HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - RIVERPARK PROJ (2)Agenda Item: _ 10
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
tkPUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by: Jeff Hogan
DATE: March 22, 2005
SUBJECT: RIVERPARK PROJECT
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Economic Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. City Council receive the staff report;
2. Receive public testimony;
3. Close the public hearing; and
4. Provide direction and feedback to staff on whether the additional information provided by
staff, including the project revisions, sufficiently address the Council's concerns; and
If the City Council determines that their concerns have been addressed, direct staff to prepare
the final responses to comments and return to the April 12, 2005, City Council meeting with
the project approval resolution, zone change ordinance, CEQA resolution (including the
Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations) and the Riverpark Final
EIR April 2005, approving the project as revised by the City Council.
JANUARY 25,2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
At the January 25, 2005 City Council meeting, staff provided the City Council with a detailed
overview of the Riverpark project. Staff also summarized the significant modifications to the
project that the Planning Commission had made during the nine public hearings. Some of the
more significant modifications recommended by the Planning Commission included moving the
development further away from the River corridor to preserve the mature riparian resources
A PROVEN
located along the western portion of the site; the redesign of Area D to eliminate grading at the
nose of the ridgeline separating the project from the Emblem community; the off-site dedication
of approximately 130 acres of the South Fork Santa Clara River; the redesign of the project's
park plan to incorporate all of the Parks and Recreation Commission changes; and, the
conversion of Area C from 420 apartments to 380 townhomes/condominiums.
The Council then opened the public hearing for the Riverpark project, received a presentation on
the project from the applicant, and received public testimony against and in favor of the project.
The City Council requested additional information, raised several items regarding the project,
and continued the public hearing to the March 22, 2005 City Council meeting in order to give
staff time to respond to the various questions and work with the applicant to address various
items raised by the Council.
MARCH 22,2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The purpose of tonight's hearing is to provide the information requested by the Council at the
January 25, 2005 public hearing. Furthermore, staff is requesting direction from the Council on
those issues that have not been resolved during negotiations with the applicant.
If the City Council finds that their concerns have been addressed and that the project issues have
been resolved, staff would request that the City Council direct staff to return to the April 12,
2005 City Council meeting, with the applicable resolutions and ordinances for approval of the
project, incorporating the recommended revisions to the project.
Lastly, the City Council directed staff to contact the Los Angeles County Regional Planning
Department to ask whether the applicant's West Creek project, which is also being heard on
March 22, 2005 by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors could be rescheduled. City
staff contacted the Department of Regional Planning and was informed that the West Creek
project had been continued to a date certain (March 22, 2005) and could not be moved.
ADDITIONAL INFORMA TION
The following is a detailed summary of the additional infortriation and project issues.
(On page 10 and 11 is a summary of the resolved issues, issues not agreed to by the
applicant, and partially resolved issues)
Future Vehicle Lanes on Santa Clarita Parkway
The City Council requested City staff to respond to the question on who would pay for the cost of
the future vehicle lanes on Santa Clarita Parkway, when the lanes are warranted by future traffic
volumes.
2
The Planning Commission recommended requiring the applicant to landscape two of the three
vehicles lanes in each direction of Santa Clarita Parkway (estimated cost is $360,000 to
$432,000), which would leave one paved vehicle lane in each direction until those additional
lanes were needed. Pursuant to the Commission's direction, the applicant modified the street
section for Santa Clarita Parkway to incorporate landscaping in four of the six proposed vehicle
lanes.
It was anticipated that when the two additional vehicle lanes in each direction on Santa Clarita
Parkway were needed, that the costs associated with improving the remaining vehicle lanes
would be funded by the Bouquet Bridge and Thoroughfare District via developer impact fees
which is estimated at a cost of approximately $360,000 to $432,000 (more specifically $10 to
$12 per square foot) in today's dollars which is similar to the cost of landscaping the vehicle
lanes. However, the demolition of the landscaping would not be covered by the District because
it would be considered an ineligible cost. The City would therefore need to utilize other funding
sources or require a future development to pay for the demolition costs. Staff is estimating that
it would cost approximately $51,000 to demolish the landscaping in order to pave the additional
vehicle lanes in the future.
Single Family Lots within the FEMA Boundaty
The City Council raised concerns regarding the project's encroachment into the existing FEMA
100 -year flood hazard area with residential lots 338 through 352 in Area A2. On January 12,
2005, the City received correspondence from FEMA issuing a Condition Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) for the project. In effect, FEMA has conditionally approved the project's bank
stabilization and is indicating upon completion of the project improvements, the affected portions
of the property (including lots 338 through 352) would be removed from flood hazard.
Furthermore, the area covered by these lots has not been affected by recent flooding along the
Santa Clara River.
The Riverpark FEIR, which includes a detailed hydrological analysis, concludes that the
proposed bank stabilization along with other project design measures will protect the proposed
development, including the 14 lots on the site from the 100 -year flood. The Riverpark project
also complies with the more stringent requirements of the County's 50 -year Capital Flood, which
includes a significant "bum and bulk" component. As a result, the "capital flood event"
methodology is far more stringent than FEMA's.
Ultimate Build -out of the Bouquet Canyon RoadlNewhall Ranch Road Intersection
The City Council requested staff to provide information on the ultimate build -out of the
Riverpark project and the potential impacts to the Bouquet Canyon Road/Newhall Ranch Road
intersection and the Bouquet Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road intersection. Both of these
intersections are projected to operate better in the future than the Bouquet Canyon Road/Soledad
Canyon Road intersection does today. This is due in large part to the diversion of traffic from
3
Soledad Canyon Road to the Cross Valley Connector. Additional required improvements at both
intersections would further improve their level of service.
