Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - AMEND DEVELOPMENT AGMT PALMER (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: • • AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval_ Item to be presented by: Jigharo KopeckKopecky. Lynn M. Harris September ll, 1990 AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PALMER AND ASSOCIATES COLONY AND WESTCREEK PROJECTS; RIO VISTA ALIGNMENT Public Works/Community Development On August -14, 1990, the City Council adopted a resolution denying the Santa Catarina Project and finding that it is not appropriate for the City to enter into a development agreement for Santa Catarina. The Council then directed a public hearing be held September 11 on the remaining items in -the development agreement relating to the Colony Project 800 unit contingent approval and the Westcreek Project affordable housing transfer contingent approval. The City has also received a July 31, 1990, compromise proposal from the applicant seeking to retain components of the development agreement in return • for General Plan designations on the Santa Catarina site and the dedication of. the Rio Vista right of way through Westcreek. To date no direction has been received regarding the disposition of the applicant's July 31 proposal. • PUBLIC WORKS ANALYSIS The City Council, in its meeting of May 23, 1989, approved the alignment of Rio Vista Road between Bouquet Canyon and Lyons Avenue and directed staff to proceed with final design, environmental assessment and pursue financing. The Public Works Department was further directed to develop alternative alignments for the portion of Rio Vista between Lyons Avenue and the Placerita Canyon freeway onramps for Council consideration. Numerous meetings have been held with the Placerita Canyon Homeowners Association and .an alignment developed which addresses most of their concerns. In response to the homeowners request and as directed by Council, an alignment through Westcreek was pursued. The alignment would not be visible from the Valley; minimizes any negative impact; would note disrupt any existing residences; would provide access to the Masters College, and provide a bypass for Placerita Canyon. The County master plan, the SCAG Report and more recently the preliminary analysis by Kunzman Associates, the traffic consultant for the General Plan, all indicate the need for north/south roadways such as Whites Canyon, Golden Valley and Rio Vista. Staff has reviewed other alternatives presented and is of the firm conclusion that the present Rio Vista alignment is still the most viable of all options available. A meeting was held on traffic circulation and Rio Vista on September 6, 1990 with interested persons. Attached is a summary ofthe factors considered in the adopted Rio Vista alignment. * / Continued To; & -e, . Agenda AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGR 0ENT, PALMER AND ASSOCIATES • COLONY AND WESTCREEK PROJECTS; RIO VISTA ALIGNMENT Resolution No. 90-179 Page Two _ A failure to take advantage of the opportunity to build Rio Vista 'through the Westcreek right-of-way at the developer's expense would be loss .of a tremendous opportunity. The proposal submitted by the developer for approval of the Colony project and low/moderate income transfer on Westcreek in exchange for construction of Rio Vista through the Westcreek project should be seriously considered. It should be noted that the de"ieloper could proceed to seek approval for the Colony project with the County. Approval could be without our conditions and would exclude the construction of Rio Vista through the Westcreek Development. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS Designation of an approved road alignment by the City Council gives direction to Public Works and Community Development Staff in reviewing proposed individual projects and in preparing areawide plans such as the General Plan. The work completed to date on the General Plan indicates the need for an east/west roadway and notes severe capacity problems elsewhere if such a roadway is not built. The Council's action and disposition of the Santa Catarina project on August J.4, 1990, also gives direction. The applicant's July 31 letter proposes an alternative development plan for the Santa Catarina site that limits development . in the riparian area, the river and the canyons, and proposes a more typical density allocation (e.g., low density adjacent to low density uses, higher densities towards roads and industrial Fses). Potential build -out of the draft map for 914 units. The July 31 letter proposes to "pre -approve" a General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site. Unless negotiated within the Development Agreement parameters, there is no pre -approval process available as the draft General Plan is completed and scheduled for public hearing. Should this pre -approval be granted in the Development Agreement procedure, then it would appear to presuppose a public hearing and completion of environmental analyses on the revised project proposal. The subject property currently has a zoning designation and has been zoned for residential use. It would appear to be premature to initiate any zone change action without a specific project proposal. