Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - GH PALMER DEVAGMT PH (2)J AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: PUBLIC HEARING Mark Scott DATE: March 27, 1990 SUBJECT: G.H. Palmer Development Agreement and Related Public Hearings DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On March 27, 1990, the City Council will begin the public testimony portions of its public hearings.on the Development Agreement and.related G.H. Palmer Associates projects. Technically, the City Council will need to conduct four separate hearings and to take separate actions on each. Staff recommends that the public hearings be held in the following order: .1. Vista Terrace - Public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 45022, Conditional Use Permit �No�87-017 and Oak Tree Permit No. 87-017; 2: Santa Catarina - Consolidated public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 31236, Rezone'No. 897006, and Conditional Use Permit No. 89-015; 3. The Colony - Consolidated public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 45023, Prezone No. 90-002, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-002, and Annexation No. 90-002; and 4. Development Agreement - Public hearing. At the end of each public hearing, the City Council may take action ranging from approval, modification, denial, continuance, etc. The range of options is too wide to list here. It should be understood that approval of the Development Agreement,.or.of.any.,..rezones.or prezones, would require adoption by ordinance - which requires first reading at one meeting and actual adoption at a subsequent meeting. Other actions (denials, actions on tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, oak tree.permits, etc.) would be taken by resolution and require a single action to approve. At the last City Council meeting, staff made an overview presentation on each project. Staff will provide only a very brief introduction to projects on March 27. There were, however, a number of follow-up questions addressed to staff at the last meeting. The remainder of this report is devoted to a number of such .follow-upsissues that require some clo s re,,/ 5/// Agenda Item: Vista Terrace As indicated previously, the Vista Terrace project.was very well-received by the Planning Commission. The applicant had made numerous project modifications and satisfied all Commission concerns from a previous review. The project was adopted by the Planning Commission conditioned upon approval of the Development Agreement. The appeal of this project was filed by the group of developers, including G.H. Palmer Associates, who seek to do joint financing and construction of the Golden Valley Road improvements. Their contention is that the,project should not be tied to the Development Agreement, and that the condition threatens to delay or jeopardize their joint project. It has been suggested to staff that removal of the condition on the Vista Terrace project could assist G.H. Palmer Associates to get loan extensions on the Westcreek project which would, in turn, assist the City. If the City Council receives such testimony and is satisfied that this benefit could be attained, staff would endorse removal of the condition. This action would effectively remove Vista Terrace from the Development Agreement package, but would nonetheless' secure the road improvements associated with the project. Since the last meeting, staff has received a letter from Dr. Donald R. Gaskin, President of the Princess Park Homeowners Association expressing his displeasure that the association was not advised of the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff has responded with an apology for that oversight. As a new city, staff does not yet have as complete a list of associations as it will. The City did notify members of the association within the notification zone and got no negative responses. However, the association itself was not contacted. Staff has advised Dr. Gaskin of the appeal hearing and invited his comments prior to or during the public hearing. Santa Catarina Staff continues to feel that the Santa Catarina project, as now designed, will be a positive development for the community. At the same time, staff is still receiving complaints from residents concerning this project and what they consider to be unanswered questions. The lists of questions are extremely long and there is no single document that answers them all in one simple reading. -Most of the questions have been answered repeatedly either in addenda to the EIR, in staff's written reports or at'public hearings. In the interest of efficiency, staff suggests that as many questions as possible be addressed for the City Council at the public hearing. Any questions not answered to the City Council's satisfaction can be placed on a master list, and staff could then respond on a comprehensive basis. Staff feels that residents' questions deserve answers, and it is felt that this approach will be superior to answering each resident individually as staff has been doing for weeks. Regarding traffic issues, Ed Cline has.provided a summary of the various traffic reports „filed, on,.all..of.._the..Palmer projects. Mr. ,Cline's report is attached for the City Council's information and review. As the City Council is aware, there is a compromise project design being jointly proposed by G.H. Palmer Associates and some residents from Label Avenue. The proposal is that the Santa Catarina project be reduced.by 160 units. The changes can be summarized as follows: Planning Commission Approved Revised Proposal No. of SFR units 0 140 No: of MFR units 1452 1152 Total 1452 1292 Effectively, this.provides detached single-family homes on,those parcels nearest Label Avenue (i.e. down the slope below Label Avenue). In certain respects, this will result in a less sensitive transition from single-family to multiple -family homes because it takes less advantage of the topographical separation. However, it does protect existing residences, and those who buy these new single-family homes will do so with full knowledge of the situation. On this basis, staff supports the change and will work with the applicant on how the transition is treated from a design standpoint. In return for this lower density, Mr. Palmer is asking for the following changes in the Development Agreement: 1. Eliminate the $3 million contribution to the Rio Vista Bridge. 