The Cross Valley Connector, when completed, will result in a substantial reduction in vehicle
trips on Soledad Canyon Road. The Riverpark DEIR indicates that Soledad Canyon Road,
directly east of Bouquet Canyon Road, presently carries 57,000 vehicle trips per day. At ultimate
build -out of the Riverpark project and completion of the entire Cross Valley Connector, the
number of vehicle trips on this stretch of Soledad Canyon Road is significantly reduced to a total
of 36,000 vehicle trips per day. These reductions continue easterly along the Soledad corridor
and are all due to the Cross Valley Connector. Consequently, a reduced number of trips on the
Soledad Canyon Road arterial leads to improved intersection operation at these intersections.
Riverpark Viewshedfrom Soledad Canyon Road
The City Council expressed their concerns with views to the Riverpark project from Soledad
Canyon Road and requested additional visual simulations. The applicant has completed this work
and these simulations will be presented at the March 22, 2005 City Council meeting (tonight's
meeting).
The Council also wanted to ensure that Riverpark's architecture be of a "high quality" and that
final elevations be reviewed in detail prior to construction. The draft conditions of approval for
Riverpark require that the final colored elevations and site plans for the development adhere to
the City's Architectural Guidelines and be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
prior to the issuance of a building permit. All residential and commercial structures will be
required to provide articulated facades for all elevations that can be seen from public streets and
along the river corridor. The project shall utilize colors that are natural to the environment and
should include architectural features such as porch/entry ways, enhanced window treatments, and
building massing on all visible sides.
Alignment of the Santa Clarita Parkway/Newhall Ranch Road Intersection
The City Council requested City staff to respond to the question of whether or not the alignment
of Santa Clarita Parkway as shown on the Riverpark plan minimizes impacts to Central Park
when extended to Bouquet Canyon Road in the future.
The Santa Clarita Parkway alignment shown on the Riverpark tract map has been approved by
staff and the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA). This aligninent minimizes impacts to the
City's facilities at Central Park and CLWA's water treatment plant as it extends north of the
park, within a canyon between Central Park and CLWA's Rio Vista Treatment Plant.
4
Downlighting along the Santa Clara River
The City Council raised concerns about project lighting adjacent to the Santa Clara River
corridor.
The Riverpark Final EIR includes mitigation to reduce potential lighting impacts to a less than
significant level. The project will be required to adhere to this mitigation. Additionally, staff has
included within the draft conditions of approval a requirement that all lighting, including lighting
near the Santa Clara River corridor, be directed down, back shielded, or fully hooded to ensure
there is no light spillage into the river corridor.
Enhancement of the Water Guzzlers in the Santa Clara River
The City Council requested that staff look into the possibility of locating the two recommended
water guzzlers within the river corridor closer to the Santa Clara River Trail and increasing their
size, both for aesthetic purposes.
Staff will work with the project's EIR consultant to locate and size the guzzlers to meet the needs
of those species using the guzzlers. To encourage use, it is critical to locate the guzzlers away
from areas of public activity, such as the Santa Clara River Trail.
PROJECTISSUES
Cross Valley Connector
The City Council directed staff to negotiate with the applicant to further the project's
commitment to the completion of this portion of the Cross Valley Connector. As indicated at the
January 25 hearing, the Riverpark project contributes the necessary right-of-way (valued in 2000
at approximately $10 million) and bridge and thoroughfare fees (approximately $13 million).
The total cost, including right-of-way acquisition, for this segment of the Cross Valley Connector
is approximately $50 million.
As stated in the Riverpark EIR, the project can only occupy only up to 500 residential units
before this segment of the roadway, including the Newhall Ranch Road/Golden Valley Road
Bridge over the Santa Clara River, is in place. As presently proposed, the applicant has the ability
to grade and build Newhall Ranch Road only up to the last access point for the 500th unit,
leaving significant portions of the road right-of-way ungraded. Also, the applicant would only be
required to dedicate those portions of the road included within a recorded unit of the tract map.
A project of this size typically includes the filing of several unit maps under the approved tract
map.
Based on the Council's direction, staff worked with the applicant and is proposing three new
conditions for the Council's consideration. These conditions would considerably further the
5
applicant's responsibility for this segment of the Cross Valley Connector. The new conditions
are as follows:
1) The applicant shall grade the full right-of-way for the Cross Valley Connector from Bouquet
Canyon Road to the Newhall Ranch Road/Golden Valley Road Bridge over the Santa Clara River
prior to occupancy of the 500th unit. The grading for this portion of the Cross Valley Connector
shall be to certified sub grade and will also include the construction of the bridge over the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power Aqueduct.
2) The applicant shall dedicate the full right-of-way width for this portion of the Cross Valley
Connector, including the Newhall Ranch Road/Golden Valley Road Bridge, and Golden Valley
Road upon recordation of the first map.
3) The applicant shall develop a comprehensive funding program, subject to the approval of the
Director of Engineering and Building Services for the construction of the full width of roadway
and bridge improvements for Newhall Ranch Road from Bouquet Canyon Road to the Soledad
Canyon Road flyover (presently being constructed). The funding program for the construction of
this roadway would be consistent with the project approval and shall be in place no later than the
date that the City has completed the design for the Newhall Ranch Road/Golden Valley Road
Bridge over the Santa Clara River and is ready to bid the project.
