HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - BOUQUET SENIORS HOUSING PROJ (2)CPPY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by Jennifer Reid
DATE:
May 12, 1998
SUBJECT: BOUQUET SENIORS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
(MASTER CASE 97-102: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-0021
ZONE CHANGE 97-002 / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-012/
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 98-001 SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH# 97081065).
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council: 1) Determine an appropriate amount and procedure for reducing certain
project -related fees; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 98-11 certifying the Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project and adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the project's cumulative impact to air quality; 3) Adopt
Resolution 98-12 approving General Plan Amendment 97-002 and Conditional Use
Permit 97-012; 4) Hold the first reading of Ordinance No. 98-10 approving Zone Change
97-002; and 5) Hold the first reading of Ordinance No. 98-11 approving Development
Agreement 98-001.
BACKGROUND
On April 21, 1998, The City Council opened the public hearing for the Bouquet Seniors
Affordable Housing Project. The project includes requests for a General Plan
amendment, zone change, conditional use permit, and development agreement in order
to construct 264 senior, affordable housing units on a 12.36 acre property. The project
site is located westerly and adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road, between Festividad Drive
and Espuella Drive.
The Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project public hearing was continued to the
Council meeting of May 12, 1998, in order for the Council to further consider the project's
requested fee reductions, and for the Council's consideration of the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
s Adopied. �2� �/}-�i Z
Ute( qk 1° l
Agenda Itern:1.0
During The meeting of April 28, 1998, Council requested specific information regarding
the developer's profit margin for the project, project specifics regarding the site plan, the
project's environmental impact report, and funding that the City currently provides to
the Senior Center. A discussion of these specific issues is presented below.
Developer Profit: The applicant provided staff with a pro forma income statement for
the project which indicates, on average, an annual profit of approximately $160,000.00
per year (after payment of $1,076,752.00 towards the project's bonds). This, according
to the City's financial advisor, represents an approximate 8% return for the project. Of
this revenue, $80,000.00 would be provided to the developer, and $80,000.00 would be
given to the non-profit limited partner on the project. For clarification, the tax credit
investor will own 99% of the project, the developer will own 1/2% of the project, and the
non-profit limited partner would own the other V2% of the project. This $160,000.00
income is an assumption based on today's interest rate: the amount could increase or
decrease depending on changes in the market between now and the time the project is
funded. In determining developer profit, the State of California as the bond issuer sets
a cap of $1.2 million dollars over a ten year period of time. The State calls this profit a
"developer fee." Therefore, the $80,000.00 annually to the developer goes towards the
developer fee profit cap of $1.2 million over a ten year timeline. It is important to note
that the developer fee profit may never be fully realized, and that there is no guarantee
that the developer will be able to collect the full $1.2 million developer fee over ten
years. Furthermore, the developer fee is considered a hard cost for the project, which
is eligible for tax credits.
The City's financial advisor also reviewed the project's pro forma with no fee
reduction/waiver factored in. According to the City's financial advisor, no fee
reduction/waiver would result in a decrease in the project's rate of return from 8% to 6%.
A 6% rate of return represents an annual profit of approximately $100,000. Therefore,
the developer would receive approximately $50,000 a year and the non-profit limited
partner would receive the other $50,000 a year. According to the City's financial advisor
a 6% return is typical for senior, affordable housing projects. It is important to note,
however, that the pro forma income statement as submitted by the applicant is based
on assumptions about market conditions over the next 15 years.
After ten years, the project is still allowed to turn a profit, but the profit is no longer
considered a hard cost, and is not eligible for tax credits. A representative from the
project's potential lender explained that, in order for most projects to receive a loan, the
lender looks for the project's ability to be profitable. This is due to the fact that the
lender looks for assurance that the applicant has an incentive to maintain the project.
If the project is not turning a profit, the developer often has little incentive to maintain
the project appropriately, and runs the risk of defaulting on the loan. It was also
explained that profits for affordable senior housing projects are marginal, as the income
from rents for such projects is capped for 30 years, while there is no such cap for rising
expenses.
In November of 1997, the City Council held a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act
(TEFRA) public hearing in order to adopt an inducement resolution for the project. The
adoption of this resolution allowed the developer to apply for pass-through, tax-exempt
bond financing through the State of California. The applicant applied for
$17,000,000.00 worth of bonds, but was only allocated $15,000,000.00 worth of tax-
exempt bonds. However, the issuance of these tax-exempt bonds saves the project up
to $12,000,000.00 over a 30 -year period. of time.. While this is not a direct fiscal
contribution to the project from the City, the developer would not have been able to
apply for the pass-through, tax exempt bond financing at the State level without the
City's adoption of the inducement resolution.
Funding for Senior Services: The City of Santa Clarita currently provides funding
for senior services throughout the community. Specifically, the City grants funds to the
Senior Center from both the General Fund and from Federal Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds. On an annual basis, the Senior Center receives $180,000.00
of CBDG funding for the Handyworker Program, CDBG funding in the amount of
$48,000.00 for Senior Center administration of consumer, health, social and education
services, General Fund money in the amount of $150,000.00 for recreational
programming, and $50,000.00 of General Fund money specifically for Dial -A -Ride
services (for a total of $428,000.00 annually). In addition to this direct funding to the
Senior Center, the City pays $1,584,000.00 to operate its Dial -A -Ride system. While not
a direct contribution to the Senior Center, the senior community heavily utilizes this
service. It is estimated that approximately 60 percent ($950,000.00) of total ridership
is attributed to seniors.
Project Specifics: Staff has attached a seven page project description for Council's
consideration, entitled `Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project Description." Staff
will also provide the Council with further detail through verbal testimony at the
meeting of May 12, 1998.
Environmental Analysis: The Bouquet Seniors project was originally approved by Los
Angeles County as a 192 unit, market rate senior project. A full Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was prepared for the previous project, and was certified by Regional
Planning in November of 1992. Due to the increase in the number of units, changes to
the building's footprint, and proposed changes to the land use, staff determined through
the preparation of an initial study that a Subsequent EIR should be prepared. This
Subsequent EIR was focused on seven environmental issue areas including noise, land
use, traffic, aesthetics, air quality, public services, and grading. It was determined in
all issue areas that with the. implementation of mitigation measures, no significant
short term or long term environmental impacts were found. However, the project is
located in a non -attainment air quality basin, and therefore, the project is considered
to be a contributor to the already existing air quality problems. Due to this
determination, the project was found to have a significant cumulative effect on air
quality. Furthermore, Regional Planning adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration (SOC) for the previous project's cumulative effect on air quality. Since
this project increases the number of apartment units by 72, Council should also consider
adopting a SOC for this project's effect on air quality. A 13 page attachment
summarizing the project's environmental impact analysis is included in your packet for
your consideration, and John Bitterly from the Planning Consortium will be available
to answer any specific questions you have regarding the project's environmental
documentation.
During the meeting of April 21, 1998, the Council raised a specific concern regarding the
site's potential for liquefaction. As identified on the area Seismic Hazards Map
prepared by the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, this area
(like most areas within and adjacent to the creek and river beds throughout the Santa
Clarita Valley) has been identified as having a potential for liquefaction. Staff was
aware of this and required the applicant to perform site investigation and prepare a
geotechnical report to assess the potential hazard. In summary, there were liquefiable
soils found at a depth of about 20 feet, which could experience approximately one inch
of settlement in the event of a major earthquake. However, no surface damage is
expected due to the potential settlement, and the implementation of mitigation
measures (including the conditions in the project's geotechnical report prepared by R.
T. Frankian and Associates) reduced the impacts to less than significant. As part of the
grading plan review and subsequent grading inspections, staff insures that the
mitigation measures are implemented during construction. For more detailed
information regarding this issue, the Council may refer to the project's Subsequent EIR
Technical Appendix and Response to Comments. Additional information is also
included in the project's Environmental Analysis attachment to the Council's staff
report.
Changes to the Project: On April 24, 1998, staff received notice from the Santa
Clarita Valley Committee on Aging that the Committee no longer desired to be a general
partner on the project. The Committee on Aging would remain responsible for the
management of the project, and would still receive the $70,000 to $90,000 annual
management fee, but they would no longer own 1h% of the project. The Committee on
Aging was not comfortable being a general partner, as they believe that the Committee
would have to assume a certain amount of liability for the project if the project is not
successful. In speaking with Hamilton -Larkin, it was stated that the developer would
still prefer to have the Committee on Aging as the project's general partner, but that
they would now have to pull in a different non-profit organization. Currently, Hamilton -
Larkin is proposing to include the Hearthstone Housing Foundation as the non-profit
general partner, and is also proposing to have Brad Berens from the Committee on
Aging appointed to the Board of Directors for this Foundation. Also, it is still possible
that the Committee on, Aging could join the general partnership in place of the
Hearthstone Housing Foundation at a future date if so desired.
Staff has provided Council with a two-page resume describing the Hamilton -Larkin
Limited Liability Corporation, and information describing the Hearthstone Housing
Foundation. This information is attached for your consideration.
Fee Waivers and Funding: The Planning Commission has recommended to the City
Council a total project specific fee reduction of $887,453.00, as detailed in the attached
Council staff report of April 21, 1998. In determining the potential Council support of
fee reductions, the following decisions should be made: A) the amount of fee
reduction/waiver supported by Council; and B) the manner in which any potential fee
reduction should be carried out.
Another change to the project incorporates the developer's request for the manner in
which the City Council could carry out any potential fee reduction. The first request
from the applicant was for a grant to the non-profit general partner on the project.
F1
However, it has been found that this determination would not allow for the project's
funding in timely manner. For simplicity's sake, the applicant would now prefer the
Council to support a fee reduction or full waiver, leaving the developer responsible for
partial payment of fees upon building permit issuance. The timing of this project is
currently at a crucial level, as is described in an attached letter from ARCS, the project's
Delegated Underwriting and Servicing (DUS) lender. Not only does the attached letter
describe the financing mechanisms for Low Income Housing Tax Credit programs, but
also describes the timing deadlines for such projects.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
If the Council determines to support a fee reduction/waiver, the Council could consider
the following options:
• Consider the City's contribution to the project to be the Council's November 1997
adoption of the project's inducement resolution (Resolution No. 97-138);
• Support the fee reduction of $887,453.00 as recommended by the Planning
Commission by not collecting the full fees from the developer, and then subsidize the
specific revenue accounts to the full fee amounts from the Council's contingency
account; or,
• Waive the full $1,514,966.00 of development fees as requested by the developer.
If the Council supports a fee reduction for the project, staff would recommend that the
Council consider supporting a fee reduction for payment of partial fees at building
permit issuance; with reimbursement for the full fee amount into the revenue accounts
from contingency. Specifically, staff recommends that the Council consider the
following:
Bridge and Thoroughfare Fees: Full Bridge and Thoroughfare fees for this project
total $979,440.00. The Planning Commission recommended a 55% reduction in this fee,
based on the reduced number of vehicle trips produced by a senior -oriented apartment
project. Therefore, a 55% reduction in fees would result in payment to the District of
$440,748.00. Even with a 55% reduction in fees, the Bouquet Canyon Bridge and
Thoroughfare Benefit District would collect a greater amount of fees than the current
RS (Residential Suburban) zoning of the property would allow. Current zoning would
result in the development of 61 single family homes, and a Bridge and Thoroughfare
District fee of $323,300.00. Staff does not feel that this particular revenue account
would need reimbursement from the Council's contingency account, as payment to the
District is still whole, and does not leave future developers with a greater burden.
Transit fees: The Planning Commission has recommended a 50% reduction in Transit
fees for the project. Currently, the transit mitigation fee for this project totals
$52,800.00. A 50% reduction in this fee, would result in the developer's payment of
$26,400.00. Council could pay the .difference between the full fee and the reduced fee
through contingency funds.
Parks and Recreation Fees: The Planning Commission has recommended a
reduction of $322,363.00 for the project's Parkland Dedication requirement. This takes
into account an average of 1.41 people per unit, is based on an assumption that the fair
market value of the property is approximately $204,545.00 per acre, and that the
applicant will provide for approximately 14,600 square feet of on-site recreational
amenities. Council could determine that it is appropriate to pay the difference of
$322,363.00 from the contingency account to the Parkland Dedication revenue account.
The above scenario still represents an $887,453.00 (or 59%) reduction in the project's
fees, and could be supported through the project's development agreement and through
the project's conditional use permit for a density and amenities bonus. It would also
guarantee that the funds for Transit Mitigation and Parkland Dedication are paid in
their entirety for the project, thus eliminating the potential for burdening future
developers in making up the cost difference. Payment would include $322,363.00 from
the contingency account to the Parkland Dedication account, and $26,400.00 from the
contingency account to the Transit Mitigation account (for a total payment of
$348,763.00 from the Council's contingency).
The third Council option would be for a full fee waiver of $1,514,966.00 as requested by
the developer. In this scenario, Bridge and Thoroughfare Fees, Parkland Dedication
Fees, and Transit fees would not be collected, and the City's General Fund would be left
with a deficit greater than the $244,218.00 projected in the project's fiscal impact
analysis.
la1 or-111f1WITT11
An independently prepared fiscal impact analysis indicates that the project will have
a negative fiscal impact on the City's General Fund budget of $244,218.00 over the
project's absorption period (five years). In determining the project's fiscal impacts to the
City's budget, the analysis assumes that full mitigation fees have been paid. Therefore,
any further waiver of fees will have an additional negative impact on the City's budget.
The City's General Fund would absorb this additional budgetary impact.
ATTACHMENTS
Hamilton -Larkin Resume
ARCS Funding Letter
Hearthstone Housing Foundation profile
City Council Staff Report of April 21, 1998
Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project Description
Bouquet Seniors Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft Development Agreement 98-001
Draft Resolution No. 98-11
Draft Resolution No. 98-12
Draft Ordinance No. 98-10
Draft Ordinance No. 98-11
Pbs\council\a 971022.doc
04/22/1998 15:50' 7147216776 HAMILTON LARKIN PAGE 01
H Hamilton Larkin, LLC
Real &tate Developmenr
Corona Del Mar, California
Nenport Beach. California -
Akron, Ohio
Hamilton Larkin, LLC was formed in 1996 as a California limited liability company to
develop, operate, and manage rental properties, including those that qualify for tax credits
and tax=exempt bond financing. The Company focuses on two compatible segments of the
housing rental market, apartments for active seniors and apartments for families. Some of
these apartment projects will qualify forseniors and families of low and moderate income and
will meet statutory requirements to qualify for low income housing tax credits. Four
managing members, Christopher Santoro, Diane Chastain, Andrew Bodnar and Jules
Swimmer wholly own the Company. The principal office of the Company is in Newport
Beach, California.
The Company has developed a working relationship with General Electric Capital
Corporation, US Bank, Edison Capital Housing Investments and other institutions to expedite
the sale and financing of tax credit projects. Edison Capital is one of the nation's largest
corporate investors in affordable housing for families and the elderly, with a portfolio of about
9,500 housing units. Edison Capital, General Electric Capital and other companies are
committedto provide construction financing, equity financing and permanent debt financing
for various Hamilton Larkin projects.
Nationally, three billion dollars (S3 billion) are spent annually on affordable housing for low
income individuals and families'under the 1986 Federal Tax Credit Program. This program
provides attractive financial returns as it promotes development of much needed affordable
housing nationwide. It provides lowerthan prevailing market rents to individuals and families
by encouraging the private sector to invest in quality projects. One hundred thousand new
units are built in the U.S. every year under the tax credit program.
The need for affordable housing in the expanding senior population is growing rapidly. The
"graying of America" is creating challenges and opportunities that require a thorough
understanding of the sweeping changes that are occurring in our overall population. People
aged sixty years and over are now healthier and more mobile than any previous generation.
This segment of ourpopulation is also the fastest growing and is estimated to double over the
next thirty years. Not only are there more people reaching age sixty, they are living longer,
too—well into their nineties. With the new medical breakthroughs that are still bound to
occur, some forecasters are predicting a housing crisis of unseen proportions for affordable
senior accommodations in the future.
Understanding the housing needs of seniors requires profiling the resident population, and
classifying seniors into independent, semi-independent and frail groups. The majority of
seniors currently over age 65 are independent and consider themselves sufficiently able to live
independently in their homes or apartments. But even these independent seniors look for
202 Seaward Road, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 . 1714) 721-6775 FAX (714) 721-6776
accommodations that offer services such as planned social events, transportation to shopping
and meal programs. In addition, these seniors often fear that their health will decline in the
future and that they will become increasingly dependent on these basic services. Semi-
independent seniors generally are healthy but have an ailment or chronic condition limiting
their capacity to perform some daily activities. These seniors are referred to as seniors with
special needs who can live independently but rely on certain services such as housekeeping,
shopping, or preparation of meals. The frail seniors typically require the services provided
by an assisted living facility and represent a relatively small proportion of the senior
population—fewcr than twenty-five percent of the people age 85 and older.
Hamilton Larkin strives to provide quality affordable housing and services that can be
outsourced through local senior centers and other nonprofit organizations to meet the needs
of both the independent seniors and semi-independent seniors.
A AARCS
COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CO., L.P.
Via Facsimile & Federal Express
April 24",1998
Attn: Jennifer Reed
Associate Planner
City of.Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196
Re: ARCS Commercial Mortgage Co., L.P.
Bouquet Canyon Senior Living Apartments
Dear Jennifer:
Per your request, I have provided herein an introduction to ARCS Commercial Mortgage
Co., L.P. (ARCS" or "the Company"), a description of our Forward Commitment Bond
Credit Enhancement Program ("the Program'), an explanation of why ARCS considers
subsidy layering important to affordable housing properties, and a Timeline showing the
Bouquet Canyon Senior Living Apartment project status and the urgency with which we
must proceed to process and close this transaction between now and the middle of June.
ARCS Commercial Mortgage Co., L.P.
ARCS is a nationwide mortgage bank formed in the early 1970s. The commercial
division of ARCS was completely restructured in 1995 to be more efficient, more
technology focused, more flexible and more ecucated to meet the needs of the emerging
commercial real estate markets of the late 1990s.
The Company has expanded rapidly since mid-1995 and now has twelve branches across
the nation, with three distinct divisions to serve the specialized needs of borrowers
commercial borrowers: multifamily and co-op buildings, affordable housing, and the full
range of investment properties including office buildings, shopping centers, industrial
parks, and hotels.
ARCS is one of twenty-eight national multifamily lenders licensed by Fannie Mae as a
Delegated Underwriting and Servicing ("DUS") lender. Under the DUS program, ARCS
shares risk in each loan with Fannie Mae. In return for the sharing of risk, Fannie Mae
delegates to ARCS total control of the processing, underwriting, closing and servicing of
each loan.
Office: 26901 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Calabasas Hills, California 91301 • Mailing: PO Box 4345, Woodland Hills, CA 91365
Tel: 818-880-3300 • Fax: 818-676-3200 • E-mail: info®arescommercial.com • Website: httpl/www.amscommercial.com
Jennifer Reed
April 24th, 1998
As a result of the efforts of all ARCS personnel, the Company became Fannie Mae's 41
DUS multifamily loan originator for 1996 and again for 1997. In 1996, the Company
closed more than $500 million in mortgages for 118 properties. During 1997, loan
production increased 50% and the Company closed more than $750 million in mortgages
for 147 properties.
ARCS currently services a loan portfolio of more than $2.0 billion for income properties
nationwide. The Company's corporate headquarters, loan closing department,. and loan
servicing division are located in Calabasas Hills, CA. Branch offices, loan products and
other Company information is included in our Corporate Brochure (a copy is attached
hereto).
Forward Commitment Bond Credit Enhancement Program
This Program offers Borrowers the ability to fix a long term interest rate prior to the start
of construction and to execute documentation during a single closing process for both the
construction financing and the permanent financing.
At closing, ARCS issues its commitment for the permanent financing. In this
commitment, ARCS makes available a Fannie Mae AAA credit facility as credit
enhancement for the Bonds. During the construction period, this credit support takes the
form of a collateral pledge. Upon conversion to permanent loan status (upon completion
of construction and achievement of income and occupancy thresholds), the collateral
pledge is replaced with a mortgage backed security.
The Program is attractive to construction lenders because they know that once the project
is built and leased and achieves the targeted net operating income, Fannie Mae will
relieve them of any further risk or obligation to the project (they've done their job and
earned their fees). The construction lender is an integral part of the transaction because
by charter, Fannie Mae is not allowed to take construction loan or lease -up risk. The
construction lender takes this risk away by issuing to Fannie Mae a letter of credit.
Without the letter'of credit, Fannie Mae would not credit enhance the bonds (the letter of
credit is Fannie Mae's protection during construction). The construction lender also
monitors the construction process (a task than neither ARCS nor Fannie Mae is
experienced in).
The program is attractive to borrowers because the interest rate is fixed at closing, they
have a single closing process for both construction and permanent financing, the bonds
receive Fannie Mae's AAA credit enhancement rating, and the borrower receives an 18 or
30 year loan upon conversion to permanent loan status.
2
Jennifer Reed
April 24", 1998
Within this program, ARCS. conducts a full underwriting of the property, the plans and
specifications, the borrower, the management company, and other salient deal points.
Once the underwriting is completed, the transaction is submitted to ARCS Loan
Committee for approval or denial. The stronger the underwriting package, the better
chance the transaction has for approval. In general, the stronger the transaction (the
lower the "loan to value"), the greater the likelihood that ARCS Loan Committee will
view the transaction favorably.
If ARCS Loan Committee approves the transaction, ARCS will request a commitment
from Fannie Mae. Upon receipt of the Fannie Mae Commitment, ARCS will prepare and
issue its Commitment to the Borrower. Upon issuance of the ARCS Commitment, the
Borrower generally must close the loan/credit enhancement within 30 days.
Subsidy Layering in Affordable Housing Transactions
Subsidy layering revenue sources to support Affordable Housing Projects include
community development block grant ("CDBG") funds, HOME funds, tax increment
funds, foundation funds, and other important forms of state and local funds.
Subsidy layering in the form of monetary. grants, fee waivers or donated land are
considered equity. These sources are viewed favorably by ARCS as they help a project
achieve loan to value and debt service coverage levels consistent with Fannie Mae
guidelines. Additionally, in many cases, these funds show a commitment to projects by
their respective state and/or local agencies.
Support to a project which comes in the form of subordinate debt falls between equity
and the Fannie Mae first lien interest in terms of cash flow priority. Fannie Mae allows
certain types of subordinate financing, provided the debt is structured to comply with
Program guidelines.
Most multifamily projects which are financed with Tax Exempt Bonds and Low Income
Housing Tax Credits ("LIHTCs'� simply do not make economic sense to lenders without
a meaningful layer of governmental, quasi -governmental or private subsidy. This is
borne in part from the perplexing issue of financing real estate which is burdened by long
term regulatory restrictions to income growth with no counterbalancing restrictions to the
rise in expenses.
Many projects are supported by more than one source of subsidy (i.e. grants, subordinate
loans, donated city land, property tax waivers, tax increment pledges, etc.). It is for this
reason that Congress has worked over the past decade to ensure the continuance of certain
subsidy programs.
3
Jennifer Reed
April 24', 1998
Timeline
The Bouquet Canyon Senior Living Apartments Project has certain dates which it must
meet. The California Debt Limit Allocation Committee ("CDLAC"), the State Agency
which allocated the bonds, requires that the Bonds be issued on or before June 23',1997.
Based on our experience, Bond Closings are almost always burdened by timing issues.
We've been advised by the Bond Underwriter to target Tuesday, June 16`h as the
projected closing date to allow for potential issues in documentation which may need to
be corrected. In order to meet this time frame, the following issues should be cleared on
or before the dates specified below:
June 16`h
Close Bond Issue
June 15'
Pre -Closing of Real Estate and Bond Issue
June 9'h
Price Bonds
June 5`h
Mail Preliminary Official Statement
June 4'h
Print Preliminary Official Statement
June 3'
Bond Resolution Adopted by Issuer
May 29"'
Tax Credit Partnership Signed
May 27'h
TCAC Approval of Tax Credit Application
May 20'h
CDLAC Meeting To Approve Credit Enhancement
May 15'
Second Draft of Documents Completed
May 8'h
ARCS Credit Enhancement Letter to CDLAC
May 4"
Draft Preliminary Official Statement Distributed
ARCS is required to submit to CDLAC (by May 8" at the latest) a letter. supporting its
view that it will be in position to provide the Fannie Mae credit enhancement for the
Bonds. I don't know yet whether ARCS will be called upon to include as a condition the
City Council's Approval of the project. ARCS would prefer not to be the entity to alert
CDLAC of the status of the City Council's approval process.
