Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - GH PALMER ASSOC DEVAGMT (2)• PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: Ll AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval. Item to be presented' y: Mark Scott March 13, 1990 Proposed Development Agreement, G. H. Palmer Associates Community Development /v6 Overview The City of Santa Clarita and G. H. Palmer Associates are proposin g•. to.enter into a Development'Agreement. Under the terms:of the. proposed agreement (attached)',,G. H. Palmer Associates,agrees`to construct or to pay for..numerous.,and substantial road' system improvements which,' 'in aggregate, far exceed the normally required.. development exactions. In return for this conside.ration,.::the;City would approve various project applications by. G. H: Palmer Associates, and.would agree to hold various development codes and regulations constant as. they relate to these projects.for,a.period of ten years. (A more detailed explanation of these provisions is provided below.) What is a Development Agreement? As per the League of California Cities legislative task force on development agreements: A development agreement does not take the place of any:of the: existing.land use approval requirements. It is like.a planned unit development which is used for complex development proposals to set forth the basic outline of the development. The difference is that under a development agreement -both the city and the developer are committing themselves to proceed in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The city may agree to process further applications in accordance with its i plans and laws in existence at the time of the agreement. In effect, the city promises not to change its planning or zoning laws applicable to this development for a specified period of gime. Thus future land use decisions are not made according to the cities' laws and policies in effect at that time, but are made according to the laws in effect when the agreement was entered into. In return, the developer may agree to Agenda Item: construct specific improvements, provide public facilities and services, develop according to a specified time schedule or make other commitments which the city might otherwise have no authority to compel a developer to perform. There are no precise requirements setting forth exactly what must be contained in a development agreement or exactly at what stage of the approval process a development agreement may be entered into. The laws applicable to development agreements (Government Code Section 65864 et seq.) were deliberately written to be flexible. They are designed to allow the public agency and the developer to enter into an agreement corresponding to the specific problems that are raised by a particular development. Statutory requirements indicate that a development agreement must specify the time during which the city agrees not to change its regulations, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of uses, the size of buildings, and provisions for dedication or reservation of land for public purposes. The agreement may also include any other terms and conditions including time schedules for development or additional public services and facilities to be provided by the developer. Required Actions In order to be approved, a development agreement must ultimately be adopted by ordinance of the City Council. Prior to this action, the City's Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing following proper public notice. The Planning Commission does not approve or disapprove the development agreement. Rather, it makes a recommendation in writing to the City Council. In most instances, the recommendation must include the Planning Commission's determination whether or not the proposed development agreement: (1) is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City's general plan (see below); (2) is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located (see below); (3) is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice; (4) will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare; �5) will adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. 2 r In the case of the City of Santa Clarita, which currently operates without an adopted General Plan, State law provides that instead of Findings 11 and 12 (above), the Planning Commission must make findings whether or not the proposed development agreement meets all of the following requirements: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Current Proposal The Planning Commission has now reviewed the Development Agreement and the individual projects associated with it. Both the Santa Catarina and the Vista Terrace projects were approved, conditioned on adoption of the Development Agreement. The Colony Project was denied. The Planning Commission recommends adoption of a revised Development Agreement absent those portions which relate to The Colony. In order to pursue construction of the City's much needed road system, the City approached G.H. Palmer Associates to determine whether there might be an opportunity to obtain road funding as part of a development agreement which would, in turn, secure approval of various proposed development projects. In summary, the original agreement calls for the applicant to construct or otherwise fund the following improvements: * Golden Valley Road would be fully improved to 4 travel lanes within the Santa Catarina project, and graded for 4 lanes/paved for 2 lanes from the project to Soledad Canyon Road. * The applicant would acquire right-of-way and construct Newhall Ranch Road (graded for 4 lanes/paved for 2 lanes) from its intersection with Golden Valley Road to the existing easterly terminus of Newhall Ranch Road. * The applicant would also contribute $3 million to be used toward the cost of constructing the Rio Vista Road bridge from Bouquet Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road. 3 * As part of his Westcreek project, the applicant would improve Rio Vista Road through that project and would realign Dockweiler Road to the City's specifications. (It should be noted that in order to achieve these improvements, the applicant would remove already constructed road improvements and