Emblem Neighborhood
The applicant and Karen Pearson (Emblem resident) have finalized an agreement addressing
concerns (related to her view of Area D and uses within the adjacent open space area) cited by
Ms. Pearson at the January 25, 2005 Council meeting. A copy of this agreement will be
presented to the Council at this meeting. A condition of approval has been added requiring the
applicant to comply with the terms of the agreement.
Newhall Ranch Road PedestrianIPaseo Bridge
The City Council requested staff to re-evaluate and further research and analyze whether or not a
Newhall Ranch Road pedestrian/paseo bridge would be warranted. Using the City's adopted
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Study, staff completed an evaluation of a
potential pedestrian bridge at two locations on the Riverpark site. The City created the
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Study to provide an objective method in
determining whether new pedestrian grade separated crossings were needed or not. Based on the
information contained in the Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Study, criteria for
determining the necessity of a grade -separated pedestrian crossing is weighted due to its
importance. Weighting is provided to allow beneficial attributes to be valued higher than others,
thereby affecting the outcome of the evaluation. Survey results are scored as follows:
R
Points Recommendation
75-100
50-74
0-49
Consider grade separation
Marginal / further study required
No grade separation at this time
This Riverpark study prepared by staff is attached to the reading file of this report. The study
analyzed a potential pedestrian bridge at two locations generally located between the intersection
of Santa Clarita Parkway/Newhall Ranch Road and the western boundary of Area D. As
indicated in the study, the pedestrian bridge on the Riverpark site received a score of 51, which
makes it marginal at best.
Thus, based upon this analysis, a pedestrian bridge on the Riverpark site is likely not warranted
and would be used infrequently. A total of three signalized intersections would be available to
pedestrians between the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road/Santa Clarita Parkway and the
intersection of Bouquet Canyon Road/Newhall Ranch Road. These signalized intersections are
located adjacent to the Class I trail along Newhall Ranch Road and would provide the pedestrian
with a controlled, convenient access across Newhall Ranch Road.
In lieu of constructing a pedestrian bridge, staff has worked with the applicant to widen the
sidewalk in front of Area D from 5 feet to 9 feet. This widened sidewalk will provide an
enhanced width for both pedestrian and bike traffic along this portion of the project, providing
easier access to the four-way, signalized intersection located at areas Area A] and D ("A" Street).
Park Amenity Package
Based upon the City's parkland dedication requirements, the Riverpark project is required to
provide 10.07 acres of parkland. This requirement can be met either though the dedication of
land, a payment of in -lieu fees (appraised land value per acre times the required acreage) or a
combination of both land and improvements. The applicant is proposing to dedicate to the City a
five acre neighborhood park site as part of the project. Additionally, the applicant would receive
30% or 3.02 acres of credit for the private recreational facilities (a total of three) incorporated
into the project. The applicant's resulting acreage obligation under the City's requirement is 2.06
acres. Assuming a land value of approximately $800,000 per acre, the applicant's remaining
obligation in fees or improvements would total approximately $1.65 million dollars. The
applicant is presently preparing an appraisal on the park site to determine the per acre value
which could be lower or higher than the estimated value.
Based upon the above, staff and the applicant initiated discussions on a conceptual park amenity
plan. These discussions have resulted in a staff recommended conceptual park amenity plan. The
Riverpark park amenity plan includes the following components: an off-street parking lot
containing 16 parking spaces, tot lot, trellis shade structure with picnic tables, restroom building,
multi-purpose field, and various on-site trails. The applicant would be credited, subject to the
7
City's review and approval of the design, project management, and construction costs, as well as
fees, related to completing these improvements against the remaining obligation estimated at
$1.65 million dollars.
In light of the above, staff is recommending that a condition of approval be added to the project
requiring the following:
I ) The applicant shall be required to dedicate five acres of land and construct the park as
shown on the Riverpark Park Amenities Plan. This requirement is based upon the
approved project including a total of 1,089 residential units. Based on the estimated
value of $800,000 per acre (this value is subject to adjustment by an appraisal), the
applicant's remaining obligation pursuant to the City's Parkland Dedication requirement
is estimated at $1.65 million. If the applicant's costs exceed the remaining obligation, the
applicant and/or designee will receive City Parkland Dedication credit in an amount equal
to the difference between the remaining obligation and the park costs. If the applicant's
costs are lower than the remaining obligation, the applicant and/or their designee shall
pay the City an amount equal to the difference between the remaining obligation and the
park costs.
Planning Area D Apartment Conversion
The City Council directed staff to work with the applicant to revise Area D from apartments to
condominiums. The City Council expressed concerns with apartment units in this location.
The applicant has agreed to convert all of the apartment units (324) in Planning Area D (western
pad adjacent to the Emblem Neighborhood) to condominiums/townhomes. As a result of this
revision, the density in Area D was reduced from 324 units to 277 units — a reduction of 44 units.
In an effort to minimize the economic impact of this reduction, the applicant worked with staff to
redesign Area At to create 13 more single family lots. The project now includes a total of 657
condominiurns/townhomes (Areas C and D) and 432 single family homes (Areas A 1, A2 and B)
for a total of 1,089 residential units.
Donation of off-site acreage
Round Mountain Propert
To address comments received from the City Council and the public that the project include
more open space, the applicant has agreed to donate approximately 141 acres of property,
commonly referred to as the Round Mountain property, to the City of Santa Clarita. The
property, which also contains approximately 37 acres of Santa Clara River SEA, is generally
located directly east of 1-5 and north of Magic Mountain Parkway. Staff will add a condition of
approval requiring this donation as part of the project.
