.
(c) School Fees. Concurrent with the issuance of
each unit building permit for a lot within Tract
No. 46626, Weston shall pay to the applicable
School District a per.unit sum in accordance with
existing agreements between Weston and the William
S. Hart Union High School District, Sulphur Springs
Union School District and the Saugus 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.
(d) 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 (e)
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
-8-
NPX/TBM/AGR700763t
L
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.
(e) 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 46626 and
prior to issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for Weston Tract No. 46626, Weston shall
have constructed its portion of the access road
depicted on Tract 46626 as "A" Street, in
furtherance of the public health and safety of
those existing residences which presently have only
one access road serving their entire tract thereby
providing emergency secondary access for said
existing residential neighborhood in addition to
providing access to the new dedicated park
described in subparagraph (e) (3) of this Section 6
and conditioned upon Developer's decision to
undertake construction of the Project, Weston shall
perform as follows:
(a) Weston shall construct "A" Street as
shown on the Tract Map from the
southwesterly Project boundary connecting
up with the stub -outs of Foxlane.Drive,
Bakerton Avenue and Tambora Drive from
the existing residential neighborhood to
the south.
(b) Pursuant to Condition No. 68(b) of
said Tract Map, Weston shall construct
part of the street from the closest point
on the northeast boundary of American
Landmark Tract No. 47863 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 Home Owners'
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
-9-
WPX/TBM/AGR700763f _
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
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 recordation of the final
Tract Map or any subphase thereof, Weston shall
have done all that it can do to annex its property
to the City.
(3) 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
-10-
4P%/TBM/AGR700763f
L
Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 and existing City park
standards and policies.
(4) Upon issuance of Building Permits, for
the first for -sale residences (excepting model
homes), for Tract Map No. 46626 or any subphase
thereof, Weston, shall donate and pay to the City
the sum of $500,500.00, plus a sum equal to.the
increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index
calculated for the period from the date the
tentative tract 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 American Landmark to be used for
the improvement and purchase of equipment and
facilities for the park and library site referred
to in subparagraph (3) above. The City
acknowledges that said sum is not a requirement of
any City ordinance, resolution, policy or Tract Map
condition of approval.
(5) Concurrent with the construction of the
intersection of "A" 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.
(6) Concurrent with the issuance of building
permits on a lot by lot basis for each phase of
Tract No. 46626, Weston 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 tract 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.
(7) 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
-11-
WPx/T8M/AGR700763f
L
approximately 7 acre site is not dedicated to City
by December 31, 1991, this Agreement shall be null
and void.
(8) 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
maintenance 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. Acknowledgements, 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
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
-12-
MITSM/AGR700763f
l
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
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.3rd.
465heldthat 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 theobligation, 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
-13-
WP%/T8M/AGR700763f
l
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
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 part of
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,
-14-
VPX/T8M/AGR700763f
l
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
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
building permits, 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
-15-
HPX/TBM/AGR700763f
l
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)(3) and 6(E)(4)
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
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
-16-
HPX/TSM/AGR700763f
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 thetimeand
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
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 or 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
-17-
WPx/TBM/AGR700763f
L
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
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
-18-
YP%/TSM/AGR700763f
L
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 gives written notice
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
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
arbitrator 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
-19-
4P%/TBM/AGR700763f
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
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
-20-
WP%/TBM/AGR700763f
L
With a Copy to: Carl K. Newton, Esq.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
611 W. Sixth St.
Ste. 2500
11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
If to Developer: John A. Ashkar
Weston Development Company
10960 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90024
and
Herbert Schaffer
Weston Co.- Canyon Country
10960 -Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90024
With a copy to: Charles W. Cohen, Esq.
Cohen, Alexander & Clayton
One Boardwalk
Suite 102
Thousand Oaks, CA 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 into consideration 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.
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,
-21-
UP%/TBM/AGR700763f -
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
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
-22-
YPx/TBH/AGR700763f
L
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. Attorney's 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 be an 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.
29. Entire Agreement; Conflicts. This Agreement
consists of 19 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.