utilities, and construct them again on new alignments. The work required herein is very substantial and more costly to the applicant than one might otherwise recognize without visiting the site.) * As part of his Vista Terrace project, the applicant will participate in private, joint funding of Golden Valley Road from Sierra Highway to the Antelope Valley Freeway (including 4 lanes of paving, bicycle paths and a gateway entry treatment). * As part of The Colony project, the applicant will construct Jake's Way to 4 -lane width through the project to its terminus at Sierra Highway. The applicant will also complete Lost Canyon Road through his project and will construct the bridge improvements over the railroad property, with the understanding that he may be (but is not guaranteed to be) reimbursed for the bridge by other future development projects which benefit by the construction. In consideration of the above, under the original Development Agreement proposal, the City would approve several development proposals, including: * Tentative Tract Map No. 45022 and related applications for the project known as Vista Terrace (at Golden Valley Road and Sierra Highway). * Tentative Tract Map No. 31236 and related applications for the project known as Santa Catarina (Southwest of Sky Blue Mesa). * Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 45023 and related applications for the project known as The Colony (east of the Antelope Freeway and west of Woodfall Road). * Agreement to allow the affordable housing requirement (for 226 units) for the applicant's Westcreek Project to be transferred to a nearby, existing multi -family residential project which is also owned by the applicant. * Agreement, through the Development Agreement, that approvals will be good for a period of ten years and that various rules of development (i.e., zoning codes, fee schedules, etc.) will be held constant for the duration of the agreement. M 0 0 As with any Development Agreement, there are publicly negotiated trade-offs involved. In return for the substantial funding of road system improvements, the applicant has received expedited application review and would benefit from a secured, 10 -year approval of projects. City Council Review Procedures Staff had previously noticed the Development Agreement and related projects for City Council public hearing on March 13. This was done as a good faith gesture toward the applicant who has some severe time limitations involving the financing on his Westcreek project. Because there are now appeals pending on several elements of the package, however, it is necessary to do further public notification. Therefore, the formal City Council public hearings cannot be started on March 13. Staff is suggesting the following sequence of meetings: March 13 - Staff introduction of the Development Agreement and related projects, and continue the public hearing to March 27 March 27 - Formal public hearings and possible first reading of ordinance to adopt the Development Agreement April(tba) Any continued public hearings and second reading of ordinance to adopt The March 13 session relating to the Development Agreement should be confined by the City Council to receiving information from staff and the City Attorney,.and for the City Council to seek any clarifications of fact or analysis that the Council may desire prior to formal public hearings. It is not advisable to receive any public testimony from either the applicant or the general public on March 13. Regarding the March 27 formal public hearings, the City Council will want to conduct them in the following manner: I. Development Agreement Open the public hearing to receive overview comments only. (Specific testimony on the various projects should be made under the project -specific public hearings.) * Staff report by Director of Community Development * Overview comments by City Manager and Public Works Director * Testimony by applicant (G. H. Palmer Associates) * Public comments in favor * Public comments in opposition (or "other"). - Prior to rebuttal comments or City Council comments, recess the public hearing and move on to the specific project public hearings. (City Council will return to this public hearing later.) 5 II. Santa Catarina Project - Open the public hearing (a consolidated public hearing on any appeals and on rezoning for the site) - Staff report by Director of Community Development - Testimony by applicant - Public comments in favor - Public comments in opposition (or "other") - Applicant's rebuttal - City Council questions of staff or any speaker - Close the public hearing - Entertain a motion - Discussion on motion - Vote to approve, deny, or continue III. Vista Terrace - Open the public hearing on the appeal (Note: Staff anticipates that the appellants may opt to defer this hearing pending City Council review of the Development Agreement. This situation is described in detail below.) IV. The Colony Project - Open the public hearing (a consolidated public hearing on an appeal, prezoning and annexation) - Staff report by Director of Community Development - Testimony by applicant - Public comments in favor - Public comments in opposition (or "other") - Applicant's rebuttal - City Council questions of staff or any speaker - Close the public hearing - Entertain a motion - Discussion on motion - Vote to approve, deny or continue V. Return to Development Agreement Hearing - Ask for any additional staff comments (the public hearing will still be open) - If desired, accept any additional public comment Applicant's rebuttal - If appropriate, close public hearing or continue the public hearing - If closed, entertain a motion - Discussion on motion - Vote to introduce ordinance approving the Development Agreement, deny or continue A Support Documents Staff has included various documents in this binder to support the City Council's review of the various applications. These materials include: Tab 1 Development Agreement * Copy of the original Development Agreement (as proposed to the Planning Commission) * Copy of the revised Development Agreement (as modified by the Planning Commission to remove The Colony project) * Copy of G.H. Palmer Associates agreement with the School Districts which affect Santa