The other critical date for ARCS is our Loan Committee Meeting Date. We must have
the Fannie Mae and ARCS Commitments in hand prior to authorizing the Bond
Underwriter to mail the Preliminary Official Statement. This generally takes. at least
several working days once Loan Committee has approved the project. This means that
Loan Committee should meet early the week of May 25". Loan Committee requires time
to review each loan package; which means the loan package should be submitted during
the week of May 18`h. In order to finalize the loan narrative that goes to Loan Committee,
our Loan Underwriter must have received all property and borrower information in
substantially final form at the latest during the week of May 11'h. If the City Council
makes its decision on May 12"', it would allow our Loan Underwriter sufficient time to
include this information in the loan narrative prior to the submission to Loan Committee.
4
Jennifer Reed
April 24", 1998
I've attached the following documentation which provides considerable information on
our Program and process:
• ARCS Transaction Timeline,
• Fannie Mae's Targeted Affordable Housing brochure,
• Fannie Mae Bond Structure Schematics,
• An overview of our New Construction Program, and
• a Low Income Housing Tax Credit overview.
I hope this letter helps. Feel free to contact me directly at 818-676-3212 with any
questions.
Sincerely,
ARCS COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CO., L.P.
Bill Valentine
Vice President
5
Copy
HEARTHSTONE HOUSING FOUNDATION
A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION
245 FISCHER AVENUE, SUITE 0-3
Sera C. Regan COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
Executive Director Phone (714) 751.7915 • Fax (714) 751.1743
HEARTHSTONE HOUSING FOUNDATION
ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE
HEARTHSTONE HOUSING FOUNDATION is a California Nonprofit Public Benefit
Corporation ("Hearthstone"), whose purposes include assistance in securing housing and
housing services for persons of low and moderate income, thereby combating community
deterioration and lessening the burdens of government. HEARTHSTONE has been
determined to be exempt from federal income tax as an organization described in Internal
Revenue Code §501(c)(3). During its current ruling period, Hearthstone is being treated by
the IRS as a publicly supported organization.
HEARTHSTONE was incorporated under the name IWAHA I. Under that name, it
cooperated with two other corporations (Inland & West Affordable Housing Alliance and
IWAHA II) in obtaining a Group Exemption Ruling. Because none of the corporations had
yet commenced business and because a Group Ruling was sought, all three corporations were
issued the same Employer Identification Number (33-0497515). In 1995, the founding
officers and directors resigned and designated replacements, this corporation changed its
name, obtained its own EIN and commenced operations in support of its designated purpose
(see attached letter, Michael D. Little). As required by its IRS Advance Ruling, this
corporation filed with the IRS its Form 990EZ, indicating that operations had not yet
commenced. Attached to this Profile is a copy of the Form 990EZ for the year ended
December 31, 1993: Pursuant to its Advance Ruling, this form does not need to be refiled
until such time as gross receipts exceed the annual minimum ($25,000): It is anticipated that
a new Form 990 will be filed for the calendar year ending December 31, 1995, indicating
this year's activities and gross receipts.
March 9, 1995
HEARTHSTONE HOUSING FOUNDATION,
a California Not ofrt Public Benefit Corporation,
By
Sara C. Rega4, Executiv\ e Director
Attachments:
• Letter, March 8, 1995, Michael D. Little Accountancy Corporation
• IRS For 990EZ - 1993
D:\VGDOCS\Hearthstone\organiz
HEARTHSTONE HOUSING FOUNDATION
HEARTHSTONE HOUSING FOUNDATION is a California Nonprofit Public Benefit
Corporation ("Hearthstone"), whose purposes include assistance in securing housing and housing
services for persons of low and moderate income, the elderly, or the handicapped, thereby
combating community deterioration and lessening the burdens of government.
Hearthstone was originally formed as Inland & West Affordable Housing Alliance I. In
July 1992 the Internal Revenue Service issued a determination of tax exempt status as described
in Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The corporation was inactive, however, until
March of 1995. In March 1995 the corporation elected new directors and changed its name to
Hearthstone Housing Foundation. The current directors of the corporation are Socorro Vasquez,
Sara Regan and Emily Baldridge.
Hearthstone's most recent joint ventures include "Hamilton Place Senior Living," a
housing development for seniors located in Bellingham, Washington; and "Rosecreek Senior
Living" in Arlington, Washington. Hearthstone is co -general partner in each of the limited
partnerships.
To further establish itself and to secure financing for future projects, Hearthstone actively
seeks to participate in joint ventures with other developers of low income housing.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT .
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by: Jennifer. Reid
DATE: April 21, 1998
SUBJECT: BOUQUET SENIORS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
(MASTER CASE 97-102: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002/
ZONE CHANGE 97-002 / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-012/
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 98-001 SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH# 97081065).
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council open the public hearing regarding Master Case 97-102, receive the staff
report and testimony, and continue the item to the meeting of April 28, 1998 for action,
in order to consider the project's Final Environmental Impact report for a period of no
less than ten (10) days, in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
BACKGROUND
On April 7, 1998, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission adopted two
resolutions: Resolution P98-11 recommending that the City Council certify the
Subsequent Focused Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Bouquet Seniors
Affordable Housing Project, as well as recommending Council adoption of a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for the project; and Resolution P98-12 recommending that
the City Council approve the requested entitlements for the Bouquet Seniors Affordable
Housing Project.
Master Case 97-102, otherwise referred to as the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing
Project, includes a request for the following entitlements: An amendment to the General
Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map to redesignate approximately 12.36 acres of RS
(Residential Suburban) land use to RMH (Residential Medium High) land use; a zone
change modifying the Unified Development Code zoning designation and standards of
approximately 12.36 acres of property from RS (Residential Suburban — 5 dwelling units
per acre) to RMH (Residential Medium High — 20 dwelling units per acre); a conditional
use permit to allow the construction of a three story, 264 unit senior affordable housing
apartment project, to permit a 25% density bonus for the property, to provide an
amenities bonus for partial waiver of development fees, and to allow for the installation
of gates for the residential project; a development agreement restricting the project to
a senior, low income population in perpetuity; and a review and certification of the
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH#97081065) prepared for the project.
The project site is located westerly and adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road, between
Festividad Drive and Espuella Drive, in the Saugus community of the City of Santa
Clarita.
The Planning Commission considered the project over the course of three meetings, prior
to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council regarding an action on the project.
The meetings were held on March 3, 1998, March 17, 1998, and April 7, 1998. During
the course of these meeting, the Commission considered staff reports, public testimony
and the Draft Subsequent Focused Environmental Impact Report (Draft Subsequent
EIR) prepared for the project. Attached for your reference is a detailed project
description and summarization of the project's environmental analysis.
There was very little public controversy raised regarding the project. In actuality the
project received a tremendous amount of community support, with the President of the
Monteverde Homeowner's Association expressing. approval of the project as designed.
The majority of the Planning Commission's time was devoted to considering the project's
request for fee waivers. In making their recommendation to the City Council, the
Commission considered the following:
Bridge and Thoroughfare District (B & T) Fees: These fees are calculated according to a
set formula. This project is located in the Bouquet Canyon District, which has a rate of
$5,300.00. Apartment projects have a per unit development factor of 0.7. For a 264 unit
apartment project, the fee would be 264 (units) multiplied by the District rate of
$5,300.00, multiplied again by the development factor of 0.7.
264 x $5,300.00 x 0.7 = $979,440.00 .
However, the B & T fee calculated above assumes that the project is a market rate
apartment project. Seniors, on average, generate fewer trips than the average
apartment renter. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineering manual, a
senior oriented apartment project produces approximately 55% fewer trips than a typical
apartment project. Therefore, the Planning Commission supported a 55% reduction in
Bridge and Thoroughfare District fees. This reduction equals $440,748.00.
55% of $979,440.00 = $538,692-
$979,440.00
538,692
$979,440.00 - $538,692 = $440,748.00
The project's total of $440,748.00 paid towards the Bouquet Canyon Bridge and
Thoroughfare District is more than the District would receive in funding based on the
current RS (Residential Suburban) zoning designation of the site. This analysis is based
on the existing 12.36 acre RS (Residential Suburban) site being developed with a
maximum of 61 single family homes, which would then be -responsible for a B & T
payment of $323,000.00.
Parkland Dedication Requirement Fees: The exact fees are difficult to determine without
an appraisal of the property. However, the formula takes into account the number of
units (264), multiplies the units by the number of people per unit (2.98), and multiplies
2
this figure by .003. The 2.98 people per unit factor is used as an average. Therefore,
2.98 people per unit would be high for a senior project, but low for a single-family
household. The multiplier of .003 represents the City's requirement of providing 3 acres
of parkland for every 1,000 people (3 acres/1,000 =.003).
264 x 2.98 people/unit x.003 = 2.36 acres.
Fair market value for the property could range between $200,000.00 to $400,000.00 per
acre. While the fair market value of the property has not. been determined, an
assumption could be maderegarding the price of the property paid by the applicant,
divided by the project's developable acreage. This assumption would value the property
at approximately $204,545.00 per acre. ,Therefore, the project could be responsible for
$482,726.00 in parkland dedication requirements.
2.36 x $204,545.00 = $482,726.00
Please consider this a rough estimate, as the fair market value of the property has yet
to be determined.
The Commission took into consideration the following information when determining a
reduction in parkland dedication fees. The number of people per unit required in
calculating parkland dedication fees is an average. However, the senior population
project is estimated to generate approximately 1.41 people per unit, as identified in the
project's fiscal impact analysis and Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. The
Planning Commission supported a lesser number of people per unit, which could reduce
the applicant's parkland dedication requirement.
264 x 1.41 people/unit x.003 = 1.12 acres
At $204,545 per acre, the parkland dedication requirement would be equal to
$229,090.00.
1.12 acres x $204,545.00 = $229,090.00
Furthermore, the applicant is providing for on-site, active recreational amenities.. The
Unified Development Code grants staff the authority to credit projects up to 30% for
parkland dedication. Therefore, with a dedication requirement of 1.12 acres, the project
would need to provide approximately 1/3 of an acre (30% of 1.12 acres) of active
recreation area on the project site, or approximately 14,600 square feet of active area.
The applicant would then receive a 30% reduction in parkland dedication fees, for a total
requirement of $160,363.00 for parkland dedication fees. The applicant is currently
designing the three inner courtyards of the project to provide for on-site, active
recreational amenities.
Transit Mitigation Fees: The City's transit mitigation fee is calculated at $200.00 per
unit. For the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing project, the transit mitigation fee
would equal $52,800.00.
3
264 units x $200.00/unit = $52,860.00
The Planning Commission took into consideration the following information when -
calculating a reduction in transit fees. Transit staff compared the number of City Dial -A -
Ride pick ups for senior apartment projects that have their own transit buses with senior
projects lacking their own transit service.
Complex
Own
Transit?
Number
of Units
Dial -A -Ride
Trips/Mo.
Dial -A -Ride
Trips/Unit
Sterling Canyon
Yes
130
36 Trips/Month
0.28 Trips/Unit
Valley Oaks
Yes
248
11 Trips/Month
0.48 Trips/Unit
Capri
Yes
90
42 Trips/Month
0.47 Trips/Unit
Willows
No
80
58 Trips/Month
0.73 Trips/Unit
Whispering Oaks
No
65
71 Trips/Month
1.09 Trips/CTnit
Senior apartment projects that have their own transit bus service average 0.41 Dial -A
Ride trips per unit. Senior apartment projects without their own transportation services
average 0.91 trips per unit. It is safe to assume that some of the residents of the
Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing project will use City transit services. However, the
Planning Commission is requesting the Council approve a 50% reduction in transit fees
based on the fact that the project will be served by the Senior Center's para -transit
system. The transit mitigation fee for the project would then equal $26,400.00.
$52,800.00 x 0.5 = $26,400.00
CONCLUSION:
The information presented above can be summarized as follows:
FEE
FULL FEE
REDUCED FEE
Bridge and Thoroughfare
$979,440:00
$440,750.00
Parkland Dedication
$482,726.00
$160,363.00
Transit Mitigation
$52,800.00
$26,400.00
TOTAL
$1,514,966.00
$627,513.00
Once again, this is assuming that the fair market value of the property is at $204,545.00,
and that the applicant receives a full 30% credit for on-site, active recreational
amenities. The waivers presented above equal a total fee reduction of $887,453.00, or
approximately a 59% reduction in the project's fees.
The Commission voted to recommend approval of the Bouquet Seniors Affordable
Housing Project with the aforementioned fee waivers by a vote of 3-1, with
Commissioner Killmeyer dissenting (Commissioner Brathwaite was absent during the
public hearing process for the project, and therefore was unable to vote). Commissioner
Killmeyer was uncomfortable with the fee reductions for the project, and therefore did
not recommend City Council approval of the project.
4
Staff is currently analyzing two procedural options that the Council could consider for
reducing the project's fees. Due to timing constraints, staff was unable to include this
information in your written materials, but will be able to present the. options to the
Council verbally at the meeting of April 21, 1998.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
There are no alternative actions as identified by staff.
FISCAL IMPACT
An independently prepared fiscal impact analysis indicates that the project will have a
negative fiscal impact on the City's General Fund budget of $244,218.00 over the
project's absorption period (five years). In determining the project's fiscal impacts to the
City's budget, the analysis assumes that full mitigation fees have been paid. Therefore,
any further waiver of fees will have an additional negative impact on the City's budget.
Furthermore, in November of 1997, the City Council held a duly noticed Tax Equity and
Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) hearing. At this public hearing, the Council adopted
Resolution No. 97-138 approving the issuance by the California Statewide Communities
Development Authority (CSCDA) of not to exceed $17,000,000.00 aggregate principal
amount of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds for the project. The TEFRA hearing is
required by the CSCDA- prior to their issuance of pass-through tax exempt bond
financing for multi -family housing projects. By the Council's adoption of this inducement
resolution, the project applicant was able to apply at the State level for $17,000,000.00
worth of pass-through, tax exempt bonds, thereby saving themselves a total of
$12,000,000 in interest costs over a 30 year period of time. No financial or legal
obligation/liability to the City exists in the approval of the above-mentioned resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
Letter from Hamilton -Larkin, LLC
Project Analysis
Summarization of Environmental Analysis
Draft Subsequent EIR
Final EIR (Response to Comments)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pbs\rnundl\u971021. doc
BOUQUET SENIORS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project includes the following entitlement
requests: An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map to
redesignate approximately 12.36 acres of RS (Residential Suburban) land use to RMH
(Residential Medium High) land use; a zone change modifying the Unified Development
Code (UDC) zoning designation and standards of approximately 12.36 acres of property
from RS (Residential Suburban - 5 dwelling units per acre) to RAM (Residential Medium
High -20 dwelling units per acre); and a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a
three story, 264 unit senior affordable housing apartment project, to permit a 25% density
bonus for the property, to provide an amenities bonus for partial waiver of development
fees, and to allow .for the installation of gates for the residential project. It was
determined, per the standards of the.. City's UDC, that a development agreement was
required in order to restrict the project to a senior, low-income housing project in
perpetuity. This restriction is due to the fact that the applicant is requesting certain
allowances from the City (the density bonus and amenities bonus) based on the merits of
providing a senior, low-income housing project. The development agreement entitlement
was filed with the City on January 16, 1997.
Site Plan/Zoning.-
The
lan/Zoning:
The project site is located westerly and adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road, between
Festividad Drive and Espuella Drive. Located on a 12.35 gross acre site (8.8 net acres), the
project is bounded on the west and south property lines by the Bouquet Channel and the
Seco Channel, respectively. Approximately 264 units (183 one bedroom and 81 two
bedroom units)are being proposed, which are to be built in a single, three story structure
approximately 35 feet in height. Square footage of the units will range from 536 square feet
to 716 square feet. Two courtyards with active recreational activities and a pool will be
located in -the central area of the structure. A recreation room, a common kitchen, and
laundry facilities will also be provided for the residents of the project, as well as an internal
walking path that will tie directly into the sidewalk along Bouquet Canyon Road in order to
provide the residents easy access to local transit routes. The southwestern portion of the
site will be reserved for resident garden plots.
Properties to the north and northwest of the project site are developed with single family
residences. Bouquet Canyon Road is immediately east and adjacent to the project site.
Beyond the roadway to the east is the southern tip of another single family residential
neighborhood, the 141 foot wide concrete -lined Bouquet Canyon drainage channel, and the
grounds of the Santa Clarita United Methodist Church. Approximately 900 feet to the
southeast of the project site is the Bouquet Canyon Commercial Center. The concrete -lined
Bouquet Canyon drainage channel runs on-site along the southern boundary, and beyond it
approximately 400 feet from the site is the Bouquet Canyon Plaza. The Seco Canyon
drainage channel runs on-site along the western project boundary. The overall elevation of
the site is proposed at 1,190 feet.
The project will take access off of Bouquet Canyon Road. The entrance will not be
signalized, but will allow for right turns into and out of the project site, as well as
permitting left turns into the site. Left turns out of the project site will be. restricted, with
the applicant required to modify the signal at Espuella Drive in order to permit U-turn
vehicular movement at this intersection. Median modifications will be necessary in order to
1
access the site. Median landscaping improvements will also be required of the developer.
Two gates are proposed, which will provide for remote controlled access Guest parking is
provided on site, prior to entering the gated portion of the project. Approximately 132
residential parking and 58 guest parking spaces are being provided. The City's Dial -A -Ride
vans will be able to pick up and drop off residents at the project's entrance, but will not go
beyond the gated portion of the project unless given full and immediate access to the gate
code(s). The UDC requires 132 resident parking spaces and 33 guest parking. spaces,
therefore the project provides more than its required share of parking. Carports will be
provided for the residents of the project, while guest parking spaces are permitted to be
uncovered. In order to avoid a long, linear and monotonous appearance, the applicant has
been conditioned to incorporate a carport design which is not enclosed on at least three
sides. The vehicles parked in such carports will be predominantly screened from view of
the public street and neighboring residences by means of landscaping and other decorative
design materials.
Approximately 20% of the project site will be covered by buildings, with an additional 30%
of the site covered by parking/paved surfaces. The remaining 50% of the site will consist of
open space and/or landscaping. The northern boundary of the project site abuts the back
yards of nine residences. This area will consist of a landscaped slope, which will be
developed and designed in cooperation with the owners of the neighboring residences. In
addition to working with the residents on the construction type/style of a property line wall
and northern slope landscaping, the applicant has agreed to cooperate with the property
owners and the City with regard to the architectural style and colors of the proposed
structure. The styles and colors of the proposed building will be reviewed for compliance
with the City's draft design guidelines.
The UDC specifies that the required setbacks for a residential zone include a 20 foot front
yard setback, a five foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback: As currently
designed, the project incorporates 95 foot setback from Bouquet Canyon Road, a 130 foot
setback from the northern property line (133 feet from the nearest residence), a 75 foot
setback from the Seco Channel, and a 95 foot setback from The Bouquet Channel.
REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS:
The applicant is requesting the following entitlements: an amendment to the General Plan
Land Use Element Land Use Map to redesignate approximately 12.36 acres of RS
(Residential Suburban) land use to RMH (Residential Medium High) land use; a zone
change modifying the UDC zoning designation and standards of approximately 12.36 acres
of property from RS (Residential Suburban - 5 dwelling units per acre) to RMH (Residential
Medium High - 20 dwelling units per acre); a conditional use permit to allow the
construction of a three story, 264 unit senior affordable housing apartment project, to
permit a 25% density bonus for the property, to provide an amenities bonus for partial
waiver of development fees, and to allow for the installation of gates for the residential
project; and a development agreement restricting the project to a senior, low-income
population in perpetuity.
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change: The requested General Plan amendment and zone
change increases the density permitted on the site. Under _the current RS zoning,
approximately 61 single family residential homes could be constructed (Residential
Suburban zoning allows for five dwelling units per acre). By re -designating the project site
2
to the RMH (Residential Medium High) zoning designation, the density is increased to 20
units per acre.
Below is a chart representing the current zoning density, the proposed zoning density, and
the proposed zoning plus the density bonus:
Amenities Bonus: The gross density of the 12.35 acre project site equals approximately 21
units per acre. The net density of the site, discounting the flood control channels, is equal
to 30 dwelling units per acre. The requested RMH land use designation, under the General
Plan, allows a range of densities from 15.1 dwelling units per acre to 25.0 dwelling units
per acre, with 20 dwelling units per acre designated as the midpoint density. Under the
amenities bonus provisions of the UDC, the midpoint density of a project may be exceeded
where exceptional and overriding community benefits would be achieved from higher
densities. The Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project fulfills many of the listed
amenities, including roadway dedication and improvements along Bouquet Canyon Road,
on-site mature landscaping, 50% open space on the project site, recreational facilities for
residents and other seniors in the community, infrastructure improvements to Bouquet
Canyon Road, public services through. the Senior Center, and the availability of a low-
income senior housing source within the City of Santa Clarita. The low-income, senior
status of the project as well as the services provided by the Senior Center are discussed in
more detail below.
Density Bonus: Through the approval of a conditional use permit; the applicant is
requesting a 25% density bonus for the project site. The RMH zoning designation permits a
density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The 8.8 net acreage of this project, however,
creates a density of approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. The Density Bonus
provisions of the UDC are intended to facilitate the construction of senior, very low, and
low-income senior housing units that will serve the current and long term City need while
maintaining a high degree of quality in project design, construction, and environmental
protection. The proposed project meets all of the density bonus applicability requirements
of the UDC. Furthermore, the developer is entering into a Development Agreement with
the City of Santa Clarita in order to ensure the availability of the units to low-income
seniors in perpetuity.
The City may grant a density bonus of 25% in excess of the maximum density of the zone,
which would allow a density of 25 dwelling units per acre. However, in areas where higher
densities are appropriate and services are available, densities of up to 35 dwelling units per
acre may be permitted. Re -designating the project site to the RMH designation is therefore
consistent with UDC.
3
Gross Density
Maximum No. of Units
RS
5 du/acre
61 units
RMH
20 du/acre
247 units
RMH +Density Bonus
25 du/acre
309 units
Proposed Project
21 du/acre
264 units
Amenities Bonus: The gross density of the 12.35 acre project site equals approximately 21
units per acre. The net density of the site, discounting the flood control channels, is equal
to 30 dwelling units per acre. The requested RMH land use designation, under the General
Plan, allows a range of densities from 15.1 dwelling units per acre to 25.0 dwelling units
per acre, with 20 dwelling units per acre designated as the midpoint density. Under the
amenities bonus provisions of the UDC, the midpoint density of a project may be exceeded
where exceptional and overriding community benefits would be achieved from higher
densities. The Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project fulfills many of the listed
amenities, including roadway dedication and improvements along Bouquet Canyon Road,
on-site mature landscaping, 50% open space on the project site, recreational facilities for
residents and other seniors in the community, infrastructure improvements to Bouquet
Canyon Road, public services through. the Senior Center, and the availability of a low-
income senior housing source within the City of Santa Clarita. The low-income, senior
status of the project as well as the services provided by the Senior Center are discussed in
more detail below.
Density Bonus: Through the approval of a conditional use permit; the applicant is
requesting a 25% density bonus for the project site. The RMH zoning designation permits a
density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The 8.8 net acreage of this project, however,
creates a density of approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. The Density Bonus
provisions of the UDC are intended to facilitate the construction of senior, very low, and
low-income senior housing units that will serve the current and long term City need while
maintaining a high degree of quality in project design, construction, and environmental
protection. The proposed project meets all of the density bonus applicability requirements
of the UDC. Furthermore, the developer is entering into a Development Agreement with
the City of Santa Clarita in order to ensure the availability of the units to low-income
seniors in perpetuity.