I
South Fork Santa Clara River Propert
To address comments received from the City Council and the public that the project include
more open space, the applicant has agreed to add an additional 20 acres to their original South
Fork donation of approximately 130 acres. The total donation of land within and adjacent to the
South Fork Santa Clara River will now include approximately 150 acres. Staff will add a
condition of approval requiring this donation.
Newhall Ranch Road/Grandview Propert
To address comments received from the City Council and the public that the project include an
off-site recreational component, the applicant has agreed to revise the Riverpark project to
include a dedication of 2.6 acres of land of the Newhall Ranch Road/Grandview property. The
applicant will provide the City with a letter confirming this dedication. The applicant is also
requesting that the City grant Newhall Land and/or its designee 1.3 acres of City Parkland
Dedication Credits for this land dedication. Staff is opposed to this request for Parkland
Dedication Credits as this would set a precedent to give credit for earthquake encumbered land.
North Valencia 2 (NV2) Upland Purchase
The City of Santa Clarita is presently required to purchase 61.1 acres of property from Newhall
Land as part of the NV2 Development Agreement. The purchase price for this property is
presently $613,800 or $10,045 per acre. The City has six years in which to purchase this
property which starts from when the trail was accepted by the City (2004). Pursuant to the
Council's request, the applicant has agreed to donate 24.27 of these 61.1 acres to the City of
Santa Clarita as part of the Riverpark project. The applicant will provide the City with a letter
confirming this donation. City staff is presently working with the applicant on a potential
modification to the NV2 Development Agreement that would require the applicant to donate the
remaining 36.83 acres to the City, which combined with the Riverpark donation, would eliminate
this purchase obligation.
NV2 Damaged Trail
The applicant has agreed to repair the portion of the San Francisquito Creek trail that was
damaged by recent flooding. This portion of the trail was not protected by bank stabilization.
The reconstruction of the trail, at an estimated cost in excess of $200,000, will include flood
protection to ensure that the trail is not damaged by future flooding.
Contribution to Saugus Action Committee
The City Council requested staff to work with the applicant to provide a cash contribution -to the
City of Santa Clarita/Saugus Action Committee for a Saugus Community monument sign located
on a triangular parcel of land on Bouquet Canyon Road near the Riverpark site. This sign has
been identified as a priority in the City's Beautification Master Plan.
The applicant has agreed to contribute $30,000 toward the proposed monument sign.
9
WorkforcelAffordable subsidiesfor Multi -family units
The City Council requested staff to work with the applicant on the feasibility of providing
workforce/affordable component as part of the Riverpark project.
The applicant has declined to incorporate this component into the Riverpark project. However,
the applicant has indicated to staff that a workforce housing component will be incorporated into
a future mixed use project proposed by the applicant along Soledad Canyon Road.
Dedication ofLand/Construction of a Cross Country Running Course
The City Council requested staff to work with the applicant on dedicating land and contributing
to the construction of a cross country running course as part of the Riverpark project.
As indicated above, the applicant has agreed to donate the approximately 141 acre "Round
Mountain" property to the City of Santa Clarita. Additionally, the applicant is dedicating 14
acres of property adjacent to the City's Central Park. The applicant believes that both properties
provide opportunities for the City to construct a future cross county course. The applicant is not
willing to provide funding for this future improvement, citing Riverpark's construction of over
two miles of the Santa Clara River regional trail, over two miles of the Newhall Ranch Road
Class I trail, and the trail connection to Central Park as fulfilling the project's recreational/trail
requirements.
Finally, it should be noted that the City's Parks Division has been working with local cross
country runners and Castaic Lake Water Agency over the past year on locating and constructing a
course and will update the City Council when an area is identified for a potential site.
Trail connection from River Village to Interstate 5
The City Council requested City staff to work with the applicant on providing a off-site trail
connection from Newhall Land's River Village project (first phase of the Newhall Ranch project
in unincorporated Los Angeles County) easterly to Interstate 5 which would then provide a
connection to the City of Santa Clarita's master planned trail system.
The applicant has stated that this trail connection will be constructed as part of the River Village
and Entrada projects, both of which have been submitted and are being processed by the County
of Los Angeles.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Resolved Project Issues
• Increased Cross Valley Connector Commitment
• Pearson (Emblem Resident) Agreement
10
Newhall Ranch Road Pedestrian Bridge
-Based on the analysis, the bridge is not likely warranted and would not be used
frequently. Three signalized intersections are located between Newhall Ranch
Road/Santa Clarita Parkway and Newhall Ranch Road/Bouquet Canyon Road.
These intersections will provide convenient controlled crossing points for future
project residents. The applicant has agreed to widen the sidewalk in front of Area
D providing easier access to the four-way, signalized intersection located at areas
Area At and D ("A" Street).
Park Amenity Package
Conversion of Area D to for -sale condominiums
Donation of off-site acreage
-Round Mountain Property (141 acres)
-South Fork Santa Clara River Property (150 acres)
-North Valencia 2 (NV2) Upland Purchase (24.27 acres)
NV2 damage trail will be fixed
$30,000 contribution to the Saugus Action Committee for a community sign and landscaping
Off-site Trail connection in Los Angeles County from River Village to Interstate 5
-Applicant has committed to construct in conjunction with the River Village and
Entrada projects
Workforce/Affordable subsidies for the Multi -family units
Project Issues not aSyreed to by the applicant
0 Dedication of Land/Construction of a Cross Country Running Course
Prot . ect Issues Partially Resolved
Donation of the Newhall Ranch Road/Grandview off-site property
-Applicant is proposing to donate 2.6 acres with a shared parking agreement
-The applicant is also requesting that the City grant Newhall Land and/or
its designee 1.3 acres of City Parkland Dedication Credits for this land
dedication. Staff is opposed to this request for Parkland Dedication
Credits as this would set a precedent to give credit for earthquake
encumbered land.