Catarina and The Colony projects. Tab 2 Santa Catarina Project * Copy of the resolution of approval for this project * Copy of letter from G.H. Palmer Associates to Charlotte Belsick regarding proposed changes to the Santa Catarina approval * Copy of the March 1 staff report to the Planning Commission * Copy of the February 6 staff report to the Planning Commission * Copies of materials received in testimony from the public Tab 3 Vista Terrace Project * Copy of the resolution of approval for this project * Copy of the March 1 staff report to the Planning Commission Tab 4 The Colony Project * Copy of the March 1 staff report to the Planning Commission * Copy of the February 6 staff report to the Planning Commission * Copy of letter from Sanford Goodkin supporting the land use proposal. The City Council was previously given copies of the environmental documents for the Santa Catarina, Vista Terrace and The Colony projects. Staff has not distributed copies of the numerous traffic, soils, geology, architectural and other background consultant reports. If City Council members feel a need to see any of this material, staff will make it available. Similarly, the Santa Catarina project file includes a great deal of correspondence from residents in the area, and the Development Agreement file includes numerous letters of support that had been sent tg the Planning Commission. Staff has not included all of these materials in this binder, but will attempt to organize these materials and make copies available to the City Council under separate cover prior to March 27. 7 0 ANALYSIS The remainder of this report will be dedicated to summarizing the issues relating to the three specific projects. This review will include a summary of Planning Commission comments on each. SANTA CATARINA Due to the extensive coverage, this project is no doubt familiar to the City Council. The project application calls for construction of 1,452 condominium units on a site of roughly 135 acres. There would be 10 lots created, with a maximum of 11 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting zone change from A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural) and M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) zoning to RPD -11U zoning (which means Residential Planned Development, 11 units per acre). A conditional use permit (CUP) was also approved to implement this zoning. (The staff reports under Tab 2 provide greater detail.) During the Planning Commission process, three public meetings were held by staff with residents of the neighborhood and numerous smaller sessions were also conducted both in City Hall and on-site. Staff estimates that more than 150 residents participated in one or more of these meetings. The applicant also participated in many of the sessions. Both the Planning Commission and the residents addressed numerous questions to staff and the applicant during this process. Staff asked the applicant to respond to many of these questions and his written reply is provided as part of the March 1 staff report, included under Tab 2. After extensive public testimony, staff recommended approval of the project on the basis that the following questions had been adequately answered: Question #1 Is the Development Agreement concept a reasonable and realistic concept7 Staff answer: Yes. The concept is that the City needs to find a means to catch up with years of infrastructure deficit (in this case for roads) without assessing citywide debt or taxation. While many residents expressed concern that the Santa Catarina project would create new traffic, staff sees the situation as one where the net gain far outweighs any new traffic flow, and that the eventual full system of roads will resolve the existing traffic congestion problem. This project represents a necessary first step for the City. N 0 • Question #2 Are the environmental reports and mitigations adequate for this project? Staff answer: Yes. After exhaustive review by the community and various agencies throughout the State and the region, there do not appear to staff to be any unmitigated and significant impacts. As mentioned in the March 1 staff report, the applicant worked with staff to mitigate or eliminate those concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and residents. Briefly, these included: Schools - The applicant entered into agreements with the Hart and Saugus Districts. (A copy of the agreement is included under Tab 1.) An attorney representing the Districts appeared before the Planning Commission supporting the agreement. Some residents felt the Districts should not have CP agreed, but the City has no control, obviously, over.that situation. Interface Impact with Existing R-1 Homes - The applicant provided charts illustrating that the nearest existing homes were more than 300 feet away from the closest of the Santa Catarina units, and were elevated by at least 100 feet above the Santa Catarina units. Further, the applicant worked with staff and made dramatic upgrades to the quality and design of the condominium project. Extensive landscaped buffering will also be provided. The City will have complete architectural and landscape design control to ensure this level of quality. The result will be that the interface with existing homes will be controlled. Because of these design and topographical mitigations, staff saw no reason for concern over interface problems. Traffic - Residents felt strongly that the project would contribute to more traffic through their residential streets (particularly Ermine and Steinway). City traffic engineers felt equally strongly that the net impact would be to reduce the traffic impacts on the.existing area, although it is clear that Ermine Street, at and near the point of connection, would receive increased traffic volume. c After working extensively with the neighbors, staff altered its recommendation to provide that Ermine Street would be connected, but not opened at least until the Santa Catarina project is completed and until other arterial roadway connections are made to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and City Council. Further public review would be required. Staff does believe that the Ermine Street connection will eventually be deemed desirable, but it is not necessary to serve the Santa Catarina project. Utility Capacities - Staff is unaware of any capacity problems with any of the local utility providers. Hillside. River and Open Space Needs - The applicant agreed to City review and approval of all grading work. He also agreed to dedicate Lot 10, along the Santa Clara River, to the City to allow protection of the river environment. Similarly, the canyon area on the eastern end of the project will be maintained as natural open space.