The City may grant a density bonus of 25% in excess of the maximum density of the zone,
which would allow a density of 25 dwelling units per acre. However, in areas where higher
densities are appropriate and services are available, densities of up to 35 dwelling units per
acre may be permitted. Re -designating the project site to the RMH designation is therefore
consistent with UDC.
3
Also being requested under the provisions of the City's Density Bonus requirements is a
reduction in fees. Projects submitted may receive, depending upon the size, nature and
scope, a reduction or waiver of some or all City imposed development submittal and
processing fees. Such reductions or waivers may affect development application fees, park
fees, and other fees. The fee reduction recommended by the Planning Commission is
discussed in further detail in the City Council's staff report. The General Plan amendment,
zone change, and B & T fee reduction could be found consistent with the UDC's Density
Bonus provisions as the -project provides a significant community benefit in addition to
fulfilling the minimum affordability standards identified in the UDC.
Conditional Use Permit: The conditional use permit being requested by the developer not
only covers the provisions of the proposed density bonus and amenities bonus, but is
required to permit a senior housing land use in the proposed RMH zone.- The conditional
use permit would also allow the applicant to construct a three story structure in a
residential zone. While the height of the structure does not exceed 35', the approval of a
three story building in a residential zone still requires a conditional use permit. A two
story structure, up to 35 feet in height, may be permitted in a residential zone without a
conditional use permit: the entitlement, in this instance, is being triggered by the number
of proposed stories. Lastly, the conditional use permit would allow for the installation of
two gates for the residential project. Such gates were approved by the Planning
Commission, with a condition that they be installed only upon the request of the majority of
project residents.
Development Agreement: Under the provisions of the Density Bonus requirements, the
UDC requires the developer to enter into a development agreement with the City per
California Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 to ensure that the units will
remain available and affordable. Development incentives granted by the City to a
developer utilizing the Density Bonus requirements are predicated upon the long term
availability of the affordable housing. Due to the fact that the developer is requesting a
density bonus, an amenities bonus, and fee waivers/reductions, the development agreement
is proposed as a 30 year agreement between the City and the applicant. However, the
development agreement specifically states that the project will remain a 100% affordable
housing project for a term of 30 years, but that after that time, up to 100% of the units may
be opened for market rate seniors, subject to the approval of the City Council. The
proposed development agreement not only ensures a senior, affordable housing project, but
also ensures a partnership with the Santa Clarita Committee on Aging for management of
the project.: It also lists the services which will be provided by such management
corporation, establishes a fee that will be paid annually to the Committee on Aging, and
outlines the partial waiver of B & T fees provided by the City for the project. The deal
points of the development agreement are included in the draft City Council ordinance,
which would effectively initiate the development agreement.
RENTAL HOUSING - AGE AND INCOME:
According to the City's General Plan, household income is the most important
socioeconomic indicator of households in need. The federal government has divided
household income status into four categories: very low, low, moderate, and upper. The very
low, and low-income categories are defined as follows:
Very Low-income Households: Earning less than 50 percent of the regional or county
median income.
4
Low-income Households: Earning between 51 and 80 percent of the regional median.
The development agreement restricts the units to residents whose gross income equals no
more than 60% of the. area median income. Furthermore, each unit shall be a low-income
unit, with rent restricted to 30% of 60% of the area median income. The area median
income is approximately $47,800.00, with such area being defined as Los Angeles County
and Long Beach.
According to the applicant, net rents at 60% of the median income equal $537.00 for one
bedroom and $642.00.for two bedroom apartments. The applicant's goal is to set a cap on
rents, in 1998 dollars, at $500.00 for a one bedroom apartment, and $600.00 for a two-
bedroom apartment. These rents would be maximum rents based on low-income status,
however, the applicant is also proposing to maintain a number of very low-income units.
Rents on these units would be lower, as the earnings for very low-income status equal less
than 50% of the regional median income.
The State of California provides two age options in order to be considered a senior
population project:. ages 55 and 62. The project will be restricted to active seniors, ages 55
and above. When a housing project is restricted to ages 55 and above, all tenants of the
project must meet the age restriction. If the age restriction on the project is 62, then only
one resident of a unit needs to be 62, and the partner of the resident can be of any age.
While the restriction on age may seem low, it guarantees that all of the residents of the
project are of senior status- The 55 year age restriction was chosen by the developer over
the 62 age restriction, to guarantee a 100% senior resident population
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Economic Research Associates (ERA) prepared an independent fiscal impact analysis for
the project. In the report, it was assumed that the 264 -unit project would house about 374
people, and would support five full-time employees. It was also assumed that the project
would be 80% occupied in the first year and would reach annual stable occupancy rates in
the second full year of operations. Because the facility and all associated improvements
will be owned and operated as a private, non-profit entity, the project will be exempt from
property tax assessment. Despite the lack of property taxes, spending by project residents
will generate sales taxes. Sales tax projections were based on estimated annual
expenditures by residents, accounting for both their limited incomes and mobility.
The primary fiscal contributions from the proposed development program come from both
the sales taxes generated by the residents and by fees and subventions. Total annual
revenue ranges from $9,488.00 during the first year to $11,857.00 by buildout (in 1997
dollars). Fiscal operating costs are estimated by multiplying the project's population by the
per -capita and per -acre cost factors. The average cost approach is based on the assumption
that low -to -moderate income seniors will generally have a differing demand for public
services than Santa Clarita residents. Also, the average cost approach assumes that City
overhead costs will increase proportionately with papulation growth, even though there
may be economies of scale for some services. Taking into account all of the aforementioned
factors, the project will generate an annual deficit for the City's general fund ranging from
$33,747.00 in the first year to $42,094.00 by buildout (in 1997 dollars), for a cumulative
deficit of $244,218.00 over the absorption period (the absorption period being five years).
5
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE SENIOR CENTER:
As was previously mentioned, the development agreement provides that the developer form
a partnership with the Santa Clarita Committee on Aging ("COX) for management of the
project. During the first year of operation of the project, however, the developer does
reserve the right to partner the Committee on Aging with an experienced management
company, dividing the payment for such management services in a manner reasonably
acceptable to the developer, the management company, and the COA. A letter forwarded to
staff from the Executive Director of the Senior Center has preliminarily. outlined services
that are to be provided to the residents of the project and other seniors in the Santa Clarita
Valley. These services include specialized exercise programs,health and wellness
programs, supportive services, volunteer and employment opportunity coordination, and
home -delivered meals on an as -needed basis. The Santa Clarita Valley Committee on
Aging will also provide for para -transit services running on a fixed -route system every day
between the project and the Senior Center.
The COA and representatives from the Senior Center envision a co -located operation where
both residents of the project and other senior center participants can take advantage of
recreational, and health/wellness activities at each site. This is anticipated to alleviate
crowded conditions at the Senior Center and allow for increased socialization
opportunities at the project site.
THE NEED FOR SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
Under the direction of the City Council, the applicant hired an independent marketing
company to assess the need for senior affordable housing within the Santa Clarita Valley.
According to the study prepared by Peyton Reed and Company, demographic characteristics
for seniors 62+ within the Santa Clarita market show that the majority of senior
households (59%) in this area are in the 65-74 age group. The population age distribution
indicates that these seniors are relatively young with 66% under age 75. Income
distribution for all seniors is skewed toward the lower levels, with 60% having annual
household incomes of less than $31,000.00 per year (this is equal to an average income of
68% of the regional median, which falls within the parameters for qualifying as low-income
status). Overall, 77% of the seniors own their homes, but for the lower income groups,
nearly all will rent when moving from their current residence.
The City's 1995-2000 Consolidated Plan provides another indicator that there is currently a
need for low-income senior housing in the Santa Clarita Valley. The Consolidated Plan,
which incorporates .statistical data from the federal Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy
(CHAS) is submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in
order to continue receiving federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
The Consolidated Plan's Housing component identifies the City's housing, community
development and social service needs in the community for a five year time period.
According to the Consolidated Plan, there is a demonstrated need for housing to serve low
and very -low-income families in the City. Eleven percent of the City's households are very -
low -income status and another 9% are low-income status. For all low and moderate
households who rent, 47% have housing problems. Of that total, over half of the rental
group with housing burdens consist of the elderly. Barriers to affordable housing
developments include, but are not . limited to, land use controls, building codes and
0
enforcement, fees and exactions, housing conversions, permit processing procedures,
development standards, financing constraints, developer profit margin, land prices, and
social acceptability constraints. The Consolidated Plan's "Strategic Plan" lists specific
objectives for affordable housing: one such objective listed as a high priority item is the
encouragement of very low and low-income senior rental housing. Specifically, "The City
will seek to encourage and facilitate the construction of very low and low-income senior
rental housing. Working with private developers for the construction of these units and
seeking funding sources at the Federal, State and Local levels are efforts that will be
undertaken to provide for the housing needs of seniors."
Held on February 7, 1998, the City's "Share the Vision IIP' Community Strategic Plan also
addressed senior needs as a high priority item. Listed by members of the community as one
of the top twelve priority issues slated for action, senior needs (including provisions for
affordable senior housing) were identified by many as an important aspect to consider when
trying to maintain the, vitality and diversity of the City of Santa Clarita. Furthermore, the
demographics presented during the Strategic Plan indicate that the senior population
within the United States will grow by more than 60% between now and the year 2050:
providing for our growing senior population can only benefit the City in the long run.
Lastly, the City's General Plan encourages the provision of affordable senior housing
through the following goals and policies, listed in the Housing Element:
Goal 1: To provide opportunities for the production of a range of new housing in the
planning area to meet the needs of all income groups.
Policy 1.1: Review and support, as appropriate, programs to increase the supply of
housing throughout the region. Give full consideration to the impacts on
environmental, market, infrastructure, public services, utilities, human resources,
and other factors.
Goal 2: To provide sites suitable for a variety of housing types for all income levels and
assist in the development and provision of affordable and proportionally priced and sized
homes to meet the needs of all community residents, including low and moderate income,
large families, handicapped, families with female heads of households, and the elderly.
Policy 3.7: Provide opportunities for the development of adequate housing to provide
the City's fair share of low and moderate income households.
Policy 3.8: Encourage and participate in low and moderate income and senior citizen
housing programs financed by other levels of government.
Policy 3.9: Promote the dispersal of low and moderate income housing throughout
the Santa Clarita planning area.
The proposed low-income senior housing apartment project helps the City to achieve the
noted goals from the General Plan Housing Element and is in compliance with the noted
policies.
Pbs\council\bqtsnenv
7
SUMMARIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
On June 18, 1997, an entitlement was filed with the Planning & Building Services Department
which included the following requests: An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element
Land Use Map to redesignate approximately 12.36 acres of RS (Residential Suburban) land use
to RMH (Residential Medium High) land use; a zone change modifying the Unified Development
Code zoning designation and standards of approximately 12.36 acres of property from RS
(Residential Suburban - 5 dwelling units per acre) to RMH (Residential Medium High - 20
dwelling units per acre); and a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a three story,
261 unit senior affordable housing apartment project, to permit a 25% density bonus for the
property, to provide an amenities bonus for partial waiver of development fees, and to allow for
the installation of gates for the residential project. The project was later modified to include a
proposal for 264.units, as opposed to the 261 units originally proposed. During staffs
preliminary review of the proposal and through the preparation of an Initial Study, it was
determined that the preparation of a Draft Subsequent EIR., focused on seven environmental
issues, was necessary in order to fully address the project's potential impacts to the
environment. It was also determined, per the standards of the City's Unified Development Code,
that a development agreement was required in order to restrict the project to a senior, low
income housing project in perpetuity. This restriction is based on the fact that the applicant is
requesting certain allowances from the City (the density bonus and amenities bonus) based on
the merits of providing a senior, low income housing project. The development agreement
entitlement was filed with the City on January 16, 1997.
The project was previously approved under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County as a 192 unit
market rate senior housing project, with the development • of the site consisting of the
construction of 12 separate housing structures. Under Los Angeles County, the project
underwent a zone change from A-2-5, an agricultural zoning designation, to RPD -5,000-23U, a
zoning designation allowing for residential units with a 5000 square foot minimum lot size, up
to 23 units per acre. The project was approved by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning
Commission on November 25, 1992. Along with the approval of the site plan, the Regional
Planning Commission also approved Tentative Tract Map 44830, dividing the site plan into one
condominium lot with 192 fee in ownership parcels. The conditional use permit approved for the
project established conditions for design criteria required by the RPD zoning designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the previous project. The previous EIR
(SCH#89091306) was fmaled and certified upon project approval in November of 1992. Areas
of impact addressed in the EIR included: geotechnical, flood, noise, air quality, biota, cultural
resources, visual qualities, traffic/access, water and sewer services, education, fire services,
sheriff services, utilities, solid waste, and library services. However, the previous EIR analyzed
the project as a 192 unit market -rate, multi -family attached apartment complex, with a senior
housing project only identified as an alternative. The proposed project increases the number
of previously -approved housing units by 72 units, which will be developed as one, large
residential structure, and also includes a proposal for a 100% affordable (low income) senior
housing project. Under the original project approval, the only environmental area identified
with an Unavoidable Significant Impact was air quality. The County of Los Angeles adopted
a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the project's impacts to regional air quality.
Upon drafting the Initial Study for the proposed project, staff determined that a focused Draft
Subsequent EIR would sufficiently identify environmental impacts associated with the changes
in the project. According to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
"A Subsequent EER can be prepared when substantial changes occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR ... due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. A Subsequent EIR...shall be
given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087, and shall state where
the previous document is available and can be reviewed".
A Draft Subsequent EIR for this project has been prepared for the City by The Planning
Consortium. The environmental process began in June 1997 with the staff preparation of an
Initial Study. Due to the fact that the proposed project included a request for a General Plan
amendment and zone change, proposed an increase in density, a change in building footprint
and a change in resident population, the Initial Study identified seven environmental areas
which may be significantly impacted by the proposed project. A Notice of Preparation (N.O.P.)
was circulated in September 1997, in order to incorporate information regarding the concerns
of local public agencies and other interested parties into the Draft Subsequent EIR.. The Draft
Subsequent EIR was released.for a 45 day public review beginning on January 23, 1998 and
ending on March 8, 1998. Copies of the Draft Subsequent EIR are available for review at the
Planning Counter, the Valencia Library, the Canyon Country Library, and the Newhall Library.
Also available for review is the previously certified EIR: this document is available at the
Planning Counter. Written comments received during the public review period, as well as Draft
Subsequent EIR comments received from the Planning Commission are incorporated into the
Final EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is also included in your
materials. The Commission has recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR and
adopt of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) for the project's cumulative impact to
air quality. Air quality impacts are discussed in further detail below.
Environmental impact analysis issue areas addressed in the Initial Study include: water, plant
life, animal life, light and glare, natural resources, risk of upset/man made hazards, population,
housing, energy, utilities, human health, recreation, and cultural resources. With the
implementation of mitigation measures, no significant impacts were found in any of these
environmental areas. The Initial Study prepared for the project is included in Section 13 of the
Draft Subsequent EIR.
Envirorunental impact analysis issue areas addressed in the Draft Subsequent EIR include:
earth/grading, air quality, noise, land use, traffic/access, public services, and aesthetics/visual
qualities.
The following information contains a summary of the seven focused issue areas and
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, as addressed in the .Draft
Subsequent EIR.. It should be noted that, .with the implementation of mitigation measures, all
environmental impacts of the proposed project can be reduced to a less than significant level.
Earth/Grading (Draft Subsequent EIR Section 4.1):
The 12.36 gross acres of the project site include approximately 8.8 acres of previously disturbed,
irregularly -surfaced open ground bounded on the west and south by two concrete -lined drainage
courses which cover 3.55 acres of the site. The entire project site was previously disturbed
through grading and ground clearance for the construction of the improved drainage courses.
0a
An approximately 16 foot high mound of excess fill dirt left over from 'improving the two
adjacent drainage courses covers most of the center of the site. The total on-site elevation gain
is 30 feet (from 1,170 to 1,200 feet, south to north, respectively). Because the property has been
previously disturbed through grading and ground clearance, there are no significant or unique
landforms or topography found on the project site. A geotechnical investigation was performed
on the project site in October 1997, and the following information contains the results of such
study.
No known active earthquake faults traverse the project site. Extensive subsurface exploration
indicates that the active San Gabriel Fault is not present within the project boundaries.
However, the site is subject to shaking and associated ground motion from earthquakes on
nearby and distant faults, which is characteristic for all of Southern California. Field
exploration and laboratory tests were performed on site in October 1997 to aid in the
classification of the soils and to determine the pertinent engineering properties of the
foundation soils. Soil conditions were determined to be of medium dense to very dense sand and
silty sand. The on-site fill and upper natural soils are classified as having low expansion
potential and no special precautions for expansive soils are expected to be needed for project site
development. An analysis for liquefaction was also performed. It was found that some layers
of soils beneath the project site may liquefy in the event of a major earthquake on a nearby
fault. In addition, some settlement of the ground surface may occur as a result of seismically -
induced shaking. It is anticipated that the amount of settlement will be less than one or two
inches. These layers lie some 20' below the ground surface level and are overlain by sufficient
thickness of non -liquefiable soils such that significant surface damage due to liquefaction is not
expected to occur. A third party review of the geotechnical report was conducted by Leighton
and Associates, with the conclusion that the liquefaction analysis was adequate, and that
surface damage would not be significant because of the thickness of overlying, non -liquefiable
soils.
One primary difference between the previously -approved project and the current project is the
amount of grading. The current project is designed to balance on-site, while the previously -
approved project involved the import of 18,000 to 54,000 cubic yards of earth material. Also,
the graded elevation of the previously -approved project was shown to be 1,185 feet on the site
plan, with the.proposed project designed at an elevation of 1,190 feet. Engineering staff
analyzed the information presented and determined that a grade lower than 1,190 would not
suffice as the proposed project's sewer system would not operate properly. The final difference
between the two projects is that the previously -approved project was designed with 12 separate
residential structures, while the proposed project is designed as a single, three story structure.
In its current condition, the ground surface of the project site is unsuitable for the proposed
construction of the apartment building and would most likely result in unstable ground
conditions due to the large mound of uncertified, uncompacted fill materials. The project
applicant proposes to grade the site to prepare the ground surface for the construction of the
three-story building. Although the project site is subject to severe ground shaking due to
earthquakes and the ground surface could settle one to two inches in liquefiable soil layers
beneath the site, it was found in the geotechnical report that these impacts could be mitigated
through project design. With the inclusion of appropriate mitigation measures, potential
significant geotechnical/seismic impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level.
3
Air Quality (Draft Subsequent EIR Section 4.2)
The following air quality assessment for the proposed project was prepared by Mestre Greve
Associates (MGA), dated November 10, 1997.
Assuming that the construction phase for the project will be approximately one year, temporary
air quality impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted
by construction equipment and fugitive dust will be generated during grading and site
preparation. With 8.8 gradable acres, a three month grading cycle, and a one year project
buildout, approximately 5 tons of Particulate Matter 10 microns (PM10) will be produced per
year. During the three month grading cycle, the daily peak emission is estimated to be 29
pounds of PM10. This estimate represents a worst case annualized estimate.
The peak emission of 29 pounds per day of PM10 generated by the grading of the project is
minor when compared to the total. average annual of 416 tons per day of particulate matter
currently released in the whole South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). According to the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook, PM10 emission greater than
150 pound per day should be considered significant. However, the PM10 emission due to the
construction activities of the project is projected to be less than this threshold, and therefore,
is not considered to be significant. It should be noted that the impact due to grading is very
localized. Care should be taken to minimize the generation of dust. Common practice for
minimizing dust generation is watering prior to and during grading. Without watering, PM10
emission generation would be double the amount mentioned previously (2 x 5 tons/year = 10
tons/year). Construction emission data is summarized in Table 4 on page 48 of the Draft
Subsequent EIR. It should be noted that potential worst-case nitrogen oxides (NO,) emissions
are greater than the Significance Emission Thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the
CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Mitigation measures for the construction activities of the project
recommended by the SCAQMD are incorporated into the project: the proposed project is not
considered to create a significant air quality impact.
Long term air quality emissions fall well below the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook significance
threshold, as shown in Table 7 on page 54 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Since the project's daily
emissions will not exceed any of the emission significant thresholds, according to the SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook the project is not considered to be significant. No significant long-term
adverse impact upon the regional air quality is projected due to the proposed project. As a
result, no mitigation measures are recommended for long-term impacts.
The 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) lists strategies designed to improve air quality
throughout the region. These measures examine solutions to regional air quality concerns. A
two tiered approach is used in the 1997 AQMP. The first tier includes short -and -medium term
measures, and the second tier involves long-term measures which will rely on new technology.
Since the project's long-term emissions are projected to be less than the thresholds of
significance for all primary pollutants, no significant long-term adverse impact upon the regional
air quality is projected due to the proposed project. Therefore, no long-term mitigation
measures are recommended.
To summarize, the previous project's Environmental Impact Report analyzed a 192 unit market
rate apartment project, with a senior population less fully analyzed as a project alternative. Los
Angeles County approved the senior population project, but adopted a SOC for air quality based
H!
on the information presented in the EIR for the market rate project, which has a much higher
air quality impact than the senior population project. According to the SCAQMD, the proposed
project does not create a significant impact to air quality. However, due to the fact that an air
quality SOC was adopted for the 192 unit senior apartment project, and the proposed project
includes 72 additional units (264 units total) reserved for a senior population, a conservative
approach should be taken and a SOC for air quality should also be adopted for the proposed
project.
Noise (Draft Subsequent EIR. Section 4.3)
The criteria used to assess the acceptability of community noise levels varies with the
municipality. The City of Santa Clarita uses 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) as
the critical noise criterion for assessing the compatibility of residential land uses with noise
sources. The City requires that the exterior living areas (yards and patios) for new residential
land uses do not exceed 65 CNEL. In addition, for multi -family residential projects, the
California Noise Insulation Standard requires that the indoor noise levels in multi -family
residential developments not exceed a CNEL of 45 decibels (dB). The City of Santa Clarita
indoor noise standard is consistent with the State standard. The City requires that both single
family and multi -family development achieve an indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL.
Short term impacts will result from construction noise, with the closest sensitive land uses being
the existing homes located immediately north of the project site. These homes could be as close
as approximately 50 feet from the construction area. Noise levels at these residences could
range from 70 dB to 95dB for most of the heavy equipment that could be used on the project site.
It is important to note that these noise levels are based upon worst case conditions. Noise could
be subdued at the construction site. Typically, construction noise levels on the site would be
less, however, the potential noise levels are dependent mainly on the location of the equipment
on the site, and the actual number and type of equipment used during construction. Mitigation
measures, including the installation of temporary noise barriers, limitations of on-site truck
speed, and local control of construction hours, will reduce the short-term noise impacts of the
project site to less than significant.
Long term noise impacts are most directly related to the increases in traffic generated by the
project. Increases in noise due solely to the proposed project indicate that the changes in noise
levels due to the proposed project will all be less than the 3 dB threshold often identified as
significant. Noise increases due to the proposed project are projected to be approximately 0.2
dB or less. As a result, the project -related noise increases are not considered to be significant.
Therefore, no adverse long-term noise impacts are projected due to the proposed project.
Future traffic noise levels impacting the project site are also presented in the Draft Subsequent
EIR. The data show that limited portions of the project site along Bouquet Canyon Road
(including approximately 24 residential units) will experience traffic noise levels greater than
65 CNEL. However, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, including acoustical design
standards and sound attenuation measures for the building, no significant impact is anticipated.
Land Use (Draft Subsequent EIR Section 4.4)
The City of Santa Clarita's General Plan designates the 12.36 gross acre project site as RS
(Residential Suburban). The City's Unified Development Code (UDC) also designates the project
site as RS. The RS designation would currently allow the project site to be developed with 61
single-family detached residential units, at a density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre. The RS
zone corresponds to the single-family detached tract home. Additional uses are permitted that
are complementary to, and can exist in harmony with a residential neighborhood.
Since the time of the original approval, the project site was annexed into the City and the land
use designation changed from RPD -5;000-23U to the current RS designation.