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER RECEIVING TESTIMONY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING 1. Pass a motion to approve the remaining items in the original development agreement. a) Would direct Staff to negotiate outstanding items and return to Council for final vote. is AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AAMENT, PALMER AND ASSOCIATES • COLONY AND WESTCREEK PROJECTS; RIO VISTA ALIGNMENT Resolution No. 90=179 Page Three _ b) Offers expedient project processing time to developer. 2. Deny the development agreement without prejudice and direct the applicant to file a new application with the Planning Commission. a) Permits developer to apply for new projects on all three'sites or individual sites subject to his discretion. b) Allows a new project to begin with updated environmental data and public hearings. c) Would create a delay of up to one year in the City's negotiations for roadway improvements that may or may not be made a part of the new application. 3. Conceptually approve the July 31 developer compromise excluding any reference to Santa Catarina, and direct Staff to incorporate these components into the final Development Agreement. a) Would permit construction of Rio Vista through Westcreek. b) Provides for 800 units in the Colony Project with road and other requirements. c) Revised development agreement would return to Council for Public Hearing and action. d) Recognizes Council denial of Santa Catarina development. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Alternative No 3. ATTACHMENT Notice of Public Hearing Rio Vista Road Overlay Palmer Letter 0 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PROPOSED DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED, FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 45023 (THE COLONY), AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32635 (WESTCREEK) TO AUTHORIZE A COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT OF THE VARIOUS PROJECTS NAMED APPLICANT G.H. PALMER PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN; A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita for consideration of the City Council regarding. the proposed draft Development Agreement, as amended, to authorize a coordinated development of the various projects named: The Colony - Vesting tentative tract map annexation and prezoning of 46.2 acres in -the County of Los Angeles to allow 800 residential units located East of Antelope Valley Freeway and West of Voodfall Road. Westcreek - Vesting tentative tract map for 903 residential condominium units on 117 acres located Northwest of the intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road. • The hearing will be heard by the City Council in the City- Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, the 11th day of September, 1990 at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300, Santa Clarita, Ca. If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing. Dated: August 27, 1990 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk Publish Date:. August 29, 1990 0 RIO VISTA ROAD — Council Directed Potential Routes Rio Vista Road Easterly of Rio Alignment Vista Road Necessary for circulation .................. Satisfied ................ Satisfied Addresses traffic demand upper Bouquet to Route 14 .... Satisfied ................Partially Satisfied Limited access ............... Satisfied ................ Satisfied Provide access to Lyons Avenue ................. Satisfied ................ Not Satisfied Access to commercial/ industrial centers........... Satisfied................Not Satisfied Utilizes $6 million interchange at Placerita/Route 14 ........... Satisfied ................Not Satisfied Limit amount of grading/ • disruption of hillside....... Satisfied................Not Satisfied Shortest distance to travel....................Not Satisfied ............ Satisfied Maximum grades and curve radii .................. Satisfied ................ Satisfied but reduces design speed Known environmental constraints (Bermite)........ Satisfied ................Satisfied depending on Route selected Provide alternative east/west route.through Placerita Canyon ............. Satisfied ................ Not Satisfied Minimize removal of existing residences.......... Satisfied................Not Satisfied Minimize right—of--way costs........................Satisfied with ........... Satisfied if oil MWD approval fields are not disturbed Minimize construction costs..Satisfied .... ............. Difficult to satisfy based on grading costs RK:ce 9/5/90 11 0 199a 31 July 1990 0 0 Mr. George Caravalho City Manager CITY OF. SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Ca 91355 Dear George: G. H. Palmer Associates Real Estate Oevelopment VIA MESSENGER We are sincerely disappointed with the City Council's sudden change of heart towards the proposed Santa Catarina Vesting Tentative Map, which has left both the City and G. H. Palmer Associates in grave danger of having wasted vast amounts of our.limited resources. Although the Santa Catarina project was met with what recently became insurmountable political opposition, it would-be unfortunate for either of.us to let some very focused opposition frustrate this otherwise popular and uniquely positive opportunity for the broader community. The City initiated this process to try to obtain several key road improvements of considerable value to the Valley's citizens, and there has been consistent and vocal support (even from some project detractors) for the road package. We are prepared to work with you to assure this process is successfully concluded with a happy compromise. In compromise we can make fruitful our considerable past efforts and provide a landmark agreement of which we can be proud which will help the City with its infrastructure deficit. We should stand together before the City Council in unified support of a pared down, less controversial agreement that preserves and provides the benefits that the City has worked so hard to obtain. As a healing gesture of good faith, we are willing to give the City the roads it wants merely for the opportunity to try to develop a project acceptable to the City at some time in the future. The resolution to this current process which lets the City come out a winner and would also help both of us to avoid controversy in the future would be as follows: Continued... 