- Staff is unaware of any significant, unaddressed concerns relating to hillside and river matters. Question #3 Can the City Support the proposed multi -family residential land use for this site? Staff answer: Yes. This is the most difficult of the four questions to answer. However, the applicant has made it simpler by designing a sensitive hillside project and preserving so much open space area. Several considerations are relevant: * This entire area is not suited for single-family residential use. The site is split by the Golden Valley Road alignment and it is located very close to a major arterial intersection of Highway 126 and Golden Valley Road. Further, the site looks down over an industrial development. * Given the above, it is likely that, at minimum, some transitional treatment between residential uses would be desirable within or near the site. * From a topographical standpoint, the separation in grade from Label Avenue makes it a logical transitional point. (Golden Valley Road itself creates the other obvious possibility.) 10 0 • While staff joined the Planning Commission in wishing for less density, staff advised that the land use consistency issue could be answered in the affirmative. Question 14 Is the project itself acceptable? Staff answer: Based on all of the above and the sensitive design treatment, staff feels the project is very acceptable. The Planning Commission accepted the staff recommendation and approved the project on a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Garasi commented that the applicant had made substantial improvements that brought the project nearly to where she could support it, but that the land use and density concerns still caused her concern. The applicant followed up the Planning Commission meeting by accepting the challenge by Mayor Darcy and other City officials to keep working with the neighbors to try to resolve their ongoing concerns. On March 6, the applicant and one of the neighbors presented a further compromise which they wish to have considered by the City Council. The substance of this compromise is included in writing under Tab 2, and can be summarized as follows: * Reduction in the density of the project on Lots 3, 4 and 9 by replacing multi -family attached units with single-family detached units. * Contribution of $75,000 toward sound buffering of nearby homes through joint committee with the residents. * Contribution of $50,000 for maintaining and enhancing the riparian on the east side of the site. * Contribution of up to $100,000 for park improvements on a hillside pad between the applicant's property and nearby residents' properties. * Agreement to dedicate land for a fire station at the northerly end of the applicant's property. In consideration for the above, the applicant and the residents joined in asking the City to modify the Development Agreement and Tract Map to delete the $3 million Rio Vista bridge contribution, the pedestrian bridge over Golden Valley Road, and the obligation to construct or bond for the northerly portion of Golden Valley Road. Staff supports only reduction of the bridge contribution, not to exceedc$3 million. Staff does not support the other two requests regarding the pedestrian crossing and the Golden Valley Road extension. 11 Lease vs. Sale of Units - One other issue not mentioned above is the issue of lease vs. sale of units. The applicant is well aware of the City Council's sentiments and has stated that his intent is to sell all units. The Planning Commission sought to include language memorializing this agreement, but the City Attorney's office and Mr. Palmer's attorney both advised that such language is not legal. However, Mr. Palmer did agree to include a provision stating that if the units are ever leased, the lessee will be given an opportunity for lease -purchase of the units. Staff is not certain of the enforceability of such language, but if reflected the best effort of the Planning Commission, staff and the applicant to meet the City Council's objective. VISTA TERRACE The Vista Terrace project was very well received by the Planning Commission and was approved conditioned upon approval of the Development Agreement. Vista Terrace is one of five private developments which are working together to pursue construction of Golden Valley Road improvements as called out under this portion of the Development Agreement. The City is working with these parties in hope that a mutually satisfactory assessment district structure can be established for this purely private improvement financing. The parties to this proposed financing have appealed the Planning Commission's approval, seeking to remove the condition requiring approval of the Development Agreement. In fact, staff would be willing to consider dropping the condition, but not while the Development Agreement is still being actively pursued on the expedited timeframe. As for the Vista Terrace project itself, the Planning Commission had reviewed it several months earlier and asked for several modifications. The developer had met all of those conditions to the satisfaction of the Commission, so they approved the project unanimously. THE COLONY The application for The Colony calls for subdivision, pre -zoning and annexation of a vacant 46.2 acre site adjacent to the Antelope Valley .Freeway. The applicant is seeking to construct 800 condominium units, with appurtenant parking, landscaping and recreation facilities. They are seeking an R -3 -17U -DP zoning, meaning Limited Multiple -Family Residential, 17 dwelling units per acre, Development Program zoning. A conditional use permit (CUP) would be necessary to implement the project.. An Oak Tree Permit is also included to allow possible intrusion within the protective zone of three California Coast Live Oaks. However, the applicant has O indicated that this may not be needed. 