The 12.36 gross acre project site is located on the west side of Bouquet Canyon Road near the
confluence of the Bouquet Canyon drainage course and the Seco Canyon drainage course in the
northern part of the City. The project site is approximately 0.5 miles north of the Santa Clara
River. To the north of the project site is an existing neighborhood of single-family homes, with
the rear yards of nine homes adjacent to the project site. Five of these homes are single -story
structures, and four of the homes are two stories in height. Immediately to the east of the
project site is the 130 foot wide right-of-way for Bouquet Canyon Road (currently developed
width is 90 feet). Beyond the roadway to the east of the site is the southern tip of another
single-family residential neighborhood, the 141 foot wide concrete -lined Bouquet Canyon
drainage channel, and the grounds of the Santa Clarita United Methodist Church.
Approximately 900 feet to the southeast of the project site, across Bouquet Canyon Road, is the
Bouquet Canyon Commercial Center. The concrete -lined Bouquet Canyon drainage channel
runs on-site along the southern boundary and beyond. Another 400 feet south of the project site
is the Bouquet Canyon Plaza, a large community commercial center. The 72 foot wide concrete
lined Seco Canyon drainage course runs on-site along the western boundary, and beyond it is
a 36 acre property currently being developed with 288 attached condominium units.
Requested project approvals include: 1) a General Plan amendment to change the site's land use
designation from RS (Residential Suburban) to RMH (Residential Medium High); a Zone Change
to change the site's zoning designation and standards from RS (Residential Suburban - 5 units
per acre) to RMH (Residential Medium High - 20 units per acre); and a conditional use permit
to allow for senior housing land use, a 25% density bonus, an amenities bonus for partial fee
waivers, the installation of gates for the residential project, and a three story (35') structure.
Also requested is a Development Agreement, which will tie the project to a senior, affordable
housing population in perpetuity.
The General Plan designation for the requested RMH zone sets a range of densities from 15.1
dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre. With a 25% density bonus, the project
proposes a density of 21 dwelling units per acre. According to the City's Density Bonus and
Amenities bonus provisions, the project falls within the parameters set by the General Plan, but
above the General Plan midpoint density of 20 unit per acre. This density may be permitted
with an approved conditional use permit for projects which provide exceptional and overriding
community benefits.
General Plan Consistency:
The City's General Plan includes a number of goals and policies regarding the provision of
affordable senior housing within the Santa Clarita Valley area. The following relevant goals and
policies are included in the City's Housing Element:
Goal 1: To provide opportunities for the production of a range of new housing in the planning
area to meet the needs of all income groups.
6
Policy 1.1: Review and support, as appropriate, programs to increase the supply of
housing throughout the region. Give full consideration to the impacts on environmental,
market, infrastructure, public services, utilities, human resources, and other factors.
Goal 2: To provide sites suitable for a variety of housing types for all income levels and assist
in the development and provision of affordable and proportionally priced and sized homes to
meet the needs of all community residents, including low and moderate income, large families,
handicapped, families with female heads of households, and the elderly.
Policy 3.7: Provide opportunities for the development of adequate housing to provide the
City's fair share of low and moderate income households.
Policy 3.8: Encourage and participate in low and moderate income and senior citizen
housing programs financed by other levels of government.
Policy 3.9: Promote the dispersal of low and moderate income housing throughout the
Santa Clarita planning area.
The proposed low-income senior housing apartment project helps the City to achieve the noted
goals from the General Plan Housing Element and is in compliance with the noted policies.
With the approval of the requested land use entitlements, the project could be found in
compliance with the General Plan and Unified Development Code.
In general, because the currently -proposed project proposes less grading activity than the
previously -approved project, the proposed project would have less short-term, grading phase air
quality, traffic and noise impacts. On the other hand, the currently -proposed project would have
approximately one-third more average daily trips (ADT) during its long-term operational phase
than the previously -approved project (729 ADT as opposed to 539 ADT, respectively). However,
both of these senior population projects would have significantly less long-term operational
phase traffic, noise, and air quality impacts than the 61 single family residential units which
could be permitted on the site under its current zoning.
The single housing structure under the proposed project would be set back 133 feet from:the
closest adjacent single-family home. The previously -approved project contained a minimum 65
foot setback. Additionally, the setback area would be more heavily landscaped under the
proposed project as compared to the previously -approved project. The greater setback and
landscaping would lessen visual impacts, noise, air quality, and privacy impacts to the adjacent
single-family homes. Overall, the proposed project results in less or similar impact to adjacent
single-family dwelling units than the previously -approved project. In general, the currently
proposed project places human activities and residential structures at a greater distance from
residential uses. With the implementation of mitigation measures, no significant impact is
anticipated.
The commercial, residential and institutional land uses surrounding the project site will not
generate significant adverse impacts to the proposed project. The most disruptive use in the
area is Bouquet Canyon Road, however, its potential noise impacts to the proposed residential
uses can be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation measures.
Based upon the approval of the requested land use entitlements and the incorporation of the
mitigation measures in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the currently proposed senior low-income
rental housing project would not result in significant adverse land use impacts. The granting
of the requested General Plan amendment, zone change and conditional use permit would bring
the proposed project into compliance with all applicable plans, codes and requirements of the
City of Santa Clarita. Since the proposed project, with the mitigation measures recommended
in the Draft Subsequent EIR, will not adversely impact surrounding land uses and the
surrounding land uses will not, in turn, adversely impact the proposed project, additional
mitigation measures are not required.
Trak/Access (Draft Subsequent EIR Section 4.5):
Located westerly of Bouquet Canyon road, between Festividad Drive and Espuella Drive, access
to the completed project will be provided via a driveway onto Bouquet Canyon Road. The
existing raised median on Bouquet Canyon Road will be modified to accommodate a left -turn
pocket for northbound vehicles to enter the project. The project driveway and raised median
will be configured such that left -turns out of the project will not be permitted.
The project is estimated to generate 729 average daily trips (ADT) as well as 45 trips in the AM
peak and 74 trips in the PM peak. The previously -approved project would generate 530 ADT,
with 32 trips in the AM peak and 54 trips in the PM peak. Therefore, the proposed project
represents an increase in trips of approximately 38% over the previously -approved project.
The City has a target Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) of .90 (Level of Service [LOS] 'D").
The intersections of Seco Canyon Road/Bouquet Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon
Road/Soledad Canyon Road currently exceed LOS "D".
The ICU. Summary chart shown in Table 15 on page 99 of the Draft Subsequent EIR shows that
no locations are significantly impacted by the proposed project. Only one location, the
intersection of Bouquet Canyon Road and Espuella Drive, shows a measurable increase in ICU.
At that location, the PM ICU increases from .84 to .85 with the inclusion of project trips. The
level of service at that location remains LOS 'D" with the increase.
The City identified projects which are expected to be built and occupied by approximately the
same time as the proposed project in order to identify cumulative project impacts. The expected
time frame is approximately two years from the present. In order to accurately forecast the
traffic conditions in this time frame with the cumulative projects, the Santa Clarita Valley
Consolidated Traffic Model, short term version, was utilized. This database was most recently
used in the traffic study for the North Valencia Annexation Area EIR. The short-term forecasts
represent the existing plus ambient plus cumulative scenario for the traffic study. Notable
cumulative projects include new development in the Valencia Town Center area as well as the
first two years of development in the North Valencia Annexation area.
In comparing the existing plus ambient plus cumulative conditions with and without the project,
it is found that ADT volumes increase by no more than 1,000 ADT due to the project.
Furthermore, the PM peak hour ICU only increases by .01 at two locations when compared to
no project conditions. Each of these locations (Bouquet/Espuella intersection and
Bouquet/Newhall Ranch Road intersection) continue to operate at an acceptable level of service
EJ
with the inclusion of project trips.
The proposed project does not cause a significant impact given existing plus ambient conditions.
None of the study intersections require mitigation due to the proposed project. However, as
part of the project's conditions of approval, the signal at Espuella Drive will need to be modified
in order to provide for U-turns, as the project will not permit left turns across Bouquet Canyon
Road. When the proposed project's trips are added to cumulative conditions, there are again no
intersections significantly impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project
does not contribute to the need for mitigation at any of the study intersections.
The addition of project -related traffic generated by the proposed project and related cumulative
projects to the local and regional circulation system would not result in significant adverse
impacts. Due to the absence of significant adverse trafficlaccess impacts, project -specific
mitigation measures are not warranted. However, the project shall be required to make its fair
share payment for two standard traffic mitigation fee programs: the Bridge and Thoroughfare
District Fee and.the Transit Mitigation Fee.
Public Services (Draft Subsequent EIR. Section 4.6)
The proposed project's initial study indicated that the project could have an adverse effect upon
firelparamedic services, sheriffs services, education services, library services, and transit
services.
Fire Protection and Paramedic Services: Fire protection and paramedic service is provided to
the Santa Clarita Valley by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. Of the seven existing
fire stations, two would serve the project site. The jurisdictional engine company for the project
site is Fire Station #111 located at 26829 Seco Canyon Road, approximately 0.25 miles from the
site. Fire Station #111 will provide both fire protection and paramedic services to the project
site. Response times from Station #111 are anticipated to be approximately 0.6 minutes.
Additional fire protection services would be provided by Fire Station 73; approximately 3.2 miles
from the project site. Response times from Station #73 are anticipated to be approximately 5.6
minutes. The level of service provided for areas within Consolidated Fire Protection District of
Battalion 6 is considered adequate by the.Los Angeles County Fire Department.
The development of all residential projects within the Santa Clarita Valley area must comply
with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire
flows and fire hydrants. The Fire Department requires sufficient capacity for multi -residential
fire flows of 5,000 gallons per minute (g.p.m.) at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) for a five-hour
duration. The Valencia Water Company has stated their ability to provide adequate fire flows
in addition to meeting anticipated domestic demands. Paramedic services are also provided by
the County Fire Department, from Station #111. Typically, response times to the project site
would be very quick due to the close proximity of the station to the site, however, response times
could be hampered by heavy peak hour traffic on Bouquet Canyon Road.
Project implementation would result in increased calls for fire protection and paramedic services
to Los Angeles County Fire Station #111. In addition to standard demands for service generated
by a residential project, the project's all -senior resident population would result in additional
demands on fire protection and paramedic services given its demonstrated increased need for
such services. However, implementation of mitigation measures required by the Fire
Department and mitigation measures recommended in the Draft Subsequent EIR would reduce
0'
the magnitude of fie protection impacts to a less than significant level
Sheriffs Services: The City contracts for city-wide police services provided by the County of Los
Angeles Sheriffs Department. Funding for the Sheriffs Department in the City is provided by
the City under the terms of a vesting contract. Sheriffs service demands for the City are
adequately being met by the SCV Sheriffs station at this time. The central Sheriffs station is
located approximately 0.9 miles southwest of the project site, maintaining a staff of 166 sworn
officers and serving a population of approximately 170,000 persons. - The Sheriffs Department
has indicated that the desired level of service at the Santa Clarita Valley Station is one sworn
officer per 1,000 population, and that the station is currently operating very close to the desired
officer -to -population ratio of one sworn officer per 1,024 population.
The Sheriffs Department has established an optimal response time for services of 10 minutes
or less for emergency or immediate response incidents, and 20 minutes or less for a routine
response. The Sheriffs Department currently has a response time to the project site for
emergency calls of approximately 5 to 10 minutes, and non -emergency calls take approximately
15 to 40 minutes. The primary factor for such a lengthy potential response time for non-
emergency calls, according to the Sheriffs Department, is the amount of traffic on local
roadways and the time of day (i.e. rush hour). Therefore, non -emergency response times to the
project site currently may exceed the optimal response times as defined by the Sheriffs
Department. However, it is important to note that emergency and non -emergency calls to the
vicinity of the project site are infrequent, and most often related to traffic enforcement and
accident responses.
The construction and operational phases of the proposed project will increase the demand on
existing Sheriffs services, as the potential for vandalism and theft is greater. The occupation
of the site by the residential population will also increase the need.for.Sheriffs services on the
project site for both emergency and non -emergency related calls. Because the proposed project
would be developed in an area that is surrounded by similar and compatible types of land uses
and would not expand the service area of the Sheriffs station, response times for emergency and
non -emergency calls would not change from the acceptable response times currently
experienced.
As the proposed project is developed, tax revenues from property and sales taxes would be
generated and deposited in the City of Santa Clarita General Fund. A portion of these revenues
could then be allocated, in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita and County of Los Angeles
contractual services agreement, to maintain staffing and equipment levels for the Santa Clarita
Valley Sheriffs Substation in response to related demands. As the current City revenue base
provides for adequate Sheriffs service in the City of Santa Clarita, it is anticipated that this
same level of service could be provided for the proposed project through existing funding sources
as long as the City and the County maintain service agreements. Although the proposed project
would increase demands for Sheriffs services, these service demands can be met through the
allocation of revenues collected from the project using existing sources. With the increased tax
revenue and the implementation of mitigation measures, no significant impacts are anticipated.
Such mitigation measures would include adequate project lighting, appropriate low -growing
landscaping and shade trees, visible and illuminated address signs, and complete and
unrestricted access for emergency services.
10
Education Services: The project site is located within the jurisdictions of the Saugus Union
School District and the William S. Hart Union High School District. The proposed project
involves senior housing development and would not generate any school -aged students.
Although the project would not generate any student to these school districts, standard
development fees set by the districts would have to be paid by the project applicant. The
implementation of the proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts to the Saugus
Union School District or the William S. Hart Union High School District. The payment of a
commercial rate development mitigation fee of $.0.30 per square foot would still apply for the
proposed project. Of this $0.30 per square foot fee, $0.165 per square foot would go to the
William S. Hart Union High School District, and $0.135 per square foot would go to the Saugus
Union School District.
Library Services: According to officials with the County Library District, senior citizens tend to
be heavy users of library services and facilities, and the residents of the proposed senior project
are anticipated to heavily utilize library services. The City of Santa Clarita contracts with the
County of Los Angeles for public library services, with the project site being served primarily
by the Valencia Library, located near the intersection of Valencia Boulevard and Magic
Mountain Parkway, approximately 0.9 miles to the southwest of the site.
The County library has indicated that library services and facilities are inadequate to keep pace
with the growth that is occurring throughout the Santa Clarita Valley area. Library space is
currently below the County Library District's internal planning standards of 0.34 square feet
per capita; however, library items exceed the planning standard of 2.0 items per capita.
Funding for the County Public Library system comes directly from the County General Fund
which, in turn, is funded by various forms of taxes. These funds are allocated by the Board of
Supervisors annually to all County -funded public services, including the library system. In
1992, the State shifted property tax revenues from library operations to help finance education.
In response to this lost revenue, the County Board of Supervisors adopted in 1994 a community
facilities district for extending library services and facilities in the unincorporated areas of the
County and twelve cities, including the City of Santa Clarita. On June 3, 1997, Proposition L
was passed by a two-thirds majority which assesses a special yearly tax of $22.00 a parcel for
library service. The County Public Library intends to commission a study to determine whether
a permanent library impact fee, to be assessed of new developments, is needed to fund new
library construction and to purchase new library items. Until the study is complete, and the
Board of Supervisors acts on the issue, the County is imposing an interim fee of $336.00 per
dwelling unit on all new residential development to reduce impacts to the library system to a
less than significant level.
Mitigation requiring the developer to pay the County library mitigation fee of $336.00 per
dwelling unit will reduce the impacts of the proposed project to a less than significant level.
Transit Services: The senior residents of this project are anticipated to be heavy users of public
transit services. Fixed route bus services and dial -a -ride services through the Santa Clarita
Valley Transit System are available to the project site. There is.currently a fixed bus route
north and south -bound along Bouquet Canyon Road adjacent to the site and an east and west-
bound fixed bus route along Newhall Ranch Road to the south. The nearest bus stops to the
project site are at Festividad Drive on the west side of Bouquet Canyon Road and at Espuella
Drive on the east side of Bouquet Canyon Road. Dial -a -ride drop off and pick up service would
typically occur on-site in multi -family senior residential projects.
11.
While the usage generated by the proposed project will not significantly impact the provision
of public transit services within the City of the vicinity of the project site, the applicant shall be
conditioned to provide residents with clear and safe pedestrian access to both off-site bus stops
and on-site dial -a -ride pickup locations. If on-site pick up service is requested, the dial -a -ride
operators will be provided with full gate access into the residential project. With the
implementation of these mitigation measures, no significant impact is anticipated. Further
reducing the project's impacts to public transportation services is the anticipated fixed route
transportation system running on a daily basis between the proposed project and the. Santa
Clarita Valley Senior Center. The fixed route system will be provided by the Senior Center
which will be managing the residential project in cooperation with the developer. The
aforementioned system will allow for an exchange of participants between the project site and
the Senior Center, allow for shopping excursions, day trips to destinations such as the Farmer's
Market, and specialized transportation for such needs as doctors' appointments.
Aesthetics/Visual Qualities (Draft Subsequent EIR Section 4.7)
In its currently disturbed state, the project site does not offer any distinctive open space views
and is what is considered an "urban vacant lot." Its topography has been altered by ground
clearance and the dumping of a large mound of stockpiled earth material in the center of the
site. The disturbed site supports weedy and ruderal vegetation that is dominated by non-native
plant species and has low wildlife values. The most prominent general public view of the project
site are from Bouquet Canyon Road.
The rear yards of the nine existing single family homes along the northern boundary have direct
views of the project site and over the project site south to the foothills of the valley in the
distance. The western four homes are two stories with additional second story views to the
south over the project site. The views of the project site and beyond to the south are screened
by existing mature tree vegetation for the homes at the end of the Lugar de Oro Drive cul-de-
sac. The two-story multiple family condominiums being constructed on the property to the west
beyond the Seco Canyon drainage will have distant views of the project site once they are
completed and occupied. As the site is located near the confluence of the Bouquet Canyon
drainage course and Seco Canyon drainage course, the concrete lined channels dominate the site
when viewed from west to east and south to north. The large, approximately 16 foot high
mound of stockpiled fill dirt with its weedy vegetation also dominates the center of the site.
With the existing RS land use designation on the project site, the 12.36 gross acre project could
support up to 61 detached single-family homes up to 35 feet in height. The minimum rear yard
depth from a property line could be 15 feet under the UDC. This would result in the obstruction
of most of the existing views from the rear yards of the nine single-family homes along the
northern boundary of the property. The development of the property with the previously -
approved project would result in structures set back from the northern property line a minimum
of 65 feet from residential property lines. This would effectively obstruct the southward views
from the rear yards of the nine existing single-family homes along the northern boundary of the
project site.
The proposed project involves the mass grading of the 8.8 net acre site and the construction of
a three story, 35 foot high large apartment building. The building would be set back a minimum
of 133 feet from the property lines of the existing single-family homes along the northern
boundary of the project site. Three viewshed analyses are presented in the Draft Subsequent
EIR, with computer visualizations depicting the site both before and after project development.
12
These viewsheds are shown on pages 124, 125, and 126 of the document. One view looks
northwest across Bouquet Canyon Road, one looks south across the project site from the
terminus of Lugar de Oro Drive, and one looks northeast across the project site generally from
the confluence of the concrete -lined
channels of the Bouquet Canyon and Seco Canyon drainage courses. The computer
visualizations do not reflect the full landscaping of the project, architectural features of the
building to break up the bulk and scale of the building, or a color scheme and is therefore
representing the worst-case scenario.
The lower photograph in Figure 25 shows the simulated appearance of the'proposed project from
the terminus of the Lugar de Oro Drive cul-de-sac. The proposed three-story residential
building would effectively block long-range views of the distant foothills from the rear yards of
the single-family homes along the project sites northern boundary. However, the construction
of the previously -approved project would create similar or more significant blockage of
residential views from this perspective. Although the approved buildings were only 30 feet in
height, they were approved to be located closer to the rear property lines of the adjacent single-
family homes (65 feet as compared to 133 feet under the proposed project). This would result
in similar or more -significant blockage of views from this perspective. In addition, development
of the site as allowed could result in 35 foot high single-family homes. While this would appear
to result in less impacts than the currently proposed project, the allowed rear yard setback of
15 feet would create similar or more -significant view blockage impacts in comparison to the
proposed project. Furthermore, the currently -proposed project would result in less impacts to
the privacy of the adjacent single-family homes with its 133 foot setback over the previously -
approved project or the currently allowed development.
The mass grading of approximately 8.8 net currently disturbed acres, the removal of the
majority of the ruderal on-site vegetation and the construction of 264 senior attached rental
units would significantly alter the aesthetic resources of the project site, however, the change
is not adverse. Considering that the impacts of the currently proposed project would be similar
or less than the view blockage impacts associated with the property's existing development
potential and the previously -approved project, the incorporation of mitigation measures will
reduce the projects visual and aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level.
Pbs\council\bqtsnenv
13
APit. 7. 1998 2:16PM CQt. CaSTLE. NICHOLSON,. lit. NO. ?817 _.P, ;Z`'
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is made this
of
1998,. by and between the CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, a general law cityy in the
State of California (the "City") and HAMILTON LARKIN, LLC, a California limited
liability company, and or its affiliates (the "Developer"). In consideration of the mutual
covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, the City and Developer agree as
follows:
RECITALS
This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and for the
following purposes, each of which is acknowledged as true and correct by the parties:
A. The City is authorized pursuant to Government Code Sections
65864 through 65869.5 (the "Development Agreement Statute") to enter into binding
agreements with persons or entities having legal or equitable interests in real property for the
development of such property in order to establish certainty in the development process.
B. The parties desire to enter into this Agreement in conformance
with the Development Agreement Statute and Section 17.03.010 et seq. of the City's Unified
Development Code ("UDC") in order to achieve the development of the Bouquet Seniors
Affordable Housing Project (the "Project") as expressly provided under the terms of this
Agreement. The legal description of the Property is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto.
uary 16, 1998,
eveloper submitted a request for a
development agreement for the dee opment and operation (
ration of the Bouquet Seniors Affordable
Housing Project and paid the fees required therefor.
. The City has certified the final t by
Resolution 98-41 in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines dfor e local guidelines
promulgated thereunder. A copy of that Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by this reference.
E. The City has adopted Ordinance No. 98-10 rezoning the
Property to RMH ZONING DESIGNATION (21 dwelling units per acre and a net density of
30 units per acre), a designation consistent with the General Plan as amended, following
review and recommendation by the City Planning Commission after a duly noticed public
hearing and certification by the City Council of the EIR. A copy of that Ordinance is
attached hereto as Exhibit, C and incorporated herein by this reference.
F. The City desires to obtain the binding agreement of the
Developer for the development of the Project in accordance with the provisions of this
Agreement.
TAPHAM 29623 346801 6
APE. 1. 1998 2:16PM CQd. CASTLE, NICHOLSON, LL?, N0, 4517' P. 3`' '
G. The
er desires to obtain the binding agreement of the
City to permit the Developer o develop the Project in accordance with the Applicable Rules
(as Iater defined) and this Agreement.
H. Developer has applied to the City in accordance with applicable
Procedures for. approval of this mutually binding Agreement. The Planning Commission and
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 has found that the
provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the Applicable Rules,
1• This Agreement is consistent with the present public health,
safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The.City
has' specifically considered and approved the impact and benefits of the Project upon the
welfare of the region.
1. This
g bind the City to the
specified in this Agreement and will mmeto the degree terms deg ee specified in th sAgreement tand ns
under State law; the future exercise of the City's ability to delay, postpone, preclude or
regulate development of the Project on the Property, except as provided for herein.
K. In accordance with the.Development Agreement Statute, this
Agreement eliminates uncertainty in planning process and provides for the orderly
development of the Project. It is anticipated that the Project will result in numerous benefits
to the City including the provision of a 264 unit senior affordable housing project.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises made by
City and Developer herein, and in accordance with and subject to the Applicable Rules, City
and Developer have and hereby agree as follows:
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The following terms shall have the meanings herein set forth:
1.1 "Agreement" shall mean this Development Agreement.