-23-
OX/TSM/AGR700763f
l
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':
By: _
1991
, Mayor
WESTON DEVELOPMENT CORP
Dated• 1991
By:
Herbert Schaffer; Chairman
Dated• , 1991
By;
John A. Ashkar, President
WESTON CO.- CANYON COUNTRY, a'
California partnership
BY: WESTWOOD COMMUNITIES CORP.,
Dated• , 1991
John A. Ashkar, President,
General Partner
-24-
NPX/T8M/AGR700763f
L
BY: KENSAL INC.
Dated:
, 1991
Herbert Schaffer, Pres
General Partner
-25-
VP%/TSM/AGR700763f
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.
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this
instrument as
of the City of Santa Clarita
and acknowledgedthat the City of Santa Clarita executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public:
-26-
-7%/TBH/AGR700763f
l
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) Ss.
COUNTY OF 1
On this day of in the year 1991,
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for said
State and County, personally appeared Herbert Schaffer and
John A. Ashkar, personally known to me (or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who
executed this instrument as the.Chairman and President of
the Weston Development Corp and acknowledged to me that such
corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its
bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public:
-27-
VPX/TRM/AGR700763f
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 John A. Ashkar,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this
instrument as President of Westwood Communities Corp. a
general partner of Weston Co. -Canyon Country, a California
partnership 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.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public:
-28-
WPX/TBM/AGR700763f
L
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF 1
On this day of in the year 1991,
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for said
State and County, personally appeared Herbert Schaffer,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed this
instrument as President of Kensal Inc., a general partner of
Weston Co. -Canyon Country, a California partnership, 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.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public:
-29-
WPx/taM/AGR700763f _
l
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PZ -89-002
CASE 110. VTTM 46626 Prepared by: Michael A. Rubin
Project Location: North of the existing northerly terminus of Foxlane
Drive, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue
Project Description and Setting: vacant hillside land proposed to be
developed for 201 single family residences.
General Plan Designation Hillside Management (HM)
Zoning: Light Agricultural A-1-10.000 and Heavy Agricultural A-2-1
Applicant: Weston Development Corporation
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] [ ] [ ]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? [X] [ ] [ ]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [X] [ ] [ ]
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? [ ] [ ] [X]
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... [ ] [X] [ ]
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ ] [ ] [X]
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ 1 [ ] [X]
L
s sa
L
MM
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 ] [ ]
[X]
Development proposed in a mapped
1.
Other? landslide area
[X] [ ]
[ ]
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? ....................
[ ] [ ]
[X]
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? .......
[ ] [ ]
IX]
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? ..............
[ ] [ ]
[X]
d.
Development within a high wind hazard
area? ......................................
( ) [ ]
[X]
e.
Other?
I ] [ ]
[X]
3. Yater. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................
[X] [ ]
[ ]
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ..............................
I ] I ]
[X]
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? .........................
[ ] 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]
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? ............
[ ] [ ]
[X]
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................
[ l [ ]
IX]
S -c53
L
- 3 -
YES MAYBE NO
h. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ( ] [ ] [X]
i. other? [ ] ( ] [X]
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)? ... [ ] [
] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [ ] [
] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ........... [ j [
) [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ...................................... [ ] [
] [X]
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)? .................... [ ] [
] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [
] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...... ( ] [
] [X]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ] [
] [X]
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ] [
] [X]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels?. ................. [ ] [
] [X]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ] [
] [X]
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] [ 1 [ 1 6_621
- 4 -
5-65'
YES MAYBE NO
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ...............................
[X1 [ 1 [ 1
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? .................................
[ 1 [ 1 [X1
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)? ................................
[ 1 [ 1 1X1
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ......................................
[ ] [ 1 [X1
d. Otherwise.expose people to potential safety
hazards? ...................................
[ J [ 1 1X1
11.
Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
.
population of an area? .....................
[X] [ ] [ ]
b. Other?
[ ] [ ] [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? ........................
[ ] [ ] [X]
5-65'
- 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]
( ] [ ]
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ...............................
(X]
I ) I )
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .......
[X]
( ) [ ]
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ..............................
( ]
I ) IX)
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? ...........................
( 1
I ] (X)
b.
Police protection? .........................
[X]
[ ] ( ]
C.
Schools? ...................................
[X)
[ ) I )
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? ....
[X]
[ ] I ]
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ...........................
[ ]
I ) IX)
f.
Other governmental services? ...............
[ ]
[ ) [X)
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . ....................................
[ )
( ) IX)
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
[ ]
[ ] [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? ......................
[ ]
[ ) [X]
b.