FISCAL IMPACT
As stated above, the last unfunded link (Newhall Ranch Road) for the Cross Valley Connector
runs through the Riverpark project site. Based on the 1,089 dwelling units currently depicted on
the project site, in addition to providing the right-of-way for this unfunded link, the project would
provide the following:
I I
Cost Breakdown Based on 2003 Estimates
Cross Valley Connector
(Bouquet to Soledad Flyover)
6 Lane Road / 4 Lane Bridge
* ROW acquisition cost expected to be higher — based upon 2000 estimate and based upon past
ROW acquisition on similar projects being higher than estimated.
**B&T obligation cited above is based upon 1,089 residential units and a one -acre commercial
site
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Pedestrian Bridge Evaluation Criteria Study available in the City Clerk's Reading File
FcacJr- 0"1 /9 S 0 V7 I_Q�
1 0 P & VX VA 12
Depa r�vh er-0—
No Riverpark
With RiveMark
Design
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
*ROW Acquisition
$ 10,000,000
$0
Construction
$ 26,500,000
$ 26,500,000
Contingency /Overhead
$ 10,000,000
s 10,000,000
Subtotal
$ 49,500,000
$ 39,500,000
** B&T Contribution
N/A
- $ 12,741,201
Total
$ 49,500,000
$ 26,758,800
* ROW acquisition cost expected to be higher — based upon 2000 estimate and based upon past
ROW acquisition on similar projects being higher than estimated.
**B&T obligation cited above is based upon 1,089 residential units and a one -acre commercial
site
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Pedestrian Bridge Evaluation Criteria Study available in the City Clerk's Reading File
FcacJr- 0"1 /9 S 0 V7 I_Q�
1 0 P & VX VA 12
Depa r�vh er-0—
ED
0
OD
;o 0 --1
o
0 =
W S. CD
oz
&
PL ;o
ED
Z,
5R
=
ED
-0
3
FT
CD
CO
CT
q
ED
0
ED
ED ED
(D
w ED
0
-0
z
ED
CD ED
:E ED
ED
Cl
ED
<
0
OWB
owo)E
Z -<S
r -MM3
ED ED
0
0 ED ED
0 m =
ED
0
@
ci 0
X Z @
I CD
Cl
E
CD ro
C)
DO
CT
0 0 ED
a CD
0 ED 0
- ED
ED
ED
ED 0, -
m COD - a
'D
ED
w ED
ED
ED
CO
0
Cl 0)
0
=
0
ED
ED
-M
B
CZ ED "0
3
ED
ED
ED CD
0)
(D
ED
ED o
o
ED
�n (D
0 a
0 0 (D
0) ED 0
a
0)
0 ED
*0 0
ED
ED 0
0
ED
=r ,
0 0 (D
CZD
ED
ED
0
m
(a 0 OD
0
o
5� 0 0
(D
ED
I
0
ED - ED
0 C -D
ED
- ED
ED
0) 0
0 C
0, D
C, 0
ED
CD
0
0 -
0.
0
= ED
ED
< S� CL
ED ED
ED
ED cn
0 0)
0
ED
Z
0
CD
ED
ED 'D
= ED
0
;u
:3 0
Q[)
CD
Z �
ED CD
0) ED
P- Do w
ED
a
� 0
ED
0
Cl
a
ED
ED
0
ED
0
0
cr
ED
CL
0
cr
ED
0
0
ED
(D
m
0
0)
F
ED
Cl
0
0
0
0
w
CD
Cl
ED
G)
ED
D
ED
ED
ED
0 P.
w 0
o
0
ED
-0
0
0.
9
0
CD
0
0
"a
0
0
3
CD
0
m
0)
E
0)
0
m
X
0
a)
ED
ED
0
-u
0
ED
ED
r-
0
0
9�
0
CD
0
1
00
'U
m
0
m
ch
z
Q
m
m
0
z
0
M
X
ch
m
m
m
--I
z
0
�n
r.
3 6
CD
CD
0
(D
CD
CD
C—D
I
m
0
0)
CD
<
0)
c
3
2
0
E
0) CD
CD 0
o
CD
Cb
n 0
0
0
CD
CD
53
R
0
0
(a
0)
C,
o 0) (D
C) 0 (D
(D
CD
Ln.
0
CD
0 z -< 0
CD
*0 fil -0
C 0
CD
- U�
0
9-
CO Z
0 CD CD
0
Z� 0
=.
'cr 0
c D.
< 0
m o m
:M c
0 cn 0
0
0
CD
o 0
1
"I,
5' C!n --a
c
w
0
0
a'
CD
=�
C 0)
CD CD CD
5,1 0
Z CD
c
(D
0 CD
0 w CD
0
'D 0
EY
0 -
M.
CD CL
CD
0
M M
0
(D
CD
a
3
0 =
CD
w
0. CD
T.
CD
0
= x
0
Ln
CD
03
0 CL
0)
0
0.
(D
0
CD
CD 0
CD
CD
m
5F
5D
;a
CD
0) CD
0
a
CD
D —
0
CD
0)
0
�j
a' <D
CD
0 CD
0
=
0
0
0
0
0
0
CD
CD
:E
0)
0
0
w
'U
m
0
m
ch
z
Q
m
m
0
z
0
M
X
ch
m
m
m
--I
0
:3
r
(D
w
0
1
00
41
z
Cl)
N)
;U z
0
o o
ElF
(D
CD
CD
CD
0
w
0
0)
(D
CD
0
CD
0
0
I
0
CD
CD
o
0.