1.2 "Applicable Rules" means the ordinances, rules, regulations and official
Policies of the City governing permitted uses of the site, governing density, and governing
design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the
development of the Property in force at the time of the "Effective Date" (as hereinafter
defined). Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude City from
applying changes occurring from time to time in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Electrical Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, or Uniform Plumbing
Code, provided that such changes (i) are found by City to be necessary to the health or safety
of the citizens of City and (ii) are generally applicable to all property in City.
1.3 "CEQA" shall mean the California Environmental Quality Act.
TAPHAM 29,38 30801 6
.AR 7. 1998 2:17PM CQX. CASTLE. NICrOLSON.. LLP. NO. 4517 P. 4
1.4 "City" shall mean the City of Santa Clarita.
assign. 1.5 "Developer" shall mean Hamilton Larkin, LLC, and any successor and
1.6 "Director" shall mean the City's Director of Community Development,
Building Department.
1.7 "Effective Date" shall mean the date that the ordinance approving this
Agreement becomes final.
1.8 "EIR" shall mean the Environmental Impact Report-SCH#9-7-081065
1.9 "UDC" shall mean the City of Santa Clarita's Unified Development
Code in effect as of the Effective Date.
1.10 "Party" shall mean either City or Developer and Parties shall mean
both City and Developer collectively.
1.11 "Project" shall mean the development of the Property in accordance
with this Agreement, which development will include the Bouquet Seniors Affordable
Housing Project.
1.12 "Project Approvals" shall mean any necessary land use, zoning, site
plan or subdivision approvals and all other approvals and entitlements required for the
development of the Project, including, but not limited to, general plan amendments, zone
changes, zone variances, conditional use permits, grading permits, building permits, lot line
adjustments, encroachment permits, business licenses, site plan approvals, vesting parcel
maps, vesting tentative subdivisions maps and subdivisions improvement agreements that will
accomplish the goals, objectives, and policies of this Agreement.
Agreement.
1.13 "Property" shall mean the property described in Section 3 of this -
1 -14 "Subsequent Rules" shall mean the ordinances, rules, regulations and
official policies of the City, as they may be adopted, operative after the Effective Date of
this Agreement which, other than as provided for in this Agreement, would govern the
zoning, development, building codes, grading requirements, improvement and construction
standards, density, permitted uses, growth management, environmental considerations, and
design criteria applicable to the Project and Property. The Parties intend the development of
the Project and the Property to be subject to the Subsequent Rules only to the extent specified
in paragraph 3.1 of this Agreement.
TAPHAM 2962E 346&015 1
APR, 7.1993 2:17PM
9
CQx. CASTLc'.• NMOLSON. LLP.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
N0, 4517- P, 5 -
2.1 To the extent allowed by the UDC, and unless otherwise provided for
herein, Developer shall.have the vested right to develop and operate the Project during the
term of this Agreement. pursuant to the ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies
governing permitted uses of land, governing density and governing design, improvement and
construction standards and specifications in force at the time of execution of this Agreement.
3. CONFLICTING: ENACTMENTS.
3.1 Any change in the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation, any
change in any applicable general, area or specific plan, zoning, subdivision or building regu-
lation, adopted or becoming effective after the Effective Date, including, without limitation,
any such change by means of an ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order or mora-
torium, initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever and adopted by the Council, the
Planning Commission or any other board, commission or department of City, or any officer
or employee thereof, or by the electorate, as the case may be, which would, absent this
Agreement, otherwise be applicable to the Property and which would conflict in any way
with or be more restrictive than the Applicable Rules, shall not be applied by City to the
Property. The Parties may agree in writing for any Subsequent Rules applied to the
Property, in which case such Subsequent Rules shall be deemed to be an Applicable Rule.
3.2 Provided Developer's applications for any future approvals are
consistent with this Agreement and the Applicable Rules, City shall grant future approvals in
accordance with the Applicable Rules and authorize development of the Property for the uses
and to the density of the Project described herein. City shall have the right to impose
reasonable conditions in connection with future approvals and, in approving tentative
subdivision maps, impose dedications for rights of way or easements for public access,
utilities, water, sewers, and drainage necessary for the Project; provided, however, such
conditions and dedications shall not be inconsistent with the Applicable Rules, nor
inconsistent with the development of the Project as contemplated by this Agreement.
Developer may protest any conditions, dedications or fees while continuing to develop the
Project; such a protest by Developer shall not delay or stop the issuance of building permits
or certificates of occupancy.
4. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS AGREEMENT
The property subject to -this Agreement, are those lands described on
Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
5. TERM
June 1, 2028. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date herebt and end on
TAPHAM 29622 3469016
AP;t. "t. 1998 2:18PM CQX. CASIIE. NICHO SON. L.P. NO. 4517 P, o
6. PERMITTED USES/DENSITY - INTENSITY OF USE
The permitted uses, density and intensity of use of the Property shall be those
permitted uses, density and intensity of use authorized by the City.
7. UvIPROVEMENTS
The improvements allowed to be constructed and operated shall be those
improvements authorized by the City.
8. CONDITIONS FOR SUBSEQUENT PERMITS/APPROVALS
8.1 No subsequent permits/approvals may be issued regarding the Project
or this Agreement unless the Developer is in substantial compliance with all covenants,
conditions and restrictions contained in this Agreement and other Project Approvals.
8.2 Developer may apply for such other permits/approvals as may be
required by other governmental agencies regarding the Project. City will cooperate with
Developer in its effort to obtain such permits/approvals, such as providing information
and/or documents not reasonably available to. Developer otherwise. City shall not be
required by this Agreement to join or become a party in any manner to litigation or any
administrative proceeding involving such agencies or to act as an advocate for. the Project or
Developer.
9. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION
veloper tes that the
approximately July 1998 and ill be Completed by approxim approximately June 1999 ion of the Project will commence
10. PUBLIC BENEFITS
10.1 The Project will consist of 264.units restricted as senior affordable
housing. The Project will be restricted to persons 55 years of age and older, and will be
100% affordable at or below sixty percent (60%) of area median income for a term of 30
years.
10.2 The Developer shall form a partnership with the Santa Clarity
Committee on Aging ("COA") for management of the Project. The COA will provide
various services, including the following: (a) home delivered meals throughout the
community and congregate meals as capacity allows (b) paratransit and transportation
coordination throughout the community (c) socialization, recreation and education programs
(d) coordination of volunteer programs throughout the community (e) assessment and case
management services and (f) information and assistance services. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, during the first year of operation of the Project, the Developer reserves the right
to partner the COA with an experienced management company, dividing the payment for
such management services in a manner reasonably acceptable to the Developer, the
management company and the COA.
TAPHAM 39628 3e68al6
APC. i. i9yo ioYi+1 GQ;{, n�l1c, Ni i{ui�UN.. i i. iK 451 F P. 7
10.3 After the first year of operation of the Project, the COA will receive a
minimum of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) per year, as an annual fee to manage the
Project.
11. PROJECT BENEFITS
11,1 City shall provide an amenities bonus to Developer for a partial waiver
of Major Bridge and Thoroughfare District Fees. The City will waive the greater of a)
$538,690.00 or b) fifty-five percent (55%) of such fees. A waiver of such fees will allow,
in part, for the maintenance of reduced rents in the Project.
11.2 City shall provide a density bonus to the Developer., contingent upon
the approval of the Project's General Plan amendment and zone change, to permit a gross
density of 21 units per acre and a net density of 30 units per acre in the RMH (Residential
Medium High) zone, based on the merits of the Developer providing a senior affordable
housing project within the City.
12. MISCELLANEOUS
1.1 Nothing herein l be
hereto expressly2disclaim any intent to creaetanyform of agency
relationship, ed to create, joint enure
or partnership.
12.2 If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of such
provision to a particular situation, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void,
invalid or otherwise unenforceable, the retraining terms and provisions shall continue in full
force and effect to the extent that the objectives and the goals of this Agreement remain
satisfied.
12.3 If any material provision of this Agreement, or the application of such
provision to a particular situation, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void,
invalid or otherwise unenforceable, then the Party claiming the benefit of such provision
may, upon written notice to the other Party, terminate this Agreement within thirty (30) days
of a final decision of the court.
12A The Parties hereto have and hereby agree that this Agreement creates
both a burden upon and benefit to the Property and is appurtenant to the Property. The
benefits and burdens created hereunder shall not be severable from the Property but shall run
with the land and be enforceable against all heirs, successors and assigns of Developer as a
covenant running with the land.
12.5 This Agreement is made and entered into in Santa Clarita, California.
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws -of the State of
California, except that the Parties agree that any action brought by either Parry regarding this
Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Los Angeles County or, if
appropriate, in the Federal District Court serving Los Angeles County.
TAPHAM 29622 3463016
I
R. 7.iy3 [,ibr:vf -a. LA3itE idii,nuiuii. iCr'. l+u,451i P. d
12.6 The Parties hereto agree to act in good faith and deal fairly with the
other Parry in the performance of this Agreement.
12.7 The Parties agree that this Agreement is not intended, and shall not be
construed, to alter, amend or supersede or in any Lvay minimize the force and effect of the
conditions, approval and mitigation measures of City Master Cas
e 97-106. In the event
any conflict between this Agreement.of
and the conditions, approval and mitigation measures of
City Master Case 97-106, or any subsequent modification of the conditions, approval and
mitigation measures of City Master Case 97-106, the conditions, approval and mitigation
measures of City Master Case 97-106 shall be controlling.
13. INDEMNIFICATION
The Developer hereby agrees to and shall defend, protect, save and hold the
City, and its elected and appointed boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees
harmless from any and all claims, costs, losses, fines, penalties, demands, injuries,
judgments, and/or liabilities for any damages arising out of, or resulting from, the City's
approval of this Agreement or either parry's performance of this Agreement; provided,
however, nothing herein is intended to require that the Developer indemnity the City from its
active negligence or willful misconduct.
14. NOTICES
Notices required hereunder shall be in writing and may given either
personally or by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, If
given by registered or certified mail, such notice shall be addressed as indicated below and
shall deemed given and received upon the earlier of actual receipt by the Party to whom the
notice was sent or return of the requested receipt to the Party giving notice. Notice
personally given shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the Parry to whom
the notice is addressed. Any Party may upon ten days written notice to the other Party,
change the address where notices are to be sent.
with copies to
TAPHAM 3962E 7a68ol 6
NOTICES TO CI Y
City. of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355 -2196 -
Attention: Planning Division
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
611 West 6th Street
Suite 2500
Las Angeles, CA 90017
atm: Carl K. Newton, City Attorney
'PR. 7.1998 2:19PM LOX. t,PULLE. NHHOLON, LLP.
with copies to
Telephone: (213) 236-0600
Facsimile: (213) 236-2700
NOTICES TO Developer
Hamilton Larkin, LLC
74 Villa Point Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
attn: Mr. Christopher Santoro
Telephone: (714) 720-9968
Facsimile: (7I4) 644-2012
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
2049 Century park East
28th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
attn; Public Finance
Telephone: (310) 277-4222
Facsimile: (310) 277-7789
15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT/COUNTERPARTS
IiO.4517 r. 9�
This Agreement constitutes the full and complete agreement between the
Parties. All prior agreements and understandings with respect to the subject matter of this
Agreement are merged herein. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, providing
that each Party receives an Agreement originally executed by the other Party.
16. MODIFICATION, AMENDMENT, OR CANCELLATION
Subject to notice and hearing requirements of Section 65867 of the
Government 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 City's Municipal Code and Section 65868 of the Government Code.
17. REPRESENTATIONS
Each Party represents to the other:
17.1 That the persons signing this Agreement on behalf of that Party have
the full authority to bind that Parry without further action by that Parry.
17.2 That the Parry has taken all necessary actions and has the full authority
to enter into this Agreement without further action by that Party.
rAPHAM 29629 3468016
RESOLUTION NO. 98-41
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CERTIFYING FEIR SCH#97081065,
AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGHS PROJECT
BENEFITS AGAINST THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
FOR MASTER CASE NO. 97-102 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002, ZONE
CHANGE 97-042, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-012 AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT 98-001), TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 12.36 ACRES OF
PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE BOUQUET SENIORS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT,
LOCATED WESTERLY AND ADJACENT TO BOUQUET CANYON ROAD BETWEEN
FESTIVIDAD DRIVE AND ESPUELLA DRIVE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. On June 18, 1997, an entitlement was filed with the Planning & Building Services
Department which included the following requests: an amendment to the General
Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map to redesignate approximately 12.36 acres.
of RS (Residential Suburban) land use to RMH (Residential Medium High) land
use; a zone change modifying the Unified Development Code zoning designation
and standards of approximately 12.36 acres of property from RS (Residential
Suburban - 5 dwelling units per acre) to RMH (Residential Medium High - 20
dwelling units per acre); and a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a three story, 261. unit senior affordable housing apartment
project, to permit a 25% density bonus for the property, to provide an amenities
bonus for partial waiver of development fees, and to allow for the installation of
gates for the residential project. Staffs review of the entitlements filed further
determined that an application for a development agreement was required under
the density bonus provisions of the Unified Development Code, and that the
preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was necessary. A30 -
year development agreement application was filed with the City on January 16,
1998.
b. Modifications to the project were made over the course of the project's review.
Such changes include.a proposal for 264 units, as opposed to the 261 originally
requested, a modified site design increasing the project's northerly setback from
120 feet to 133 feet, the addition of a gardening area for the residents of the
project, and the addition of an internal walking path for the future residents.
C. The project was previously approved under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County
as a 192 unit, market rate senior housing project, with the development of the
site consisting of the construction of 12 separate housing structures. Under Los
Angeles County, the project underwent a zone change. from A-2-5, an agricultural
zoning designation, to RPD -5,000-23U, a zoning designation allowing for
residential units with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size, up to 23 units per
acre. The project was approved by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning
Commission on November 25, 1992.- Along with the approval of the site plan, the
Regional Planning Commission also approved Tentative Tract Map 44830,
dividing the site plan into one condominium lot with 192 fee in ownership parcels.
An Environmental Impact Report (SCH#89091306) was prepared for the
previously approved project, which was certified as final in November of 1992.
Los Angeles County Regional Planning adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the previous project's cumulative impact to air quality.
d. In March of 1997, the City of Santa Clarita finalized the Northbridge Annexation
(Annexation No. 1992-04), thereby incorporating the project site into the City's
boundaries.. Upon annexation, the property's zoning designation was determined
to be RS (Residential Suburban), and was found to be consistent with the City's
General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map.
e. The site is known as the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project and is
located westerly and adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road, between Festividad
Drive and Espuella Drive.
f. The General Plan presently designates the project site as Residential Suburban,
which corresponds to the typical single-family detached tract home developments
found throughout the planning area. The density range in this category is from
3.4 to 6.6 dwellings per gross acre with a mid-range density of 5 dwellings per
gross acre. Contingent upon the approval of the zone change, the General Plan
Land Use Element Land Use Map would be amended to reflect the site under the
RMH (Residential Medium High) General Plan designation, which corresponds
to grouped housing in townhomes, triplexes, fourplexes and larger group homes.
Specialized developments, such as senior housing and affordable housing, are
economically possible at the upper end of the density range for this category. The
density of development for this category ranges from 15.1 to 25.0 units per gross
acre, with a mid-range density of 20 dwellings per gross acre. The project's
density. equals 21 dwellings per gross acre, which is consistent with the RMH
General Plan designation proposed. The approval of a conditional use permit for
a density and amenities bonus permits densities above the mid -point General
Plan designation.
g. An RMH zoning designation for the project site permits a density of up to 20
dwelling units per acre. The 8.8 net acreage of the site, however, creates a
density of approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. The density bonus
provisions of the Unified Development Code are intended to facilitate the
construction of senior, very low, and low income units that will serve the current
and long term City need while maintaining a high degree of quality in project
design, construction, and environmental protection. The proposed project meets
all of the density bonus applicability requirements of the UDC, including the
2
provision for a 100% affordable housing project, the submittal of a preliminary
proposal prior to the request for the General Plan amendment and zone change,
and the submittal of an independently prepared fiscal impact analysis detailing
the project's effects on the City's budget. The project is an infill development
project, and therefore the area infrastructure is in place or is being constructed
as a part of the project. The site is not located in an area designated as "hillside,"
and the zone change of the project site to RMH would qualify the property for a
density bonus. The site is also located proximate to commercial establishments,
service providers, grocery stores, drug stores, banks, and public transit.
h. The City may grant a density bonus of 25% in excess of the maximum density of
the zone, which would allow a density of 25 dwelling unit per gross acre.
However, in areas where higher densities are appropriate and services are
available, densities of up to 35 dwelling units per acre may be permitted. Re -
designating the project site to the RMH designation is therefore consistent with
the Unified Development Code.
i. The Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project site is vacant, and incorporates
a portion of both the concrete -lined Seco drainage channel and the concrete -lined
Bouquet drainage channel. The property is surrounded by urban development,
and is thus considered an infill development project. The project site is.located
in close proximity to local transit -routes, grocery stores, banks, drug stores,
restaurants, and other convenience stores, and is therefore well-suited for a
senior population project.
The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project which
determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and
that a subsequent environmental impact report must be prepared. A Notice of
Preparation (N.O.P.) for the General Plan amendment, zone change, and
conditional use permit requests was mailed in September 1997 .to affected
agencies.
k. The City Council held a study session regarding fee reductions for senior housing
projects on June 3, 1997. During this meeting, the Council directed staff to
ensure that applicants requesting such fee reductions address the need for
affordable senior housing projects within the City, and address the potential
impacts of such projects to the City's budget. In response to this request, staff
directed the applicant for the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project to
prepare both a fiscal impact analysis and a market study to address the
aforementioned issues. Both reports were considered by the Planning
Commission prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council regarding
the project.
1. A duly noticed Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) hearing was
held by the City Council on November 25, 1997. At this public hearing; the
Council adopted. Resolution No. 97-135 approving the issuance by the California
Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) of not to exceed
$17,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds
for the project. The TEFRA hearing is required by the CSCDA prior to their
issuance of pass-through tax exempt bond financing for multi -family housing
projects. No financial or legal obligation/liability to the City exists in the
approval of the above-mentioned resolution.
m. At the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 3, 1998,
the Commission received a preliminary schedule identifying upcoming public
hearing dates and topics for discussion regarding the project. During this
meeting, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft Subsequent
EIR - SCH#97081065) was distributed to the Planning Commission for their
review. The first meeting identified on the preliminary schedule commenced on
March 3, 1998, thus allowing the Commissioners approximately one month to
begin reviewing the document prior to the first public hearing. The preliminary
schedule also identified specific project topics to be discussed at each of the
meetings: The goal of this processing schedule was to reduce redundancy and
allow the Commission and the public to better prepare for the meetings. The
Planning Commission's tentative schedule, including information identifying
areas of discussion, was published in a local newspaper of areawide distribution,
and.was also distributed to all property owners within a 500' mailing radius of
the subject site.
n. While the Draft Subsequent EIR for this project was distributed to the Planning
Commission on February 3, 1998, a Notice of Completion (N.O.C.) was formally
distributed to the public on January 23, 1998. The Draft Subsequent EIR was
circulated for a 45 -day public review beginning on January 23, 1998 and ending
on March 8, 1998, in compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
o. A total of three community meetings were held by the applicant (with the
Monteverde Homeowner's Association) in order to assess neighborhood concerns
regarding the project. The meetings were held at the residence of the President
of the Homeowner's Association on February 18, 1997, on July 10, 1997, and on
February 12, 1998. Project modifications were incorporated as a result of these
meetings, including the addition of conditions of approval addressing the
aesthetics of the proposed property. Landscaping and architectural designs for
the project are being developed in cooperation with the residential neighborhood
located directly north of the project site, and in compliance with the City's draft
design guidelines.
p. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on this issue
commencing on March 3, 1998 and continuing on March 17, 1998 and April 7,
1998. These public hearings were held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita.
q. The March 3, 1998 public hearing held on the project specifically discussed the
project's Draft Subsequent EIR. The purpose of discussing the environmental
document on this. date was to further enhance public participation: verbal
testimony from the Commissioners and the public could therefore be incorporated
into the response to comments prior to the close of the public review period of
the Draft Subsequent EIR on March 8, 1998. While the Draft Subsequent EIR
was discussed in detail during the public hearing of March 3, 1998, further
testimony regarding the Draft Subsequent EIR was not limited at subsequent
meetings. A more detailed discussion of project parameters, including the deal
points of the development agreement, was held during the public hearing of
March 17, 1998. Outstanding issues regarding the project were discussed on
April 7, 1998.
The Bouquet Seniors Draft Subsequent EIR review and comments by the affected
governmental agencies and all other comments received have been considered.
A Final EIR WEIR) dated March 24, 1998 and attached as Exhibit "A" was
prepared in accordance with CEQA and includes the Draft Subsequent EIR,
responses to comments received on the Draft Subsequent EIR, minor corrections
and clarifications to the EIR text, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP). As a result of staff, public and Planning Commission
comments on the project and the Draft Subsequent EIR, the applicant has made
modifications to the project. None of the modifications would result in additional
environmental impacts.
s. On April 7, 1998 the Planning Commission: 1) adopted Resolution P98.12
recommending that the City Council approve the project's requested
entitlements; 2) adopted Resolution P98-11 recommending that the City Council
certify the FEIR and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
project; and 3) forwarded two draft ordinances to the Council, one recommending
that the City Council approve the development agreement for the project
(Ordinance No. 98-11), and one recommending approval of the requested zone
change (Ordinance No. 98-10): The deal points of the development agreement
were discussed during the public hearings of March 17, 1998 and April 7, 1998.
The requested zone change was also discussed during the hearings of March 3,
1998, March 17, 1998 and April 7, 1998. Both draft ordinances were reviewed
and discussed during the aforementioned public hearings prior to being
forwarded to the Council for final adoption.
t. The Planning Commission considered the Final EIR, as well as information
provided in staff reports, the amendment text, the deal points of the development
agreement, and public testimony prior to recommending project approval.
U. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings regarding the project on April
21, 1998, May 12, 1998, and May 26, 1998. All meetings were held at or before
6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, California, 91355.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires decision -makers to
balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental
impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable' by
adopting a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." This statement sets forth
the project benefits or reasons why the Lead Agency is in favor of approving a
project and weighs these benefits against the project's adverse environmental
impacts identified in the FEIR that cannot be mitigated to a level less than
significant.
b. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a MMRP for those mitigation measures
which are conditions of the project.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that the FEIR for the Bouquet Seniors
Affordable Housing Project (Master Case 97-102 [General Plan Amendment 97-002 / Zone
Change 97-002 / Conditional Use Permit 97-012 / Development Agreement 98-0011) identifies
cumulative project impacts and project specific impacts. Environmental impacts identified in
the FEIR are summarized as follows:
a. The Draft Subsequent EIR, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit A,
identifies the following issue area as significant but unavoidable: Air Quality.
b. The Draft Subsequent EIR identifies the following issue areas as significant but
feasibly mitigable to a less than significant level: earth/grading, water, plant life,
animal life, noise, light and glare, land use, natural resources, risk of upsetlman-
made hazards, traffic/access, public services, utilities, aestheticsfvisual qualities,
recreation, and cultural resources. A MMRP has been prepared to mitigate these
potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level and is included as
part of the FEIR.
c. The Draft Subsequent EIR identifies the following issue areas as less than
significant: population, housing, energy, and human health.
SECTION 4. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies
and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds:
a. That the FEIR for this project is adequate, complete, and has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. That the City Council has reviewed and considered the FEIR in reaching its
decision.
C. That changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the
Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project and related entitlements which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect because feasible
mitigation measures included in the MMRP are made conditions of approval for
this project.
SECTION 5. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies
and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds that
the FEIR analyzes a range of project alternatives. Such alternatives include:
Alternative I - No Project: Section 15126(d)(2) of the State CEQA guidelines requires
that the "No Project" alternative be evaluated along with its respective impacts. This
alternative would leave the site in its current condition, with no. development of any kind
occurring. The "No Project" alternative is an environmentally superior alternative to the
proposed project in terms of impacts regarding earth/grading, air quality, noise, land use,
traffic, public services, and aesthetics/visual qualities. However, this alternative is not
consistent with the project site's RS land use designation in the City's General Plan
which would allow some degree of residential development. This alternative does not
meet any of the basic objectives of the project applicant to develop this property, which
is surrounded by urbanized land uses, with the proposed senior housing project.