Communications systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X)
C.
Water systems? .............................
I )
I ) IX)
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ) [X)
t
e.
Storm drainage systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] (X]
(5`5W
- 6 -
YES MAYBE NO
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? ........ [ ] [ ] [X]
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ] ( ] (X]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ] [ ] (X]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ................................... [ ] [ ] [X]
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? .... [ ] ( ] [X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... ( ] ( ] [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a.physical.change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X]
L
5- c57
- 7 -
Discussion of Impacts.
The followinc 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 80X 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 1.5 million 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 43Z of the site is located on terrain of greater than 25%
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.
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.
- 7a -
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 201 -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 allow a minimum of 11.2 units and a
maximum of 24 units with a preferred limit of 17 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 approximately half 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. The other half of the
site is zoned Heavy Agriculture A-2-1, allowing a minimum of one -acre. lot
size. Under the existing zoning (accounting for the combination of the two
zones), a maximum of 212 lots would be permitted; only 201 are proposed. 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 43%
of this proposed subdivision. A total of 81 of the 86 allowable lots are
proposed to have a reduced area. The average lot size for this project is
14,374 square feet.
8 c. The use does not presently conform to existing zoning laws. A portion
of the site is presently zoned A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural 1 -acre minimum
lot size). The applicant has requested a prezoning to A-1-10,000.
(Light Agriculture, minimum 10,000 square foot lot area). The project
conforms to the A-1-10,000 zone.
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 0-25Z
slopes. The -proposed project ,shows lots evenly distributed throughout
the site. Again, an estimated 85Z of the surface area will require
grading.
Ila. 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.
l
5`55"?
- 7b -
13a. The number of vehicular trips generated per day by this project is -
estimated to be 1,969, with a morning peak hour of 152 trips and and
afternoon peak of 210. These figures alone represent a negligible
impact on the local street system. However, when considered with the
cumulative impacts of other proposed developments that will be
utilizing the same street system, the impact is considered significant.
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
exist;ng 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 in combination with an adjacent
proposed tract 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 .presently 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.
L
- 7c -
18a. The area in which the site is located 'consists of rolling hills. Many
homes to the west of the site and some to the south 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 below this site. The impact of this development is that the
close range view that both areas to the south and west of this site
have will be dramatically changed. The distant views that the homes to
the west have will be unaffected; however the homes to the south may
possibly have distant views blocked to the northwest.
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 consider the visual
impact detrimental.
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.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Aesthetics.
S. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
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 Services
C . A mitigation agreement shall be entered between the applicant and
the appropriate school districts.
d. 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 SIGNIFICANCE
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.
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? .................. [ J [ ] [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 [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.) .. [ ] [ ] (X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ) [ ] [X]
`71
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on.the environment; and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE 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 . ........................... ........... [ ]
spa
- 9 -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
November 29. 1989 �///I(�i/�/
Date Signature
Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner
Name and.Title
5--63
LIST OF SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Initial Study
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626
and
Prezone 89-002
Environmental
Subject
1.. EARTH
2. AIR
3. WATER
4. PLANT LIFE
5. ANIMAL LIFE
6. NOISE
7. LIGHT & GLARE
8. LAND USE
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
Source of Information
City of Santa
Clari[a Dept. of
Public Works and
Preliminary
Gcotechnical Report,
San., 10, 1989, by
Pacific Soils
Engineering, Inc.
South Coast Air
Quality.Mgmt.
District Air Quality
Handbook
Santa Clarita Water
Co. and Drainage
Analysis, Aug., 3,
1989, by Sikand
Engineering
Associates
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community
Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community
Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989, by Crain
& Associates.
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989.
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
S -6y
10. RISK OF UPSET/HAZARDS
11. POPULATION
12. HOUSING
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
15. ENERGY
16. UTILITIES
17. HEALTH
18. AESTHETICS
19. RECREATION
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES
L
County of Los
Angeles Fire Dept.
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989. .
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
So. Calif. Edison
and So. Calif. Gas
So. Calif. Edison,
So. Calif. Gas,
Santa Clarita Water
Co.
Los Angeles Co.
Health Dept. and
Sanitation District
City of Santa
Clarita Depts. of
Community
Development, and
Parks and Recreation
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Parks and Recreation
State of California
Dept. of Parks and
Recreation Office of
Historic Preservation