0 tj w CY)
r- 0 cD
CD M
z H --I K
Ln.
CL
,
CD =
0 �r 0
E
CD
CD
0 0) CD
M
0 CD
9
CD
0)
CD '
CD
U 0
n
-
c 0
= ,
0
w
0
CD CD
0
0 CD
0
0 Q -'O
0
a) 0 CD
0
-
>
;:Po
CD
w 0
CD "
0
0
3
0
0 :2
(D 5 5
CD
CD
a
(n 0
0
CD CD
w
(D
(D
0
w 0
Cn CD
0
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
0
0�
0
CD
CD ,
w
m
'0
0
< <
CD CD
0
0
(D
0
0
w
S' D
>
CD
0
a 0 0
0
-
CD
a
CL E <
5- a CD
0
CD
0
0 S'
CD
CD
z
CD
o) E
9
m
0
0)
w
;,L 0
CD
CD
0.
=
0
P
w
CL
0)
0
CD
.1)
0)
0
0
x
-
x x w
0
a 0
0)
0)
0
CD
w
CL
OL
m
CD
CL
0
0
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
rm
CD
0
CD
w
0
CD
0
1
z
CD
0
z -0
w 0
3 6
CD
0
m
<
0) CD
0
n 0
0
W_-,
0
0)
CL
CD
9
CD
CD
CD
0
0
1
(D
0
0
0)
CL
a
M
m
0
m
ch
--I
X
z
Ou
M
m
m
c
q
0
z
0
X
x
Cl)
m
m
m
—q
CD
.91
0
co
Q)
Q)
C�
-0
m
a
m
Cl)
z
ca
X
m
m
0
z
0
X
x
CA
x
m
m
--q
X - Z z
9 --1
--j z -0
0 CD CD 0
:E 9
,
03
6 >
0 2 o
Iz
ff 0 9
=
CD
o m 0
-D
lz
C 3
W=
ID
0 0
0
CD
CD
CD
z
0
CD
CD
;2
0
-
o
CD
w
CD M
C, CD
0
0)
0
(D
m co
<
CD
0
_0
C
Ll
0
'0
w CD
N x
X CD 0
cn
CD
m 0- 0)
D -
0
w
CD
0
0
o �! -
= CD M
5:
CD
R�
0
0
, 0
0
CD
0
E5
0 (D CL
0
0
o - w 0
0. CD
0
0
0
m
0)
(D
r- W 0 CD
0
0
z
n
0
Z -< c
0
� co z
CD
CD
- <
0 CD
0
a
0 CD (D
I
Fr
CD 0 CD
I
CD Z CD
0) 0
0
1
Ep CD 0)
0.
CD
CD
0
CD
M.0
C
�
0 0
I *
CD
I
0
CD
0
n CD
2 -
C 0- n
CD 0) 0
1
CD
m
00 c m
(a o
0
0
0
0 7� -
m
M
CD
0
0
Co
0.
= o
N =
<
CD
0
0
0
0
CD
CD 0)
0
o CD
0
0
D)
0
- 0
TD' 0
0) ,
0.
CD CD
CD
0
0
2.
n
0
0 0
- 0) ;:�
CD
Z CD
0 - -
ID 0
n
a
0
CD
m <
0 R
3
-
0
0
CD
< CD
8. 1
C/) C
CD
a
CD
C7
m
0
0 =
0
CD CD
CD
a
CD
0) CD
CD
CD
-
0
CD
z
CD
0 -
0
9
0
:E 0)
:5 z
0
0
CD
CD
= CD
CD CD 0
0
CD
x -
0
0 CD
CD
CD
0) 0
M
CD
0
0
CD
(D
0
m
0
CD
(D
0
m
CD
U)
CD
I
3
ZD 0 CC
, a) 1
0. 0)
0
CD
0
W CD
CD
0
0 0
C7
ED
(D
0 0
CD
0
CD
0
EF
(D
<
0
CD
0
CD
0 -0 "
w
c
z
CD
0
0
(D
a
*
0
I
w
-
Z a)
(D
'a
CD
CD
(D
0
0
0
0
0
0
, 0
CD 0
0
CL
90
o
C)
CD
F21
0
0
I
-0
m
a
m
Cl)
z
ca
X
m
m
0
z
0
X
x
CA
x
m
m
--q
--I I
= 0
CD
'a
0
0
CD
a
(D
3
0
CD
0
cr
(D
0
0
CD
0
C, C.0
6
<
CD
C
:C 3:
I
CD
CD
0
a
(D
a
CD
CD
a
CD
z
CD
0
0)
CL
0
0
9�
0
n
0
CD
p
I
CD
'T�
0 CD
CD -0 < �T
0 -0 (D (L)
5
o 0
0 to
0 0
co w
-00- 0
000 3
0 0 0 CD
> > 0 0
0 >
0
CD
0
0
m
0
0
0
0
CL
u
c
CD
0.
0
u
CD
0
0
c
(D
CD
—0.