Therefore, this alternative does not fulfill the intent of the Santa Clarita General Plan
Land Use Element. While the "No Project" alternative would not generate any
significant grading, air quality, noise, land use, traffic, public services, or viewshed
impacts, the respective impacts associated with the proposed project in these
environmental issues have been found not to be significant.
Alternative 2 - Previously -Approved Proiect: Both the previously -approved project
alternative and the proposed project are senior -oriented, and would therefore result in
fewer impacts compared to a general population project with regard to traffic, air
quality, and noise. This is basically because of the fewer average daily trips under the
previously -approved project.- This alternative would result in less long-term traffic and
noise effects than the proposed project, however, these same effects have been found not
to be significant for the proposed project. Both the previously -approved project and the
proposed project add to cumulative impacts on air quality: the previously -approved
project resulted in the. adoption of a SOC, as would the approval of the proposed project.
This alternative could result in greater short-term grading impacts and viewshed
blockage compared to the proposed project. In addition, while the previously -approved
project would provide additional market -rate apartment/condominium senior housing
units in the City, it would not provide for low-income rental housing for seniors and meet
the current need in the City for such housing. Land use impacts are very similar
between the previously -approved project and the proposed project. This alternative does
not, however, meet one of the primary objectives of the project applicant to develop this
property with a low-income senior housing project. From an environmental perspective,
though, this environmentally superior alternative has fewer dwelling units and would
generate less traffic over the proposed project.
Alternative 3 - Current General Plan Land Use: Under the project site's RS General
Plan land use designation, the property could be developed with up to 61 single-family
residential units. Such a development would be typical of the single-family suburban
residential neighborhoods found in the Santa Clarita Valley area. Based on the City's
development standards, the residences could be up to 35 feet in height with 15 foot rear
yard setbacks. This alternative is environmentally superior over the proposed project
with regard to fire services, paramedic services and sheriffs services. Due to the age of
the population, the proposed senior residential project would result in increased
demands for such services. The impacts to library services could be similar between
these developments, although seniors do typically utilize library services to a greater
extent than the general population. This alternative is not environmentally superior
over the proposed project with regard to air quality, noise, land use, traffic, education
services and aesthetics. This alternative does not meet the primary development
objective of the proposed project: providing affordable senior rental housing. Overall,
this alternative does not represent an environmentally superior development over the
proposed project.
Alternative 4 - Project Without the Third Floor: This alternative involves the
implementation of the proposed senior affordable housing project without its third floor.
By lowering the overall height of the building by a minimum of 10 feet (to a 25 foot
height), distant views of hills and mountains to the south from the existing adjacent
residential uses would not be obstructed to the same extent as under the proposed
project. Removing the third floor would also reduce the bulk of the single large
residential building for adjacent neighbors. While some units could be retained with an
adjustment of the site plan, for this alternative it is assumed that one-third of the
proposed dwelling units would not be developed, leaving a 176 -unit senior affordable
housing project. The fewer dwelling.units would result in reduced traffic, noise, air
quality, public services and aesthetics/ viewshed impacts than the proposed project.
Although the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project can be reduced
to a less than significant level with the mitigation measures recommended in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, this alternative would further reduce impact, particularly with regard
to view obstruction, and represents the environmentally superior alternative over the
proposed project. Even though the number of units would be reduced, the basic
development objectives would still be met under this alternative.
SECTION 6. By adoption of this Resolution, the City Council finds that the Final EIR
identifies certain significant environmental effects and feasible mitigation measures that
mitigate potential significant impacts to levels less than significant for all environmental impact
areas with the exclusion of Air Quality. With regard to the project's impacts to air quality, the
City Council hereby adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) stating that the
project's benefits outweigh its environmental impacts to cumulative air quality. In accordance
with CEQA Sections 15091 and 15093, a description of each significant impact and rationale for
finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR
is detailed below:
a. Air Quality- The EIR. for the previously approved County project (192 unit market -rate
senior condominiums) found that the project would commensurately contribute to
existing significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts. The Los Angeles County
Regional Planning Commission adopted a SOC stating that the project's benefits
outweighed its environmental impact to air quality. The air quality assessment of the
264 -unit Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project indicates that the implementation
of mitigation measures discussed in the Air Quality section of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
and thus incorporated into the project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
would reduce the project's potential emissions to a less than significant level. The
mitigation measures are consistent with the goals of the Air Quality Management Plan
for reducing the impacts associated with new development. However, any contribution
of emissions within a non -attainment area would cumulatively worsen the existing
significant adverse air quality impacts associated with the implementation of the
proposed project. As the proposed project incorporates an additional 72 units over the
previously -approved project, and a SOC was adopted by the Los Angeles County Regional
Planning Commission for the previously approved project, a SOC for the Bouquet Seniors
Affordable Housing Project should be adopted.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures AQ1 through AQ10 as identified in the FEIR
would reduce the magnitude of construction -related and operation -related emissions to
some extent. However, the project will commensurately contribute to the negative air
quality conditions already existent in the Southern California non -attainment basin.
Therefore, the cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed residential uses and
impacts due to the construction and operation of the project would be unavoidably
significant.
SECTION 7. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies
and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds that the
Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project and related entitlements will have community
benefits. The City Council finds that the following benefits are overriding considerations which
support adoption of a SOC:
a. The project as approved provides for a 100% affordable senior housing project as
encouraged under the City's General Plan Housing Element.
b. The City's General Plan encourages the provision of affordable senior housing
through the following goals and policies, listed in the Housing Element:
Goal 1: To provide opportunities for the production of a range of new housing in the
planning area to meet the needs of all income groups.
Policy 1.1: Review and support, as appropriate, programs to increase the
supply of housing throughout the region. Give full consideration to the
impacts on the environment, market, infrastructure, public services,
utilities, human resources, and other factors.
Goal 2: To provide sites suitable for a variety of housing types for all income levels
and assist in the development and provision of affordable and proportionally priced
and sized homes to meet the needs of al community residents, including low and
moderate income, large families, handicapped, families with female heads of
household, and the elderly.
Policy 3.7: Provide opportunities for the development of adequate housing
to provide the City's fair share of low and moderate income households.
Policy 3.8: Encourage and participate in low and moderate income and
senior citizen housing programs financed by other levels of government.
Policy 3.9: Promote the dispersal of low and moderate income housing
throughout the Santa Clarita planning area.
C. The Bouquet Seniors project will provide residential housing opportunities for the
low income and very low income seniors as required by the Housing Element of the
General Plan, the Housing Allocation for the City of Santa Clarita as set forth by
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) in the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the City's Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS) component of the City's Consolidated Plan prepared for the
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
d. The project will provide the City with infrastructure including improvements to
portions of the Bouquet Canyon Road major highway as designated on the City's
Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
e. The project is consistent with: 1) the site's City General Plan and Zoning Land Use
Classifications as amended by the City Council, with the inclusion of an approved
conditional use permit allowing up to a 25% density and amenities bonus.
£ The project provides- significant public benefits including employment
opportunities, a partnership with a local management corporation, extensive on-
site mature landscaping, the dedication of additional right-of-way along a major
arterial, a 100% senior population housing project, and a 100% affordable housing
project located in close proximity to transportation corridors, shopping centers,
community trails, religious institutions, and local transit routes.
SECTION 8. By adoption of this Resolution, .the City Council has reviewed and
considered the environmental information contained in the FEIR (SCH No. 97081065) and
determines that it is adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.). In compliance with CEQA Section 16093, the
City Council has considered the project benefits as balanced against the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City council determines that this Resolution
comprises a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the adverse environmental effects are
considered acceptable.
SECTION 9. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council certifies the
environmental impact report and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations that
identifies the benefits of the project as balanced against its unavoidable environmental risks.
10
SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 11. The Council shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this
record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
19_
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I, Sharon L. 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:
Pbs\council\reso9841
III
CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 98-42
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING
MASTER CASE NO. 97-102 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002 TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT LAND USE MAP, ZONE CHANGE 97-002 FROM THE RESIDENTIAL
SUBURBAN (RS) ZONE TO THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH (RMH) ZONE,
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 98-001, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-012)
FOR THE 12.36 ACRE BOUQUET SENIORS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
LOCATED WESTERLY AND ADJACENT TO BOUQUET CANYON ROAD BETWEEN
FESTIVIDAD DRIVE AND ESPUELLA DRIVE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA.DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. On June 18, 1997, an entitlement was filed with the Planning & Building Services
Department which included the following requests: an amendment to the General
Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map to redesignate approximately 12.36 acres
of RS (Residential Suburban) land use to RMH (Residential Medium High) land
use; a zone change modifying the Unified Development Code zoning designation
and standards of approximately 12.36 acres of property from RS (Residential
Suburban - 5 dwelling units per acre) to RMH (Residential Medium High - 20
dwelling units per acre); and a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a three story, 261 unit senior affordable .housing apartment
project, to permit a 25% density bonus for the property, to provide an amenities
bonus for partial waiver of development fees, and to allow for the installation of
gates for the residential project. Staffs review of the entitlements filed further
determined that an application for a development agreement was required under
the density bonus provisions of the Unified Development Code, and that the
preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was necessary. A 30 -
year development agreement application was filed with the City on January 16,
1998.
b. Modifications to the project were made over the course of the project's review.
Such changes include a proposal for 264 units, as opposed to the 261 originally
requested, a modified site design increasing the project's northerly setback from
120 feet to 133 feet, the addition of a gardening area for the residents of the
project, and the addition of an internal walking path for the future residents.
C. The project was previously approved under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County
as a 192 unit, market rate senior housing project, with the development of the
site consisting of the construction of 12 separate housing structures. Under Los
Angeles. County, the project underwent a zone change from A-2-5, an agricultural
zoning designation, to RPD -5,000-23U, a zoning designation allowing for
residential units with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size, up to 23 units per
1
acre. The project was approved by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning
Commission on November 25, 1992. Along with the approval of the site plan, the
Regional Planning Commission also approved Tentative Tract Map 44830,
dividing the site plan into one condominium lot with 192 fee in ownership parcels.
An Environmental Impact Report (SCH#89091306) was prepared for the
previously approved project, which was certified as final in November of 1992.
Los.Angeles County Regional Planning adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the previous project's cumulative impact to air quality.
d. In March of 1997, the City of Santa Clarita finalized the Northbridge Annexation
(Annexation No. 1992-04), thereby incorporating the project site into the City's
boundaries. Upon annexation, the property's zoning designation was determined
to be RS (Residential Suburban), and was found to be consistent with the City's
General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map.
e. The site is known as the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project and is
located westerly and adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road, between Festividad
Drive and Espuella Drive.
f. The General Plan presently designates the project site as Residential Suburban,
which corresponds to the typical single-family detached tract home developments
found throughout the planning area. The density range in this category is from
3.4 to 6.6 dwellings per gross acre with a mid-range density of 5 dwellings per
gross acre. Contingent upon the approval of the zone change, the General Plan
Land Use Element Land Use Map would be amended to reflect the site under the
RMH (Residential Medium High) General Plan designation, which corresponds
to grouped housing in townhomes, triplexes, fourplexes and larger group homes.
Specialized developments, such as senior housing and affordable housing, are
economically possible at the upper end of the density range for this category. The
density of development for this category ranges from 15.1 to 25.0 units per gross
acre, with a mid-range density of 20 dwellings per gross acre. The project's
density equals 21 dwellings per gross acre, which is consistent with the RMH
General Plan designation proposed. The approval of a conditional use permit for
a density and amenities bonus permits densities above the mid -point General
Plan designation.
g. An RMH zoning designation for the project site permits a density of up to 20
dwelling units per acre. The 8.8 net acreage of the site, however, creates a
density of approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. The density bonus
provisions of the Unified Development Code are intended to facilitate the
construction of senior, very low, and low income units that will serve the current
and long term City need while maintaining a high degree of quality in project
design, construction, and environmental protection. The proposed project meets
all of the density bonus applicability requirements of the UDC, including the
provision for a 100% affordable housing project, the submittal of a preliminary
proposal prior to the request for the General Plan amendment and zone change,
and the submittal of an independently prepared fiscal impact analysis detailing
2
the project's effects on the City's budget. The project is an infill development
project, and therefore the area infrastructure is in place or is being constructed
as a part of the project. The site is not located in an area designated as "hillside,'
and the zone change of the project site to RMH would qualify the property for a
density bonus. The site is also located proximate to commercial establishments,
service providers, grocery stores, drug stores, banks, and public transit.
h. The City may grant a density bonus of 25% in excess of the maximum density of
the zone, which would allow a density of 25 dwelling unit per gross acre.
However, in areas where higher densities are appropriate and services are
available, densities of up to 35 dwelling units per acre may be permitted. A
redesignation of the project site to the RMH zoning designation is therefore
consistent with the standards of the Unified Development Code.
i. The Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project site is vacant, and incorporates
a portion of both the concrete -lined Seco drainage channel and the concrete -lined
Bouquet drainage channel. The property is surrounded by urban development,
and is thus considered an infill development project. The project site is located
in close proximity to local transit routes, grocery stores, banks, drug stores,
restaurants, and other convenience stores, and is therefore well-suited for a
senior population project.
j. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project which
determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and
that a subsequent environmental impact report must be prepared. A Notice of
Preparation (N.O.P.) for the General Plan amendment, zone change, and
conditional use permit. requests was mailed in September 1997 to affected
agencies.
k. The City Council held a study session regarding fee reductions for senior housing
projects on June 3, 1997. During this meeting, the Council directed staff to
ensure that applicants requesting such fee reductions address the need for
affordable senior housing projects within the City, and address the potential
impacts of such projects to the City's budget. In response to this request, staff'
directed the applicant for the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project to
prepare both a fiscal impact analysis and a market study to address the
aforementioned issues. Both reports were considered by the Planning
Commission prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council regarding
the project.
1. A duly noticed Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) hearing was
held by the City Council on November 25, 1997. At this public hearing, the
Council adopted Resolution No. 97-138 approving the issuance by the California
Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) of not to exceed
$17,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds
for the project. The TEFRA hearing is required by the CSCDA prior to their
issuance of pass-through tax exempt bond financing for multi -family housing
3
projects. No financial or legal obligation/liability to the City exists in the
approval of the above-mentioned resolution.
m. At the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 3, 1998,
the Commission received a preliminary schedule identifying upcoming public
hearing dates and topics for discussion regarding the project. During this
meeting, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft Subsequent
EIR - SCH#97081065) was distributed to the Planning Commission for their
review. The first meeting identified on the preliminary schedule commenced on
March 3, 1998,.thus allowing the Commissioners approximately one month to
begin reviewing the document prior to the first public hearing. The preliminary
schedule also identified specific project topics to be discussed at each of the
meetings. The goal of this processing schedule was to reduce redundancy and
allow the Commission and the public to better prepare for the meetings. The
Planning Commission's tentative schedule, including information identifying
areas of discussion, was published in a local newspaper of areawide distribution,
and was also distributed to all property owners within a 500' mailing radius of
the subject site.
n. While the Draft Subsequent EIR for this project was distributed to the Planning
Commission on February 3, 1998, a Notice of Completion (N.O.C.) was formally
distributed to the public on January 23, 1998. The Draft Subsequent EIR was
circulated for a 45 -day public review beginning on January 23, 1998 and ending
on March 8, 1998, in compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
o. A total of three community meetings were held by the applicant (with the
Monteverde Homeowner's Association) in order to assess neighborhood concerns
regarding the project. The meetings were held at the residence of the President
of the Homeowner's Association on February 18, 1997, on July 10, 1997, and on
February 12, 1998. Project modifications were incorporated as a result of these
meetings, including the addition of conditions of approval addressing the
aesthetics of the proposed property. Landscaping and architectural designs for
the project are being developed in cooperation with the residential neighborhood
located directly north of the project site, and in compliance with the City's draft
design guidelines.
p. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on this issue
commencing on March 3, 1998 and continuing on March 17, 1998 and April 7,
1998. These public hearings were held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita.
q. The March 3, 1998 public hearing held on the project specifically discussed the
project's Draft Subsequent EIR. The purpose of discussing the environmental
document on this date was to further enhance public participation: verbal
testimony from the Commissioners and the public could therefore be incorporated
into the response to comments prior to the close of the public review period of
the Draft Subsequent EIR on March 8, 1998. While the Draft Subsequent EIR
was discussed in detail during the public hearing of March 3, 1998, further
testimony regarding the Draft Subsequent EIR was not limited at subsequent
meetings. A more detailed discussion of project parameters, including the deal
points of the development agreement, was held during the public hearing of
March 17, 1998. Outstanding issues regarding the project were discussed on
April 7, 1998.
r. The Bouquet Seniors Draft Subsequent EIR was circulated for review and
comment by the.affected governmental agencies and all comments received have
been considered. A Final EIR. (FEIR) dated March 24, 1998 was prepared in
accordance with CEQA and includes the Draft Subsequent EIR., responses to
comments received on. the Draft Subsequent EIR, minor corrections and
clarifications to the EIR text, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP), attached and referenced herein as Exhibit "D". As a result of
staff, public and Planning Commission comments on the project and the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the applicant has made modifications to the project. None of
the modifications would result in additional environmental impacts.
S. On April 7, 1998 the Planning Commission: 1) adopted Resolution P98-11
recommending that the City Council certify the FEIR prepared for the project and
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project's impacts to air
quality; and 2) forwarded two draft ordinances to the Council, one recommending
that the City Council approve the development agreement for the project
(Ordinance No. 98-11), and one recommending approval of the requested zone
change (Ordinance No. 98-12). The deal points of the development agreement
were discussed during the public hearings of March 17, 1998 and April 7, 1998.
The requested zone change was also discussed during the hearings of March 3,
1998, March 17, 1998 and April 7, 1998. Both draft ordinances were reviewed
and discussed during the aforementioned public hearings prior to being
forwarded to the Council for final adoption.
t. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee met and supplied the
applicant with draft conditions of approval.
U. The project proposes the extension of all utility services to the project site.
V. The Planning Commission has considered the FEIR, as well as information
provided in staff reports, the deal points of the development agreement, and
public testimony prior to recommending project approval to the City Council.
W. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings regarding the project on April
21, 1998; May 12, 1998, and May 26, 1998. The meetings commenced at 6:30
p.m. at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor Council Chambers, Santa Clarita,
CA, 91355.
E
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and
other evidence received. at the public hearings held for the project, and upon studies and
investigations made by theCity Council and on its behalf, the City Council finds as follows:
a. At the hearings described above, the City Council considered staff and consultant
presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, public testimony on the
proposal, and the FEIR prepared for the project.
b. The design of the project and the type of improvements will not cause serious
public health problems, since water, sewage disposal, fire protection and other
public services and utilities are addressed in the Draft Subsequent EM MMRP
and conditions of project approval.
C. The project complies with the general requirements and performance standards
for the Residential Medium High zone. The project is consistent with the intent
of the Residential Medium High zone which corresponds to grouped housing in
townhomes, triplexes, fourplex and larger group housing. Private recreation
amenities are provided on-site as well as common and private open space.
Specialized developments, such as senior housing and affordable housing, are
economically possible at the upper end of the density range. The density of
development for this category ranges from 15.1 to 25.0 units per gross acre, with
a mid-range density of 20 dwelling units per gross acre.
d. Following a redesignation of the project site to RMH (Residential Medium High)
on the City's General Plan land use map, City Council adoption of the zone
change ordinance (Ordinance No. 98-10) redesignating the project site from RS
(Residential Suburban) to RMH (Residential Medium High), and approval of the
conditional use permit providing for a density and amenities bonus, this project
will be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
e. The City Council has adopted a.Statement of Overriding Considerations for those
project impacts which cannot be mitigated to less than significant level, through
certification of the project's FEIR (Resolution 98-41, adopted May 12, 1998).
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds
as follows:
a. An FEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for this project have been prepared and circulated
in compliance with the California. Environmental Quality Act and adopted as
certified as required by that Act.
b. This project as modified will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or
welfare of persons residing in the area; nor be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor
R
jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health,
safety, or general welfare since the project conforms with the zoning ordinance
and is compatible with surrounding land uses.
C. The project is compatible with existing development in the area, consistent with
the. City's General Plan and Zoning, and consistent with the State Planning and
Zoning Laws.
d. The applicant has .substantiated the findings for approving a General Plan
amendment, zone change, conditional use permit, and development agreement.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves the following entitlements requested
under Master Case No. 97-102: General Plan Amendment 97-002 to the amend the Land Use
Element Land Use Map with map changes attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and Zone Change 97-
002 redesignating the project site from Residential Suburban (RS) to Residential Medium High
(RMH) as shown on the zoning map attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit "B".The
Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council hereby approve the following
entitlements requested under Master Case No. 97-102: Development Agreement 98-001, and
Conditional Use Permit 97-012, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "C", including the MMRP which is incorporated
herein by this reference as Exhibit "D".
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify
this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
19_.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I, Sharon L. 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:
Pbs\council\reso9842
9
CITY CLERK
MASTER. CASE 97-102
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97.002
ZONE CHANGE 97-002
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-012
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 98-001
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GCL The approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall expire two years from the date
of conditional approval.
GC2. The subdivider may file for an extension of the conditional use permit prior to the
date of expiration for a period of time not to exceed one year. If such an
extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration.
GC3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Building and
Planning Services in writing of any change in ownership, designation of a new
engineer, or change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change.
GC4. 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 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 attorney's 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.
GC5. Details shown on the site plan are not necessarily approved. Any details which
are inconsistent with the. requirements of ordinances, general conditions of
approval, or City policies must be specifically approved.
GC6. Easements shall not be granted or recorded 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
tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder
prior to the filing of the Final Map,
GC7. At any point in the development process, a stop -work order shall be considered
in effect upon the discovery of any historic artifacts and/or remains, at which
Master Case 97.702
Bouquet Seniors
time the City shall be notified. The applicant shall hire a qualified consultant
that the City approves to study the site and recommend a course of action, to the
satisfaction of the City.
GC8. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures on each lot at this
time, the owner, at the time of issuance of building permits, agrees to 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, Oak
Tree Ordinance, Undergrounding. of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and
Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. Improvements and
other requirements may be imposed pursuant to such codes and ordinances in
accordance with vested rights as provided for in the Government Code. In no
event, however, shall the setback from the residential properties located to the
north of the project be less than what is depicted on the approved site plan.
GC9. A grading permit shall be required for any and all grading to occur for the
purpose of this project.
GC10. 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
Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware
of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant.
GC11. The Sanitation Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code
to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting to the Sanitation Districts'
Sewerage System or increasing the existing strength and/or quantity of
wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already connected. A
connection fee is required to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage
System to accommodate the proposed project which will mitigate the impact of
this project on the present Sewerage System. Payment of a connection fee will
also be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued.
GC12. Individual developments associated with the proposed project may require a
Districts' permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge. Project developers should
contact the Sanitation Districts' Industrial Waste Section in order to reach a
determination on this matter, If this permit is necessary, project developers shall
forward a copy of final plans for proposed development(s) to the Districts for
review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
2
Master Case 97-102
Bougaet Seniors
ENGINEERING
EN1. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval agrees
to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate
ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway
Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of
Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical
Code and Fire Code.
EN2. The applicant shall show the entire limits of the legal boundary of the property
involved in the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN3. The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate easements running through proposed
structures.
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
EN4. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install additional pavement on Bouquet
Canyon Road to provide for an additional lane along the property frontage. A
signing and striping plan signed by a registered civil or traffic engineer is
required to meet this condition.
ENS. The applicant is required to install distribution lines and individual service lines
for community antenna television service (CATV) for all new development.
EN6. The applicant shall install mailboxes and posts per City standards. Secure
approval of the U.S. Postal Service prior to installation.
ENT The applicant shall contact the City Department of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services for street tree location, species, and approval method of
installation and irrigation.
ENB. The applicant shall.not grant or record 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 project is
approved. If easements are granted after the date of. approval, .a subordination
must be executed by the easement holder.