12 • The project is currently within the County of Los Angeles and is not clearly contiguous to the City. The applicant would be required to secure annexation to exercise any entitlements, and is aware that this is his obligation to satisfy. The City would agree, under the Development Agreement, to cooperate in seeking the annexation. (Additional detail concerning the project is provided in the February 6 staff report under Tab 4.) As with the Santa Catarina project, the Planning Commission asked staff and the applicant, during the February 6 public hearing, to address a number of concerns. The applicant's responses to those issues are incorporated in the March 1 staff report under Tab 4. At the March 6 continued public hearing on The Colony, the applicant presented several oral arguments in support of his proposal, including: (a) Design - The project architect presented a model and renderings of a very different and good quality architectural design for the project. The design provides for significant upgrading of the quality of the project and appeared to be well-received by the Planning Commission. Landscaping designs were also presented, depicting both internal landscaping and the buffering provided along the site exterior. (b) Circulation - The applicant explained his agreement to construct the Lost Canyon bridge over the railroad property. Mr. Palmer will seek City support in requiring future projects in the City to reimburse their proportionate share of the cost. (c) Coordination with Neighboring Projects - At the Planning Commission's request, Mr. Palmer met with John Morrisette and with Bill Kloyd concerning their adjacent projects. Staff attended the meeting with Mr. Morrisette and it appeared to resolve coordination issues. Mr. Kloyd testified at the March 6 public hearing and expressed a variety of sentiments, some favorable and some unfavorable toward The Colony project. (d) Land Use - Mr. Palmer prepared and presented an overall evaluation of land uses on the eastside of the Antelope Valley Freeway. His conclusion was that the best location for non-residential uses would be further south --either at the conjunction of the 14 Freeway and Route 126 or at San Fernando Road. He presented a report by real estate economist Sanford Goodkin stating that The Colony e site is inadequate for non-residential uses because of the limited size and inadequate freeway access. Mr. Goodkin's report is included under Tab 4. (Further staff comment on these arguments is provided below.) 13 The Planning Commission eventually voted 4-0 to deny the project. In doing so, they asked staff to communicate to the City Council the following reasons for their action: (a) The Commission felt that approval of multiple -family residential land use is inconsistent with the work the GPAC is doing, and that it is premature to approve it without full evaluation of the GPAC's position. (b) Commissioners felt that Business Park zoning should be evaluated for the site, though they acknowledged that it may not prove to be the proper land use. (c) It was felt that the need for jobs creation on the east side of the City should be addressed before new residential zoning is granted. (d) The Commission asked for evaluation to determine how much multiple -family residential development can be supported in the Canyon Country area. (e) The need for berms, walls and/or grade separation from the railroad tracks was cited as a very serious concern, for sight and should attenuation and to protect the safety of residents. (f) Commissioners expressed doubts over the use and design for the strip of property south of the railroad. (g) The Commission suggested further evaluation of the river and how/whether some sort of channelization is needed. Staff's position on The Colony project was that time had not allowed staff to perform the comprehensive planning analysis that the Planning Commission had desired. Due to the public's involvement, staff's attention over the last month has been primarily focused on the Santa Catarina project. It should be understood that this does not represent opposition to The Colony. In fact, there may be compelling reasons to support it. These include: (a) The County has adopted the Canyon Park/Provence Specific Plan, which calls for multiple -family residential development across a broad portion of the land to the south of The Colony. This could possibly create conflict with the GPAC's tentative plan. jb) The on/off ramps at Jake's Way are designed only as a half -cloverleaf. Without encroaching upon the river, there are problems and extreme costs associated with any plans for a full cloverleaf. 14 0 (c) If freeway access is restricted, then traffic to a business park in the area (per GPAC) will either have to approach from the south on Lost Canyon Road (through a residential area) or from Sand Canyon Road (past the elementary school and Pinecrest Centers). Staff felt that further study of these issues and those of the Planning Commission would lead to proper decisions on The Colony proposal. Staff will continue to work diligently in an effort to clarify these issues. The GPAC's continued review of the land use map (including a scheduled workshop on Saturday) may also be of assistance. City Council Options As indicated, the March 13 meeting is only an introductory session, so formal City Council action, other than continuance of the public hearing, is not necessary or appropriate. City Council comments or questions will, however, be appreciated. On or after March 27, the City Council will have several options, including: (1) Adoption of the entire Development Agreement package, including Santa Caterina, Vista Terrace and The Colony. (2) Adoption of a reduced Development Agreement package, with reductions to the Santa Catarina and/or The Colony projects. (3) Denial of the Development Agreement, with or without approval of any of the three projects. (For example, the Vista Terrace project could be adopted with or without the Development Agreement.) (4) Variations of the above. Staff will be pleased to address any further City Council questions on March 13. r 15