(D
0
0
CD
CD 03
z
0
c
0
0
j loz
CD
I
E3
0
0
CD
CL
CD
0
CD
E3
co
6
CD
z
3
CD
�L 0
m
m
(D
0
CD
a) 0 (D
CD CD
— CD — 41
0 , 0 a:
CO 00 0
C) 0 (D
0
CD 0
CD
CD a
CD (D
CD
-0
0
co
(D
0
0
9i
0
I
�r
CD
9
CD
CD
0
1
Cl)
w
z
(D
0
0
a
-0
m
a
m
Cl)
z
ou
M
m
m
c
0
z
0
Cl)
m
m
m
-q
w
0
0
(D
0
CD
0
0)
CD
0
E3
0 0)
-< z
CD 0
CD
CD
W I
0
CD
0)
0
co
0
CD
w
(D
(D
z
0
CD
0
re
2D'
0
0.
CD
0
CD
U — W
z K) > K
0 c 0
a > o
CD CD
0
, M
EF 6q
(D N)
w
u 3 o,
0 CD
< EF
CD (D
0
r- CD
CD E
0. cl
0
C
0
0
7�
CD
CD
C.
0
CD
0
0
3
CD
CD
0
CD
x x 0
w
cl
0)
CD
0
> -n
3
CD 0 0
0 =
o > 3 9 CD
b Ei C -D
0 > 0
7� a CD
CL M W
0
0 CD CD
CD CD
0 0
0
0 - D
(D CL
0
- <
< CD 0
(D 3 — 6 -
CD 0
3
-0
0
(D CD
< CD
CD 'o
I @
CD
3
(D
CD
CD
z
0
CD
C�
R
CD
0
CD
z
CD
:41
CD
I
0 W CD
-< z
CD 0
0
z -0
a) 0
3 9
CD
0
m
<
CD
0
0
0
z
CD
0)
0
M
m
0
m
CO)
--I
X
z
00
m
m
0
z
0
M
7s
Ch
m
m
m
—i
z
0
CD
0
1
00
K)
CD
CD
0
0
co
CD
(D �D
D
N
CD
o
0
CD
0
0
z
CD 0)
="a
0) �
0
0
CD
0.
0
0)
CL
(D
CD
.2.
(D
0
CL
CD
CD
x
0 .
CD
N
0
W, 10
CD 0
0
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
M
m — CD a,
I
CD E
0
CD
W
EF
CD
0.
<
Q)
E
0) CD
CL
0
CD
3
0
a
CD
9�
CD
6
CD
CD
0
CD
-4
(D 0
0
z 0 �u
o o (D
C ID
D ca
0 1 ID
CD 0)
CL
(b
CD
3
CD
—4
0
> 0 -n 0 m z
CD 0 a C)
0
3
CD CD CD
0
CD —
0 0 0
CD
0
CD
CD
-u
0
co
M.
CL
(c
CD
r-
0
0
a
0
z
CD
0
a)
CL
"V
m
a
m
cn
z
m
m
0
z
0
M
X
cn
:c
m
m
--I
T
(D
(C
CD
i��
Q)
C)
C.11
2
N
CD
0
CD
3
0
CL
CD
0
0
0
w
Ln
0
CD
CD
0
0
CD
0
3
3
N
a
0
CD
U,
=r
0
c
3
CD
0
X.
to
0
CD
m
a)
'0
m
CL
(D
0
i
(D
2)
0
0
cr
CL
to
CD
a: --i
0 =
:E CD
(D CL
C < (D
D w
CD
0 - CD
CD
0.
0
z
OW CD
0
0
5'o
0
CD
0
0)
a
CD
CD w
CD
CL
(D
CL (-0,
3 w
CD 0
CD ,
w EF
0) CD
0 C-)
3
E3
0) 0
CL c
W-
0
3
CD
0
u
CD
(D
(D
CL
0
0)
3
71
Cl)
=r
0
1
m
CD
cr
0
CD
CL
0
(D
9 K
CD
>
0
0
0
(D
0
0)
0' CD
CL
cc 3
CD CD
CD
(D
0
'D
0
0
m CD
0
3
a.
0
0
CD
0
CD
Z�
CD
CD
0
0
c
CL
(D
0
CL
0
CD
CD
0
W
m
CD
CZ
to
w
0
lu
0
0
0
tr
mm
CL
co
m
0
1
0
w
tn.
cc
.1)
S' -<
. CD
CD
0
0
CD
CD
x
0
CD
CD
0
N
0 CD
0 CD
0-0
CD
w
Z
CD
0
0
w
0 CD
0) CL
.0.
(D
CD
'0
w
W
D
CD
X.
-CD
0.
cc
N
Z 'a
0) 0
3 6
CD
0
Im m 03
tn < z
& E a
— c co
(D w CD
. 0
0
0
0
R
ca z
CD CD 0 M
x =3� c
0 W
0
CL 0
m 0)
0
a)
0
0
cn Z CD
CD g
U2 CD
CD
m
Im
0) CD
0
1
W
0
z
CD
0
0
0)
-0
m
a
m
C/)
z
03
M
m
m
0
z
0
M
x
Cl)
m
m
—q
Petition to the Santa Clarita City Council Requesting a
Landscape Maintenance District
This is a request that the hill between Emblem residents and the proposed Riverpark Development and that
portion of land that belongs to this development and borders the residents on the western side of Gavilan Drive
be included in a Landscape Maintenance District orl-MD, if this proposed development is approved. We
further request that this LMD and all of the other agreements made between Newhall Land and Farming and
existing residents of the Emblem tract be made part of the conditions of approval. This should provide greater
certainty for the aforementioned lot and the maintenance of the hill than what would be provided by a
Homeowners Association. We request this, with the understanding that Newhall Land and Fartning agrees
that the property levies for this LMD will be made to specified residents and owners in the Riverpark
Development and none of the levies will be made against existing owners of the Emblem tract and that the
LMD will reflect this. We also wish to stipulate that the agreements that have been made to maintain the
existing height of the hill and to maintain the property adjacent to the property owners on the western side of
Gavilan Drive shall be kept by the LMD.