EN9. The applicant shall provide letter(s) of slope easement(s) and drainage acceptance
as directed by the City Engineer.
EN10. The applicant shall place above -ground utilities, outside sidewalks, or provide a
minimum of four feet clear path of travel along sidewalks. Dedication and/or
grading may be required.
3
Master Case 97.102
Bouquet Seniors
EN11. The applicant shall construct a slough wall outside the street right-of-way when
the height of slope is greater than five feet above the sidewalk and the sidewalk
is adjacent to the street right-of-way.
EN12. The applicant shall construct drainage improvements and offer easements needed
for on-site and street drainage or. slopes.
EN13. The applicant shall replace driveways to be abandoned with standard curb,
gutter, and sidewalk.
ENK The applicant shall pay ordinance frontage charges before issuance of a building
permit.
EN15. The applicant shall install and dedicate main line sewers to the extent necessary
to properly serve the site.
EN16. The applicant shall send a print of the land division map to the County Sanitation
District, with the request for annexation. If applicable, such annexation must be
assured in writing.
ENIT The applicant shall pay sewer reimbursement charges as determined by the City
Engineer or the County of Los Angeles before the recording of this map.
EN18. The applicant shall grant easements to the City, appropriate agency or entity for
the purpose of ingress, egress, construction and maintenance of all infrastructure
constructed for this land division to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN19. Easements are tentatively required, subject to review by the City Engineer to
determine the final locations and requirements.
GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND GEOLOGY
EN20. The applicant shall submit a grading plan which must be approved prior to the
issuance of any permits.
EN21, The applicant's grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical
report which must be specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer
and show all recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree with the
approved planning exhibits and conditions as approved by the Advisory Agency.
EN22. The applicant shall eliminate all geologic hazards associated with this proposed
development, or delineate a restricted use area approved by the consultant
geologist to.the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4
Master Case 97.102
Bouquet Seniors
EN23. The applicant shall submit drainage plans and necessary support documents to
comply with Engineering requirements. These must be approved to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
Portions of the property are subject to sheet overflow and ponding and high
velocity scouring action.
Portions of the property lying in and adjacent to natural drainage courses are
subject to flood hazard because of overflow, inundation, and debris flow.
EN24. The applicant shall provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard and
dedicate and show necessary easements and/or rights-of-way prior to acceptance
of any storm drains.
EN25. The applicant shall provide for the proper distribution of drainage.
EN26. This site is located in Zone "A" per the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map. A
conditional letter of map revision may be necessary to meet flood insurance
requirements. Upon completion of storm drain facilities, the applicant shall
complete procedures for revising the Maps.
EN27. Specific drainage requirements for the site will be established at building permit
application.
EN28. 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 City determined the application to be complete all to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
EN29. Driveways shall be constructed using the City of Santa Clarita alley intersection
design #101-0 Type "C". The applicant shall obtain approval from the City Traffic
Engineer for the location of all driveways.
EN30. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable
Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District Fee to implement the highway element
of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this
development.
The applicant may construct off-site improvements of equivalent value in lieu of
paying fees established for the District subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
5
Master Case 97-102
Bouquet Seniors
Factors for development units are as follows:
Development Units
Factors
Single -Family
Per Unit
1.0
Townhouse
Per Unit
0.8
Apartment
Per Unit
0.7
Commercial
Per Acre
5.0
Industrial
Per Acre
3.0
The project is in the Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Thoroughfare District. Reduced
Bridge and Thoroughfare Fees in the amount of $440,750.00 will be required for
the project. This represents a 55% reduction in fees, as related to the reduced
trip generation of a senior population project.
EN31. The applicant shall construct and landscape medians on Bouquet Canyon Road,
or if medians are not feasible at this time, shall pay an in -lieu fee for the cost of
construction, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN32. The area included within the project shall be annexed to an existing landscape
maintenance district, or form a new district to finance the cost of annual
maintenance of the median landscape.
EN33. The project applicant shall be responsible for providing all required materials and
documentation to satisfactorily complete the storm drain transfer process
recognized by the City of Santa Clarita. Complete acceptance of the storm drain
for ongoing maintenance, by the County of Los Angeles, is required before the
City of Santa Clarita will release any bond monies posted for the construction of
said storm drain infrastructure.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
TEL The applicant shall widen Bouquet Canyon Road to its ultimate four lanes in the
southbound direction, along the project's frontage. In the interim (before the
bridge over the Bouquet Creek Channel is widened), the fourth lane would
provide for a right -turn pocket in the southbound direction into the development's
entrance.
TE2. In order to have northbound left -turn access into the site, the applicant shall
provide plans to accommodate such a lane with approximately 90 feet of storage
and 60 feet of taper within the existing median island between Espuella Drive
6
Master Case 97-102
Bouquet Seniors
and Festividad Drive. The proposed lane shall not interfere with existing left -
turn lanes into the aforementioned intersections with Bouquet Canyon Road.
The plans for the left -turn pocket are to be designed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
TE3. The location of the main entrance shall be aligned to accept the northbound left -
turn lane as described in the condition immediately above.
TE4. The access to the main entrance is limited to right in, right out, and left -turn in
only.
TE5. The second access off Bouquet Canyon Road shall be an emergency and gated
access only. This access shall be limited to right -turn in and out only.
TE6. The applicant shall modify the traffic signal at the intersection of Bouquet canyon
Road and Espuella Drive to include left -turn phasing in both directions of
Bouquet Canyon Road.
TET All of the above improvements shall be in place or in operation prior to the first
unit occupancy permit.
TRANSIT
TR1. The applicant shall provide fora gate design that automatically admits the City's
Dial -A -Ride service vehicles. If such gate design is not available, then the City's
Dial -A -Ride services will be limited to pick up and drop off of passengers at the
project's porte cochere area.
N.P.D.E.S.
GENERAL
NP1. All on-site activities shall be subject to the City's stormwater management
program and the "best management practices" identified in the City's NPDES
permit.
NP2. The project proponent shall be responsible for providing all required materials
and documentation to satisfactorily complete the storm drain transfer process
recognized by the City of Santa Clarita. Complete acceptance of the storm drain
for ongoing maintenance by the County of Los Angeles is required before the City
of Santa Clarita will release any bond monies posted for the construction of said
storm drain infrastructure.
Master Case 97.702
Bouquet Seniors
CONSTRUCTION
NP& Keep debris and pollutants off exposed surfaces; provide and use trash cans and
recycling receptacles at the construction site. Sweep and remove debris, litter,
and any dry materials; do not hose -off surfaces or bury wastes. Dispose of all
wastes properly at approved facilities.
NP4. Keep dumpsters covered and check for leaks. Provide a retention curb or wall
around dumpsters to contain any leakage. Never clean a dumpster by hosing -
down.
NPS. Designate and use one area for construction parking, vehicle and equipment
refueling and maintenance. This area should be located away from gutters, catch
basins, or storm drains. Major maintenance and repair, and vehicle(equipment
washing must be performed off-site at an approved facility.
NP6. Maintain portable toilets in good working order; check frequently for leaks.
NP7. Water for dust control during construction activities may be sprayed on exposed
soil, but not to the extent that surface runoff results.
NP8. Contain and clean-up minor spills with absorbent materials for proper disposal.
Report any significant spills to the Los Angeles County Fire Department Hazmat
Unit by calling (805) 257-4144 or 911. Any significant spill which reaches the
Santa Clara River must be reported to the National Response Center at (800)
424-8802.
NP9. Properly dispose of all industrial and construction waste, recycle all used oil and
filters, and participate in oil recycling programs being implemented by the City
to the satisfaction of the City's Solid Waste Coordinator. Call the City's Waste
Division at (805) 294-2500 for requirements.
NP10. All hazardous materials used during, and wastes resulting from, construction
shall be protected from vandalism, and shall be stored in an enclosed area under
lock and key in marked covered containers until they can be removed and
disposed of in the appropriate manner at an approved facility.
NP11. Educate the project manager and construction staff. The City will provide copies
of "best management practices" (BMP) brochures and information on recycling
and storm drain protection. The employer shall use the information in these
brochures to provide water quality training, and spill prevention and clean-up as
part of construction worker orientation. Contact the Stormwater Utility Public
Information Officer at (805) 286-4133 for assistance.
Master Case 97.102
Bouquet Seniors.
NP12. Provide a stormwater program identification stencil, subject to the approval of
the City Engineer, at all catch basins adjacent to or constructed in conjunction
with this project.
RESIDENTIAL USE
NP13. Keep dumpsters covered and check for leaks. Provide a retention curb or wall
around dumpsters to contain any leakage. Never clean a dumpster by hosing -
down.
NP14. On-site landscaping activities shall be subject to the best management practices"
identified in the City's NPDES permit.
NP15. The project applicant shall form and assure the ongoing provision of a property
management corporation. The property management corporation shall provide
information to the owners of all dwelling units regarding the pollution prevention
and system maintenance requirements of the City's NPDES permit. The City
will provide copies of "best management practices" (BMP) brochures and
information on recycling and surface water runoff pollution control. The property
management corporation shall use the information in these brochures to provide
water quality awareness, and spill prevention and clean-up as part of residential
orientation and ongoing grounds and building maintenance. The City's
Stormwater Utility Public Information Officer can assist the applicant with the
implementation of this condition.
NP16. The applicant shall assure that future residents are informed of the procedures
to properly dispose of all hazardous waste, to recycle all used oil and filters, and
to participate in oil recycling programs being implemented by the City. Contact
the City's Solid Waste Division at (805) 294-2500 for requirements.
NP17. On-site vehicle washing facilities shall be paved and well marked as the washing
area. Signs shall be posted indicating that oil changing and washing with
solvents is prohibited within the washing area. The facility shall be designed to
collect all water from washing activities and be contained on-site to prevent
transmission to the storm drain system. Vehicles shall be washed with a
biodegradable, phosphate -free detergent.
NP18. All waste receptacles on the exterior of the building shall be maintained in an
enclosure that is constructed with a retention curb to confine any potential
leakage.
SOLID WASTE
SW1. Provide information depicting the collection, storage, and disposal of solid waste
Master Case 97.102
Bouquet Seniors
that will be generated by the project. This information shall be utilized in the
future to provide project specific solid waste conditions of approval.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
FD1. Provide a minimum width of 26'-0" to within 150'-0" of all portions of the exterior
walls of the first story.
FD2. An access width of 28'-0" shall be required when proposed buildings or portions
of buildings are greater than three stories or 35'-0" in height. The center line of
the access roadway shall be located parallel to and within 30'-0" of the exterior
wall on at least one side of such building.
FD3. Access shall comply with Section 902 of the Fire Code.which requires all weather
access. All weather access may require paving.
FD4. Openings being used within buildings, in order to get within 150'-0" of all portions
of the proposed building, shall have a minimum of a 10'-0" opening. All access
doors shall have an approved Knox box system and shall comply with Los Angeles
County Regulation #5. Indicate doors and widths on the site plan.
FDS. Walkways shall connect the required access to within 150'4" of all portions of the
buildings. Required walking access shall be a minimum of 5'-0" in width, and
shall be designed to prevent sharp turns or obstacles which would hinder the
carrying of ladders, other hand-held equipment, or rescue equipment.. This shall
be indicated on the site plan and the landscaping plans.
FD6. The private driveways shall be indicated on the site plan as "Private Driveway
and Firelane" with widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance
with the Fire Code.
FD7. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained servicable throughout
construction. to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be
installed, tested, and accepted prior to construction.
FD8. Provide. Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access
numbers prior to occupancy.
FD9. No driveways shall be less than 26' paved width, clear to sky and unobstructed.
FD10. Show all existing public fire.hydrants on the site plan. the number of private
hydrants required will be based on this information.
10
Master Case 97.102
Bouquet Seniors
FDll. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as
"Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (formerly Fire Zone 4). A Fuel
Modification Plan may be necessary. The applicant shall contact the Forestry
Unit for verification.
FD12. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 5000 gallons per
minute at 20 psi for a duration of five hours, over and above maximum daily
domestic demand.
FD13. All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current
AWWA.standard C503 or_ approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a
minimum of 25' from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour fire wall. The
location of the hydrants shall be as shown on the map filed with the Fire
Department.
PARKS & RECREATION
PRl. The applicant shall be required to pay an in -lieu fee to fulfill their Parkland
Dedication requirement. The fee will be based on the fee structure identified in
the Subdivision Ordinance at the time the in -lieu fee is paid. Payment is to be
made to the City of Santa Clarita Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
PR2. Trees planted with fourteen (14) feet of the City right-of-way in commercial
developments on major arterials will be subject to the Parkway Influence Area
as identified in City Ordinance 90-15. Trees planted within this area will be
maintained to City standards by the property owner.
PR3. Street trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Parks; Recreation, and
Community Services Department. Use trees from the City's approved Master
Street Tree List, available from the City Arborist. The irrigation and
maintenance of these trees shall be per City Ordinance 90-15.
PR4. Provide final landscape and irrigation plans for review and approval of the Parks,
Recreation, and Community Services Department. Drought resistant plant
materials and water efficient irrigation systems should be utilized in the design.
PR5. Median landscaping improvements shall be made to the medians adjacent to the
project's Bouquet Canyon Road frontage to the satisfaction of the Director of
Parks, Recreation and Community Services.
11
Master Case 97.102
Bouquet Seniors
BUILDING & SAFETY
BS1. The City's Planning Division approval is required on the site plan of the final
working drawings.
BS2 The City's Engineering Division approval is required.
BS3. Pay or submit proof of payment of Bridge and Major Thoroughfare District fees.
BS4. Pay or submit proof of Fire District fees.
BS5. A fee for Final Planning Field approval is required at the.time of permit.
BS6. Castaic Lake Water Agency approval is required.
BST High School District approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit.
BS8. L.A. County Fire Department (stamp and letter) approval is required on the final
working drawings.
BS9. L.A. County Health Services, Environmental Management Division for Food
Services is required.
BS10. L.A. County Sanitation District approval is required.
BS11. L.A. County Waste Management Division approval is required.
BS12. Show building code criteria for allowable area for each building.
A) Type of Construction (i.e. Type V -N)
B) Type of occupancy of all buildings (i.e. B, offices; M-2, mercantile)
C) Allowable area per building code (i.e. allowable area for B, V -N is
8,000 sf per Table 5-C)
D) Allowable increases for yards, multi -story or sprinklers, (i.e. One
story allowable for B occupancy, V -N construction is 8,000 sf. One
story sprinkler increase x 3. Total is 8,000 x 3 = 24,000 sf.
Proposed is 23,500 sf and therefore complies).
Area separation walls at the point it stops at the edge of a building, show an
imaginary property line and clearly show how walls and openings are protected.
BS13. Submit a Geotechnical report (soils and geology) to the City of Santa Clarita
Building and Safety Division.
BS14. Rough grading approval is required before a building permit can be issued.
Submit a copy of the Rough Grading Certification.
12
Master Case 97.102
Bouquet Seniors
BS15. A compaction report must be submitted to Building and Safety prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
BS16. Show the location of all easements.
BS17. Show on the plot plan the location of the fire flow check valve, Edison's
transformers and other type of objects that can be seen from the street. Planning
approval is required for their locations.
BS18. Show handicapped accessible parking on the site plan.
BS19. Provide van (8' unloading zone) and standard (5' unloading zone) parking spaces
per prescribed ratios.
B920. Provide access from the public street and the public sidewalk showing a defined
path that is in compliance with ADA standards.
BS21. Post access signs at entrances to the property and at the parking stalls.
BS22. Give special consideration to Chapter 67 of Security Provisions of the City code,
which is the same as the L.A. County Building Code.
BS23. Approved wind load design is a minimum of 70 mph with exposure C.
BS24. The buildings shall be designed for seismic zone 4 and comply with Chapter 16
earthquake Amendments of the City Code.
BS25. The building shall be designed for 1 -hour construction throughout.
BS26. Fire sprinklers shall be placed throughout the building.
BS27. Group A occupancies (recreation room) shall front directly onto a street or have
a 20' clear to sky access from the street for firefighting equipment.
PLANNING DIVISION
PL1. The applicant shall submit to the City an additional $9,460 for the review of this
project. This fee equals the $13,000 deposit for and Environmental Impact
Review, $630 for and Initial Study, and a credit of $4,170 for a Parcel Map fee
already paid to the City but not needed for the processing of this case.
PL2. ' The project will be subject to the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring Program
that results from the preparation of the project's Environmental Impact Report.
13
Master Case 97-102
Bouquet Seniors
PL3. The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan
approved by the Planning Commission.
PL4. In no event shall the structure exceed 35' in height.
PL5. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Santa
Clarita that guarantees that the project will remain an affordable senior housing
project in perpetuity.
PL6. The.Valencia Water Company (VWC) has commented on the project. The VWC
states that they have plans to construct a 16" waterline running from the north
side of Bouquet Canyon Creek along the west side of Bouquet Canyon Road to a
point near the northeast corner of the parcel in question. The applicant shall
contact and coordinate with the Valencia Water Company in order to avoid
potential conflict.
PL7. The Planning Commission has approved the installation of gates for the
residential project. However, the installation of such gates will be determined
by a future survey of the project's residents, with a majority of the residents
finding that the need for private gates is warranted.
PL8. The project's gate(s) shall not block area -wide through routes or block access for
roadways to serve future development.
PL9. Adequate stacking distance, turnaround areas, public safety elements and signing
shall be included in the gate design. All gates shall meet Fire Department
requirements and provide passage with unobstructed vertical clearance.
PL10. Access shall be provided at all times for police, fire, City inspection, dial -a ride,
utility, and other health and safety-related vehicles.
PL11. A homeowners association and/or other appropriate entity shall provide for on-
going, private maintenance of internal streets, gate equipment, walls and
landscaping. No public resources shall be allocated for maintaining private
property.
PL12. The gate design and implementation shall be such that it does not pose a threat
to public health, safety or welfare.
PL13. The applicant shall include the internal trail system on the site plan.
14
Master Case 97.102
Bouquet Seniors
PL14. A property line survey shall be conducted for the nine residential properties
abutting the northern property line of the project site. A wall separating the
properties from the project site shall be constructed, and shall consist of slump
stone with wrought iron inserts, as to preserve the views of the existing
residences.
PL15. A noise study will need to be completed for the project. Appropriate mitigation
measures resulting from such study shall be incorporated into the project's
design.
PL16. Laundry facilities shall be included on the site plan.
PL17. A common living room shall be provided if the recreation room can be reserved
for private use.
PL18. Mailboxes shall be located in an area that is secure and easily accessible.
PL19. Indoor and outdoor waiting areas with seating should be located near the
entrance to the complex.
PL20. Common area kitchens shall be concealed from the greater living areas.
PL21. Bathrooms shall be accessible from a hallway, not through a bedroom.
PL22. In order to avoid a long, linear and monotonous appearance, the carports shall
incorporate a design which is not enclosed on at least three sides. The vehicles
parked in such carports are to be predominantly screened from view of the public
street and neighboring residences by means of landscaping and other decorative
design materials.
PL23. The applicant shall provide for and mark 33 parking spaces for guest use only.
Such parking stalls may be uncovered.
PL24. Where parking facilities are located adjacent to a street right-of-way line, a
minimum ten foot wide landscaped area shall be provided adjacent to such right-
of-way line, except at driveways and walkways. The area shall be landscaped
and permanently maintained with trees, shrubs and groundcover, and shall
incorporate earthen berms, a minimum of 36" to 42" in height, to the satisfaction
of the Planning and Building Services Department.
PL25. All landscaping materials and sprinkler systems shall be clearly indicated on the
landscape plans, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Services
Department, and the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department.
PL26. At least 25% of the gross area of the parking lot shall be landscaped, including
a minimum of one 15 gallon tree for each 10 parking spaces. Landscaping shall
be distributed throughout the parking lot, so as to maximize the aesthetic effect
and compatibility with adjoining uses.
15
Master Case 97-102
Bouquet Seniors
PL27. A number of mature trees shall be planted around the immediate perimeter of
the structure, in order to provide for additional vertical elements that breakup
the block appearance of the apartment complex. A number of mature trees shall
also be planted in the landscaped slope area adjacent to the residences north of
the project site.
PL28. The applicant shall provide for vertical architectural features on the building to
provide interest in the project's design. Examples of such include shade covers
over windows, pilasters, stucco surrounds, etc.
PL29. All project lighting shall be directed away from the neighboring residential uses
and the sky.
PL30. The applicant shall pay the appropriate school fees in effect at the time of
issuance of building permits.
PL31. It is hereby declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition
hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the permit shall
be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the
applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to
do so for a period of 30 days.
Pbs\current\97102con
16
Exhibit A
General Plan Map Changes
Incorporated by Reference
9
Exhibit B
Zone Change Map Modifications
Incorporated by Reference
10
Exhibit C
Conditions of Approval
Incorporated by Reference
11
Rxh;bit D
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Incorporated by Reference
12
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 98-10
AN ORDINANCE OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 97.002 (MASTER CASE 97-102) FOR THE BOUQUET
SENIORS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
WHICH CHANGES THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SITE FROM CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA ZONE RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA ZONE RMH (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A 12.36 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED WESTERLY AND ADJACENT TO
BOUQUET CANYON ROAD
BETWEEN FESTIVIDAD DRIVE AND ESPUELLA DRIVE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. On June 18, 1997, an entitlement was filed with the Planning & Building Services
Department which included the following requests: an amendment to the General
Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map to redesignate approximately 12.36 acres
of RS (Residential Suburban) land use to RMH (Residential Medium High) land
use; a zone change modifying the Unified Development Code zoning designation
and standards of approximately 12.36 acres of property from RS (Residential
Suburban - 5 dwelling units per acre) to RMH (Residential Medium High - 20
dwelling units per acre); and a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a three story, 261 unit senior affordable housing apartment
project, to permit a 25% density bonus for the property, to provide an amenities
bonus for partial waiver of development fees, and to allow for the installation of
gates for the residential project. Staffs review of the entitlements filed further
determined that an application for a development agreement was required under
the density bonus provisions of the Unified Development Code, and that the
preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was necessary. A 30 -
year development agreement application was filed with the City on January 16,
1998.
b. Modifications to the project were made over the course of the project's review.
Such changes include a proposal for 264 units, as opposed to the 261 originally
requested, a modified site design increasing the project's northerly setback from
120 feet to 133 feet, the addition of a gardening area for the residents of the
project, and the addition of an internal walking path for the future residents.
c. The project was previously approved under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County
as a 192 unit, market rate senior housing project, with the development of the
site consisting of the construction of 12 separate housing.structures. Under Los
Angeles County, the project underwent a zone change from A-2-5, an agricultural
zoning designation, to RPD -5,000-23U, a zoning designation allowing for
residential units with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size, up to 23 units per
acre. The project was approved by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning
Commission on November 25, 1992. Along with the approval of the site plan, the
Regional Planning Commission also approved Tentative Tract Map 44830,
dividing the site plan into one condominium lot with 192 fee in ownership parcels.
An Environmental Impact Report (SCH#89091306) was prepared for the
previously approved project, which was certified as final in November of 1992.
Los Angeles County Regional Planning adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the previous project's cumulative impact to air quality.
d. In March of 1997, the City of Santa Clarita finalized the Northbridge Annexation
(Annexation No. 1992-04),. thereby incorporating the project site into the City's
boundaries. Upon annexation, the property's zoning designation was determined
to be RS (Residential Suburban), and was found to be consistent with the City's
General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map.
e. The site is known as the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project and is
located westerly and adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road, between Festividad
Drive and Espuella Drive.
f. The General Plan presently. designates the project site as Residential Suburban,
which corresponds to the typical single-family detached tract home developments
found throughout the planning area. The density range in this category is from
3.4 to 6.6 dwellings per gross acre with a mid-range density of 5 dwellings per
gross acre. Contingent upon the approval of the zone change, the General Plan
Land Use Element Land Use Map would be amended to reflect the site under the
RMH (Residential Medium High) General Plan designation, which corresponds
to grouped housing in townhomes, triplexes, fourplexes and larger group homes.