11740 SAN VICENTE BLVD. SUITE 208 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 C2131207-3100 PAX(213)207-2162 �J Ell Mr. George Caravalho 31 July 1990 Page Two At Westcreek Rio Vista will be constructed and dedicated as previously agreed and the affordable restriction stays removed. • Colony will remain as approved with one change. In lieu of the condition Golden Valley Road between Soledad Canyon Road and Sierra Highway (on right- of-way to be obtained by the City) be graded four lanes and paved two lanes, there would be the condition that. Golden Valley Road be graded four lanes and paved two lanes from Soledad Canyon Road to Ermine Street, including a bridge over the river .(the alignment to be provided to us by the City so to avoid or minimize impact to the McCoy property) . and it shall be Palmer's and not the City's financial responsibility to obtain the necessary right-of-way. i The City pre -approves General Plan land use designations which reflect.exactly what the Council and the public ultimately requested: no development in the riparian area, the river, or in the canyon below the houses on Label Avenue, an extension of the same density as Sky Blue Mesa across the top of the property, and gradually increasing mixed residential densities moving towards the Golden Valley Road/Route 126 intersection, (per the land use map attached exhibit A), approves and adopts zoning which conforms to those designations, a simple five lot parcel map, and commits only to provide. a normal processing schedule with no guarantee of approval for future vesting tentative map submittals. No specific project is approved at Santa Catarina as a part of the Agreement. The above is a "no lose" proposition for the City. We provide all the City's roads now andtake the very substantial risk Continued... E 1 El Mr. George Caravalho 31 July 1990 Page Three 0 that at some point in the future we may or may not receive an acceptable project approval. With these conceptual parameters established, at the appropriate time in the future, we are better able to bring forward a less controversial specific development proposal consistent with community sentiment. We understand this is no guarantee and all the then applicable environmental and regulatory criteria will have to be met. Adequate mitigations for any impacts identified at that time will be conditioned of future developments and the Planning Commission approvals will have to be obtained. This outlines a reasonable conclusion to our discussions which minimizes the potential for either controversy or the needless waste of past and future City resources, while helping the Community with its road problem and promoting goodwill. Best regards, 5?4&- - Dan Saxon Palmer, Jr. DMcs/73090.caravalho Enclosure 0 G.H. PALMER ASSOCIATES LATEST DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL G.H. Palmer Associates has submitted a new development proposal for their four housing projects. The following are those elements of the .proposal which are of a Public Works nature. WESTCREEK • Palmer agrees at their expense to dedicate the necessary right-of-way and construct Rio Vista.Road.through their project. THE FORMER SANTA CATARINA SITE • Palmer agrees to grade four lanes and construct two lanes of Golden Valley Road from Soledad Canyon Road -to the westerly projection of Ermine Street. • Palmer agrees to construct a two lane bridge across the Santa Clara River. • Palmer agrees to provide the financial responsibility of procuring • the necessary right-of-way for Golden Valley Road. • City agrees to. fix the alignment for Golden Valley Road, which alignment would minimize the affect on the McCoy property. THE COLONY • Palmer agrees to construct Golden Valley Road from Soledad Canyon Road to Ermine Street as outlined above. instead of from Soledad Canyon Road to Sierra Highway as originally conditioned when the Santa Catarina Project was still being considered at approximately 1000 units. • Palmer agrees to construct four lanes of pavement for Jake's Way to the existing terminus at Sierra Highway. Portions of this roadway may be completed by other developers conditioned on their project. • Palmer agrees to construct on/off ramps at Jake's Way and the Antelope Valley Freeway. • Palmer agrees to construct two lanes of pavement for Lost Canyon,Road to connect to Via Princessa. Portions of this roadway may be completed by other developers conditioned on their project. • Palmer agrees to construct bridge over Southern Pacific Railroad for Lost Canyon Road. This may be constructed in conjunction with an agreement for cost sharing by other developers/land owners. 8/7/90