Name
re V) I�C) CR- Y- S6 CN
(Print)
(Print)
5 OZze�
(Si2naturc)
Ac�"t'A (9 E-c(clnert—
Address
Phone #
�,)4��t7 Gravi ki--)
'(c
—Dr.
�2cf(.-C/930
if you choose)
S Oz V3:±�
C( ( �)s C)
-----------
Gl9k1l 1-9kl
P—
if you choose)
if you choose)
C�2-��6 w�L60
if you choose)
C;J-
- 24 d
if you choose)
Se 1 �1144
Petition prepared by Karen Pearson, resident of the Fmblem trwt: 26617 Gavilan Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91350.
6612964438
6- e3t- L-/
Petition to the Santa Clarita City Council Requesting a
Landscape Maintenance District
This is a request that the hill between Emblem residents and the proposed Riverpark Development and that
portion of land that belongs to this development and borders the residents on the western side of Gavilan Drive
be included in a Landscape Maintenance District or LMD if this proposed development is approved. We
further request that this LMD and all of the other agreements made between Newhall Land and Farming and
existing residents of the Emblem tract be made part of the conditions of approval. This should provide greater
certainty for the aforementioned lot and the maintenance of the hill than what would be provided by a
Homeowners Association. We request this, with the understanding that Newhall Land and Farming agrees
that the property levies for this LMD will be made to specified residents and owners in the Riverpark
Development and none of the levies will be made against existing owners of the Emblem tract and that the
LMD will reflect this. We also wish to stipulate that the agreements that have been made to maintain the
existing height of the hill and to maintain the property adjacent to the property owners on the western side of
Gavilan Drive shall be kept by the LMD.
Name
(Print)
Z-�
(Print)
(Signature
HIC-`f�--Z-A L-717�(-CV�
VJR."MIWA
A
Address Phone#
if you choose)
----------
ZALA1
if you choose)
1(32
7 ----------
K-61 z�10-3386
( if you choose)
07-� 6 OL) rkVtI-4AJ CC f Z97 6SO
A46-��--LL --- Y2� 0 ----------
P�
Qusm 6 VI (6'&L -/y5/
w7
if you choose)
Petition prepared by Karen Pearson, resident of the Emblem tract: 26617 Gavilan Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91350.
6612964438
6'=-' \,/
Petition to the Santa Clarita City Council Requesting a
Landscape Maintenance District
This is a request that the hill between Emblem residents and the proposed Riverpark Development and that
portion of land that belongs to this development and borders the residents on the western side of Gavilan Drive
be included in a Landscape Maintenance District or LIVID if this proposed development is approved. We
further request that this LMD and all of the other agreements made between Newhall Land and Fanning and
existing residents of the Emblem tract be made part of the conditions of approval. This should provide greater
certainty for the aforementioned lot and the maintenance of the hill than what would be provided by a
Homeowners Association. We request this, with the understanding that Newhall Land and Fanning agrees
that the property levies for this LMD will be made to specified residents and owners in the Riverpark
Development and none of the levies will be made against existing owners of the Emblem tract and that the
LMD will reflect this. We also wish to stipulate that the agreements that have been made to maintain the
existing height of the hill and to maintain the property adjacent to the property owners on the western side of
Gavilan Drive shall be kept by the LIVID.
Name
Address
Phone #
y4j),Q)m-O 41212CXIV �2 & 0-7 66 W CAA) /919, (66(Y�q
(Print) if you choose)
1/0
'Pri
-I--- -�. A - ----------
(Print)
(Print)
(Print)
(Si enature
� aw ZJV I Iffiffi ff I a Wra �I
,3a n -f G C kh v) -I,, �S S 5
e�,,S-I� - 6 -TS 0
(if you choose)
( if you choose)
( if you choose)
( if you choose)
Petition prepared by Karen Pearson, resident of the Emblem tract: 26617 Gavilan Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91350.
6612964438
(�;O-L/
Petition to the Santa Clarita City Council Requesting a
Landscape Maintenance District
This is a request that the hill between Emblem residents and the proposed Riverpark Development and that portion of
land that belongs to this development and borders the residents on the western side of Gavilari Drive be included in a
Landscape Maintenance District or LMD if this proposed development is approved. We further request that this
LAID and all of the other agreements made between Newhall Land and Fanning and existing residents of the Emblem
tract be made part of the conditions of approval. This should provide greater certainty for the aforementioned lot and
the maintenance of the hill than what would be provided by a Homeowners Association. We request this, with the
understanding that Newhall Land and Fam-iing agrees that the property levies for this LMD will be made to specified
residents and owners in the Riverpark Development and none of the levies will be made against existing owners of
the Emblem tract and that the LMD will reflect this. We also wish to stipulate that the agreements that have been
made to maintain the existing height of the hill and to maintain the property adjacent to the property owners on the
western side of Gavilan Drive shall be kept by the LMD.
Name
(Signature)
(Print)
(Signature)
(Print)
(Signature)
(Print)
(Signature)
Address
6' 0 C3 CR L) /,/C/
-5q,'
Phone #
if you choose)
if you choose)
( if you choose)
( if you choose)
( if you choose)
Petition prepared by Karen Pearson, resident of the Emblem tract: 26617 Gavilan Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91350.
6612964438