Specialized developments, such as senior housing and affordable housing, are
economically possible at the upper end of the density range for this category. The
density of development for this category ranges from 15.1 to 25.0 units per gross
acre, with a mid-range density of 20 dwellings per gross acre. The project's
density equals 21 dwellings per gross acre, which is consistent with the RMH
General Plan designation proposed. The approval of a conditional use permit for
a density and amenities bonus permits densities above the mid -point General
Plan designation.
g. An RMH zoning designation for the project site permits a density of up to 20
dwelling units per acre. The 8.8 net acreage of the site, however, creates a
density of approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. The density bonus
provisions of the Unified Development Code are intended to facilitate the
construction of senior, very low, and low income units that will serve the current
and long term City need while maintaining a high degree of quality in project
design, construction, and environmental protection. The proposed project meets
all of the density bonus applicability requirements of the UDC, including the
provision for a 100% affordable housing project, the submittal of a preliminary
proposal prior to the request for the General Plan amendment and zone change,
and the submittal of an independently prepared fiscal impact analysis detailing
the project's effects on the City's budget. The project is an infill development
project, and therefore the area infrastructure is in place or is being constructed
as a part of the project, nor is the site located in an area designated as "hillside."
The zone change of the project site to RMH would qualify the property for a
density bonus, and the site is located proximate to commercial establishments,
service providers, grocery stores, drug stores, banks, and public transit.
h. The City may grant a density bonus of 25% in excess of the maximum density of
the zone, which would allow a density of 25 dwelling unit per gross acre.
However, in areas where higher densities are appropriate and services are
available, densities of up to 35 dwelling units per acre may be permitted. A re-
designation of the project site to the RMH designation is therefore consistent
with the standards of the Unified Development Code.
The Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project site is vacant, and incorporates
a portion of both the concrete -lined Seco drainage channel and the concrete -lined
Bouquet drainage channel. The property is surrounded by urban development,
and is thus considered an infill development project. The project site is located
in close proximity to local transit routes, grocery stores, banks, drug stores,
restaurants,. and other convenience stores, and is therefore well-suited for a
senior population project.
j. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project which
determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and
that a subsequent environmental impact report must be prepared. A Notice of
Preparation (NOP) for the General Plan amendment, zone change, and
conditional use permit requests was mailed in. September 1997 to affected.
agencies.
k. The City Council held a study session regarding fee reductions for senior housing
projects on June 3, 1997. During this meeting, the Council directed staff to
ensure that applicants requesting such fee reductions address the need for
affordable senior housing projects within the City, and address the potential
impacts of such projects to the City's budget: In response to this request, staff
directed the applicant for the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project to
prepare both a fiscal impact analysis and a market study to address the
aforementioned issues. Both reports were considered by the Planning
Commission prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council regarding
the project.
1. A duly noticed Tax Equity and. Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) hearing was
held by the City Council on November 25, 1997. At this public hearing, the
Council adopted Resolution No. 97-138 approving the issuance by the California
Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) of not to exceed
$17,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds
for the project. The TEFRA hearing is required by the CSCDA prior to their
issuance of pass-through tax exempt bond financing for multi -family housing
projects. No financial or legal obligation/liability to the City exists in the
approval of the above-mentioned resolution.
in. At the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 3, 1998,
the Commission received a preliminary schedule identifying upcoming public
hearing dates and topics for discussion regarding the project. During this
meeting, the Draft Subsequent EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission
for their review. The first meeting identified on the preliminary schedule
commenced on March 3, 1998, thus allowing the Commissioners approximately
one month to begin reviewing the document prior to the first public hearing. The
preliminary schedule also identified specific project topics to be discussed at each
of the meetings. The goal of this processing schedule was to reduce redundancy
and allow the Commission and the public to better prepare for the meetings. The
Planning Commission's tentative schedule, including information identifying
areas of discussion, was published in a local newspaper of areawide distribution,
and was also distributed to all property owners within a 500' mailing radius of
the subject site.
IL While the Draft Subsequent. Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 97081065) for
this project was distributed to the Planning Commission on February 3, 1998, a
Notice of Completion (N.O.C.) was formally distributed to the public on January
23, 1998. The Draft Subsequent EIB, was circulated for a 45 -day public review
beginning on January 23, 1998 and ending on March 8, 1998, in compliance with
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
o. A total of three community meetings were held by the applicant (with the
Monteverde Homeowner's Association) in order to assess neighborhood concerns
regarding the project. The meetings were held at the residence of the President
of the Homeowner's Association on February 18, 1997, on July 10, 1997, and on
February 12, 1998. -Project modifications were incorporated as a result of these
meetings, including the addition of conditions of approval addressing the
aesthetics of the proposed property. Landscaping and architectural designs for
the project are being developed in cooperation with the residential neighborhood
located directly north of the project site.
P. The Planning Commission has held duly noticed public hearings on this issue
commencing on March 3, 1998 and continuing on March 17, 1998 and April 7,
1998. These public hearings have been held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita.
q. The March 3, 1998 public hearing held on the project specifically discussed the
project's Draft Subsequent EIR. The purpose of discussing the environmental
document on this date was to further enhance public participation: verbal
testimony from the Commissioners and the public could therefore be incorporated
into the response to comments prior to the close of the public review period of the
Draft Subsequent EIR on March 8, 1998. While the Draft Subsequent EIR. was
V
discussed in detail during the public hearing of March 3, 1998, further testimony
regarding the Draft Subsequent EIR was not limited at subsequent meetings. A
more detailed discussion of the project parameters was held during the public
hearing of March 17, 1998. Outstanding issues were discussed during the
meeting of April 7, 1998.
r. The Bouquet Seniors Draft Subsequent EIR was circulated for review and
comment by the affected governmental agencies and all comments received have
been considered. A Final EIR WEIR) dated March 1997 was prepared in
accordance with CEQA and includes the Draft Subsequent EIR, responses to
comments received on the Draft Subsequent EIR, minor corrections and
clarifications to the EIR text, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP). As a result of staff, public and Planning Commission
comments on the project and the Draft Subsequent EIR, the applicant has made
modifications to the project. None of the modifications would result in additional
environmental impacts. The FEIR was recommended for adoption by the
Planning Commission simultaneously herewith pursuant to Resolution P98-11.
S. On April 7, 1998 the Planning Commission adopted a recommendation that the
City Council adopt an ordinance approving the requested zone change.
t. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings on this project commencing
on April 21, 1998. Subsequent meetings regarding the project were held on May
12, 1998, and on May 26, 1998. On May 12, 1998, the City Council certified the
FEIR for this project (Resolution 98-41), approved the requested entitlements
(Resolution 98-42), held the first reading of Ordinance 98-11 recommending
approval of Development Agreement 98-001, held the .first reading of this
ordinance (Ordinance 98-10), waived further reading of Ordinance 98-10, and
continued this item for a second reading on May 26, 1998, On May 26, 1998, the
City Council having waived further reading, completed the second reading of
Ordinance 98-10 in order to approve the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing
Project, including approval of Zone Change 97-002 redesignating a 12.36 acre
private property from City zone RS (Residential Suburban - 5 dwelling units per
acre) to RMH (Residential Medium High - 20 dwelling units per acre) and
redefining the standards of the property for compliance with the RMH zoning
designation. The public hearings on the project were held 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 hearings held for the project, and upon studies and
investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on its behalf, the
City Council further finds as follows:
a. At the hearings described above, the City Council considered staff presentations,
staff reports, Planning Commission staff reports and resolutions, applicant
5
presentations, public testimony on the proposal, and the FEIR prepared for the
project.
b. The project provides for development standards and types of public and private
improvements that will not cause serious public health problems, since access,
water, sewage disposal, fire protection, and solid waste disposal are addressed
in the MMRP and conditions of approval.
C. The project complies with the general requirements and performance standards
for the Residential Medium High zone, with the inclusion of an approved
conditional use permit allowing for a 25% density bonus and amenities bonus.
The proposed development of the site is consistent with the intent of the
Residential Medium High zone which corresponds to grouped housing such as
townhomes, triplexes, fourplexes and larger group homes at a density up to 20.0
dwelling units per gross acre. Private recreation amenities are provided on site
as well as private common open space. Additional uses are permitted on-site that
are complimentary to, and can exist in harmony with, a residential neighborhood.
d. The FEIR identifies a significant environmental effect regarding the project's
cumulative impact to air quality. The FEIR identifies feasible mitigation
measures for all environmental impacts with the exclusion of air quality which
cannot be avoided through mitigation. The identified mitigation measures have
been incorporated into the MMRP and conditions of approval for the project.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council
hereby finds as follows:
a. A FEIR, including the Draft Subsequent EIR, Responses to Comments, Text
Changes to the Draft Subsequent EIR, the MMRP, and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations for this project have been prepared and circulated in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
Planning Commission adopted Resolution P98-11 recommending that the City
Council certify the FEIR and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
the project's cumulative impact to air quality. The City Council certified the
FEIR and adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations through adoption
of Resolution No. 98-41.
b. This project as modified by the Planning Commission and City Council will not
adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the
area; nor be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of
property in the vicinity of the project site; nor jeopardize, endanger or otherwise
constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the
project conforms with the City's General Plan, Unified Development Code and is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
C. The applicant has substantiated the findings for approval of a Zone Change as
specified under Section 17.03.020 of the City's Unified Development Code.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change 97-002 (Master Case
Number 97-102) consisting of a re -designation of a 12.36 acre private property located in the
City of Santa Clarita from zone RS (Residential Suburban - 5 dwelling units per acre) to RMH
(Residential Medium High - 20 unit per acre) as shown on the attached map (Exhibit A).
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day
after adoption.
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.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of '19—.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) '
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of
19 . That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the day of 19 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES. COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT. COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JL:JDR
pbs\counci1\ord9810
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 12, 1998, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
introduced Ordinance No. 98-11 entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 98-0101 WITH HAMILTON LARKIN,
LLC; FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 12.36 ACRES OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
BOUQUET SENIORS AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WESTERLY
AND ADJACENT TO BOUQUET CANYON ROAD BETWEEN FESTIVIDAD DRIVE AND
ESPUELLA DRIVE.
A certified copy of the complete text of the ordinance is posted and may be read in the City Clerk's
Office, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 301, Santa Clarita, and/or a copy may be obtained from that
office.
Dated this 14th day of May, 1998.
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
Sharon L. Dawson, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly appointed and
qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that by Thursday, May 14, 1998, she caused a
certified copy of the subject ordinance to be posted and made available for public review in the City
Clerk's office and a copy of the ordinance summary to be published as required by law.
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 98.11
AN ORDINANCE OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 98-001 WITH HAMILTON LARKIN, LLC, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
12.36 ACRES OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE BOUQUET SENIORS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WESTERLY AND
ADJACENT TO BOUQUET CANYON ROAD BETWEEN FESIWIDAD DRIVE
AND ESPUELLA DRIVE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. On June 18, 1997, an entitlement was filed with the Planning & Building
Services Department which included the following requests: an
amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map to
redesignate approximately 12.36 acres of RS (Residential Suburban) land
use to RMH (Residential Medium High) land use; a zone change modifying
the Unified Development Code zoning designation and standards of
approximately 12.36 acres of property from RS (Residential Suburban -
5 dwelling units per acre) to RMH (Residential Medium High - 20 dwelling
units per acre); and a conditional use permit to allow for the construction
of a three story, 261 unit senior affordable housing apartment project, to
permit a 25% density bonus for the property, to provide an amenities
bonus for partial waiver of development fees, and to allow for the
installation of gates for the residential project. Staffs review of the
entitlements filed further determined that an application for a
development agreement was required under the density bonus provisions
of the Unified Development Code, and that the preparation of a
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was necessary. The 30 -year
development agreement application was filed with the City on January
16, 1998.
b. Modifications to the project were made over the course of the project's
review. Such changes include a proposal for 264 units, as opposed to the
261 originally requested, a modified site design increasing the project's
northerly setback from 120 feet to 133 feet, the addition of a gardening
area for the residents of the. project, and the addition of an internal
walking path for the future residents.
C. The project was previously approved under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles
County as a 192 unit, market rate senior housing project, with the
development of the site consisting of the construction of 12 separate
housing structures. Under Los Angeles County, the project underwent a
zone change from A-2-5, an agricultural zoning designation, to RPD -5,000-
23U, a zoning designation allowing for residential units with a 5,000
square foot minimum lot size, up to 23 units per acre. The project was
approved by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission on
November 25, 1992. Along with the approval of the site plan, the
Regional Planning Commission also approved Tentative Tract Map 44830,
dividing the site plan into one condominium lot with 192 fee in ownership
parcels. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH#89091306) was prepared
for the previously approved project, which was certified as final in
November of 1992. Los Angeles County Regional Planning adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for the previous project's
cumulative impact to air quality.
d. In March of 1997, the City of Santa Clarita finalized the Northbridge
Annexation (Annexation No. 1992-04), thereby incorporating the project
site into the City's boundaries. Upon annexation, the property's zoning
designation was determined to be RS (Residential Suburban), and was
found to be consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element
Land Use Map.
e. The site is known as the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project and
is located westerly and adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road, between
Festividad Drive and Espuella Drive.
f.. The Development Agreement has been processed concurrently with the
entitlement requests listed in Section 1(a) above. The approval of General
Plan Amendment 97-002 would designate the site as RMH (Residential
Medium High). The Development Agreement is consistent with the City s
General Plan and Zoning Land Use classifications, and the intensity of
development allowed under the Unified Development Code with: 1)
Council approval of the RMH General Plan amendment; 2) approval of a
zone change on the property to RMH (Residential Medium High); 3)
approval of a conditional use permit allowing for the construction of a
three story, 264 unit senior affordable housing apartment project, to
permit a 25% density bonus for the property, to provide an amenities
bonus for partial waiver of development fees, and to allow for the
installation of gates for the residential project; and 7) review and
certification of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#97081065) prepared for the project.
g. The City. Council's approval of Ordinance 98-10 redesignates
approximately 12.36 acres of RS (Residential Suburban) property to the
RMH (Residential Medium High) zone. City Council adoption of
Resolution 98-41 certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
project, and Council adoption of Resolution 98-42 approves the project's
entitlements as listed above. With these actions complete, the
Development Agreement is found to be consistent with the goals, policies,
general land uses and implementation programs contained in the General
Plan, including the Circulation Element. Furthermore, the Development
Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property
for commercial, industrial, residential, public facilities and parks, and
open space development.
IL The Development Agreement was processed in.the .time and manner
prescribed by State and local law.
i. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the
Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing project (and related entitlements)
commencing on March 3, 1998 and continuing on March 17; 1998 and
April 7, 1998. All public hearings were held at 7:00 p.m. at the City
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita.
j. Discussion specifically regarding the deal points of the Development
Agreement were held by the Planning Commission at the public hearings
of March 17, 1998 and April 7, 1998. These hearings were held at the
City Council Chambers, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita,
commencing at 7:00 p.m. At these hearings the Planning Commission
received staff reports and testimony from the public and the applicant.
k. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings on the Bouquet Seniors
Affordable Housing project commencing on April 21, 1998, and continuing
on May 12, 1998 and May 26, 1998. On May 12, 1998, the City Council
certified the FEIR for this project (Resolution Number 98-41), approved
the project entitlements (Resolution No. 98-42), held the first reading of
this ordinance, waived further reading of the ordinance, and continued the
item for a second reading on May 26, 1998. On May 26, 1998, the City
Council having waived further reading, completed the second reading in
order to approve the Bouquet Seniors Development Agreement_ All public
hearings were held at or after 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 hearings held for the project, and upon studies and
investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds
as follows:
a. At the hearings described above, the City Council considered staff
presentations, staff reports, Planning Commission resolutions, applicant
presentations, and public testimony on the Development Agreement.
b. The 30 -year Development Agreement includes, but is not limited to, the
following deal -points:
1) The project will consist of 264 units restricted as senior affordable
housing. The project will be restricted to persons 55 years of age
and older, and will be a 100% affordable housing project for a term
of 30 years. After that time, 100% of the units may be opened for
market rate seniors, subject to approval by the City Council after
a public hearing.
2) Each unit shall be restricted to residents whose gross income
equals no more than 60% of the area median income. Each unit
shall be a low income unit, and rent restricted to 30% to 60% of
the area median income.
3) The developer shall form a partnership with the Santa Clarita
Committee of Aging ("COA") for management of the project. The
COA will provide the following services: home -delivered meals
throughout the community and congregate meals as capacity
allows; para -transit and transportation coordination throughout
the community; socialization, recreation and education programs;
coordination of volunteer programs throughout the community;
assessment and case management services; and information and
assistance services.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, during the first year of operation
of the project, the developer reserves the right to partner the COA
with an experienced management company, dividing the payment
for such management services in a manner reasonably acceptable
to the Developer, the management company and the COA.
4) After the fust year of operation of the project, the COA will receive
an annual fee to manage the project.
5) , The City shall provide an amenities bonus to the developer for a
partial waiver of Major Bridge and Thoroughfare District Fees.
The City will waive the greater of (a) $538,690.00 or (b) fifty-five
percent (55%) of such fees.
6) The City shall provide a density bonus to the developer, contingent
upon the approval of the project's General Plan amendment and
zone change, to permit a gross density of 21 units per acre and a
net density of 30 units per acre in the RMH (Residential Medium
High) zone, based on the merits of the developer providing an
affordable senior housing project within the City.
C. The Development Agreement is consistent with the .General Plan as
amended by the City Council (General Plan Amendment 97-002).
0
d. The Development Agreement complies with the Development Code and
other applicable ordinances, standards, policies, and regulations as
amended by the City Council (Zone Change 97-002).
e. The Development Agreement will not:
1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons
residing or working the surrounding area;
2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of
property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site; or,
3. Jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the
public health, safety, or general welfare.
E The Development Agreement provides for clear and substantial public
benefit to the City and residents along with a schedule for delivery of the
benefit.
g. The Development Agreement provides a schedule for the development to
be constructed within a specified time period.
h. The construction of public facilities are required in conjunction with the
development including, but not limited to, vehicular or pedestrian rights
of way, drainage and flood control facilities, recreational facilities, an
internal project trail, annexation to existing sewage treatment facilities,
and road improvements adequate to serve the development.
i. The Development Agreement, together with the adopted conditions of
approval, satisfies the following findings of Section 17.030.010 of the
Unified Development Code:
1. Provides for the prohibition of one or more uses normally listed as
permitted and/or accessory, subject to the Director's review, or
subject to permit in the zone where placed; and,
2. Limits future development and specifies conditions under which
further development, not included within the agreement would
occur; and,
3. _ Requires a faithful performance bond where deemed necessary to,
and in amount deemed sufficient to, guarantee the faithful
performance of specified terms, conditions, restrictions, and/or
requirements of the agreement. In lieu of the required bond, the
applicant may deposit with the City Clerk and assign to the City,
certificates of deposit or savings and loan certificates or shares
equal in amount to the same conditions as set forth herein; and,
5
4. Requires the review and approval of design criteria for the
exteriors of building and other structures, including signs; and,
5. Requires special yards, open spaces, and buffer areas, fences and
walls, landscaping, and parking facilities, including vehicular and
pedestrian ingress and egress; and,
6. Regulates nuisance factors such as noise, vibration, smoke; dust,
dirt, odors, gases, garbage, heat, and the prevention of glare or
direct illumination of adjacent properties; and,
7. Regulates operating hours and other characteristics of operation
adversely affecting normal neighborhood schedules and functions
on surrounding property.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds
as follows:
a. A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (MMRP), and Statement of Overriding Considerations for
this project have been prepared, circulated in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopted as certified
as required by the Act.
b. The project is compatible with existing development in the area, and
consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning as amended (General
Plan Amendment 97-002 / Zone Change 97-002).
C. The applicant has substantiated the findings for approval of a 30 -year
Development Agreement.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves Development Agreement 98-001.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-
first day after adoption.
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.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 19_.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 98-11 was regularly introduced and placed ;upon its
first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _day of ,
19_ That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of
the City Council on the—day of , 19_by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
JJL:JDR:lep
Pbs\counciAord981I jdr
. APR. 7. 1998 2:19PM CQk. CASTLE. NICHOLSON. CLP,
18. DEFAULT
NO, 4517 P. 107
Any failure by either Party to perform any tern or provision of this
Agreement, which failure continues uncured for a period thirty days following written notice
of such failure from the other Party, unless such period is extended by mutual written
consent, shall constitute a default under this Agreement. Any notice given pursuant to this
section shall specify the nature of the alleged failure and, where possible, the manner in
which the failure may be satisfactorily cured.
If the failure cannot reasonably be cured within thirty days, then the initiation
of activities to cure the failure, and the diligent prosecution of those activities to. completion
shall be deemed to be a cure under this Agreement.
Upon failure to cure as herein provided, the Parry alleging the failure may
institute legal or equitable proceedings to enforce this Agreement.
19. TRANSFERS
Developer shall not have the right to transfer all or any portion of its inierest,
rights and obligations under this Agreement.
of
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties execute this Agreement on this , day
—�� 1998, in Santa Clarita, California.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
U3
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
TAAHAM 2M5 346MI 6 41
HAMILTON LARKIN, LLC
By:
Christopher Santoro, Manager
APE. 7, 1998 2:19PM CQx, CASTLE, leiCliOLS�i+.. LLP, NO. 4517 P. 11
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description Oi Property
THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO IN THE. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. IN THE
COUNTY OF LCS ANGELES. STATE OF'CALIFORNIA. PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGES $21
AND 522 OF PATENTS. RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY AS SHOWN ON NAP OF PARCEL MAP N0.
18661 FILED IN BOOK 241 PAGES 54 TO 60. OF PARCEL NAPS. RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY
AS FOLLOWS;
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT N0
N . 39999 DSA
AP FILED IN BOOK 786 PAGES Al TO 92, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY WITH THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT 71.90 FOOT WIDE AND VARIABLE WIDTH EASEMENT OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT SHOWN ON SHEET 4 OF SAID PARCEL MAp N0.
18691; THENCE
1, SOUTWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE THROUGH ALL ITS VARIOUS COURSES .
TO THE SOUTHvESTERLY TERNIHUS of THAT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS
OF 42.00 FEST,AT,THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVE AT THE lLORTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT
CURVE COHCAvE 9OUTMMTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 2474.50 FEET AND BEING A POINT ON
ATHE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OFROTHAT 141.00 FEET AND VARIABLE WIDTH BASEMENT OF ZfIB LOS
NGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT SHOWN ON SAID SHEET D A RADIAL TINS
THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH S4. 25•.11• WEST; THENCE
2, ALONG SAID RADIAL LINE SOUTH 54. 23, ii` EAST 141.00 FEET TO A POINT Oto THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID 141.00 FEET NIDE EASEMENT BEING, ON A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 2333,50 FEET, TO WICK LAST SAID COURSE IS
RADIAL AND BEING ON 'THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY
FILED IN BOOK 270 PAGES 12 TO 16, I 0! PARCEL MAP NO. 19392 PER MAP
NCLUSIvz, OF SAID PARCEL MAPS; THENCE
3. NORTHEASTERLY ALONp SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY THROCCH ALL
ITS VARIOUS COURSES TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LZM OF BOUQUET CANYON ROAD As.SxCNV ON
SAID MAF OF PARCEL MAP NO. 166s1r THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTRWESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY VOUNOARY
TRACT NO..299921,,THENCE 0! SAID
S. WESTERLY ALONG
POINT oF•aEG2NNixo.SAID SQU`=RLY BOUNDARY THROUGH ALL ITS VARIOUS COURSES TO 2itE
-
EXCEPT H THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND DESCRIBSD IN DEED TO AMERICAN
SAID DONS FFICIAL RECORDS. AND TELLGRAFN.COMPANY RECORDED APRIL 17, 1164ASINSTRLroMM N0, 1S96 OF
AID O
SAID LAND 23 380" AS FARCEL 2 OF CERTIFICATE O
MARCH 13, 1997 As SNF COMPLIANCE N0. 101,577 RECORDED
STRUM@rT NO, 97-381414, OPlICIAL RECORDS.