2. Eliminate the pedestrian bridge over Golden Valley Road. 3. Terminate the Golden Valley Road construction short of the applicant's northern property.line, thereby avoiding considerable grading cost. Staff supports eliminating the bridge contribution but does not support the other two changes. Again, staff is aware of ongoing concerns among nearby residents to Santa Catarina. Staff feels that all significant issues have been properly addressed, but will be happy to continue this dialogue to the City Council's satisfaction. The Colony The Planning Commission's denial of The Colony project related primarily to three issues: 1. Concern that there MU be an abundance of multi -family residential units in the Canyon Country area. 2. Feelings that The Colony's site might be better designated for Business Park use. 3. Concern that the proposed residential units are not adequately buffered or protected from the railroad tracks. Please note that the Commission expressed uncertainty as to the best land use for The Colony site. The Commission did not feel it had adequate information to resolve these issues within the time available, but left the door open to the possibility that the project might ultimately be found compatible. Staff concurred in this assessment and is still working toward a broader scale land use assessment for the area from which more firm recommendations can be developed. Staff would hope to have more complete analysis very shortly. The issue of The Colony site and surrounding properties was discussed with the GPAC during its March 10 land use workshop. The GPAC made the following findings concerning the site: * The east side of the City needs more jobs and therefore GPAC must identify business park, commercial and industrial properties. The Colony site is one option. The GPAC did not specifically judge the site for residential potential. * The land southerly and southeasterly of The Colony site is part of the Canyon Park and Provence Specific Plan (American Beauty Homes) which has been adopted by the.County. The vast majority of the land is designated for multiple -family use. This limits the land available for non-residential uses. * The property immediately east of The Colony site is being looked upon by its ownership as a potential Business Park site. * The freeway, railroad and river locations tend to support non-residential use (although rail spurs in and of themselves apparently have little value). * On the other hand, the potential freeway access to The Colony site (and parcels.to the east) is limited to a half interchange. Ramping is possible only for traffic to/from the south. Access to/from the north would likely use Sand Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road. This circumstance makes the.site very poor for commercial uses. Business Park use might be acceptable if the City is willing (a) to accept more traffic on Sand Canyon Road and (b) to accept access which passes the schools on Lost Canyon Road. Given these points of fact, the GPAC very briefly considered alternate Business -Park locations primarily looking north of the Sand Canyon exit, but did not satisfy itself that a logical site existed. Therefore, the GPAC voted to -maintain the Business Park designation on The Colony site for the present. (The question was asked if The Colony site could be shown as multiple -family residential (46 acres) while the remaining 110 acres to the east might be designated for Business Park use. The GPAC preferred not to reduce the Business Park acreage below the 150 acre level.] Again, staff is continuing to study the land use issue and will report further to the City Council as soon as possible. In regard to the railroad situation, staff believes that solutions are very possible_. The, EIR....sugges,ted.a.number.. of .,mitigation measuresthat the, applicant has not yet included. If these suggestions (mostly through use of berms) can be added, staff's concerns can likely be eliminated. Development Agreement If the individual project issues can be satisfactorily resolved, as staff hopes, then the City Council will need to focus on the Development Agreement itself. .The body of the document.tends to be rather standard in form and wording. The attachments to the document. (particularly Attachments C, E, and F) include the most complicated issues which the City Council needs to address. Staff has worked extensively on these sections and believes that the City is appropriately protected. Staff feels strongly that this is a responsible approach to resolving the critical issues relating to roads. There are a limited number of options available to the City to solve its infrastructure deficit and -as the City develops, the options narrow. Therefore, staff urges that every effort be made to reach satisfactory agreement on the Development Agreement concept. Several'of the questions addressed to staff by the City Council on March 13 relate to the overall Development Agreement, rather than being individually project -specific. These questions included: 1. How does the approval of the various Palmer projects affect the City vis-a-vis the County General Plan amendments which call for roughly 10,000 additional units with an assumption of 25Z to the City? 2. Per County plan, if the Santa Clarita Valley can ultimately handle a total of 93,000 units by 2010 (with approximately 50,000 units in place today), do the Palmer projects meet City objectives for what will be a finite number of units allowable? 3. How do the Palmer projects (and the ultimate Santa Clarita Valley build -out) affect various development capacity constraints, such as AQMP, water, sewer and other systems? These three questions are very much related and apply to all development which will occur into the future. These issues are the subject of research currently in final review by the General Plan consultants. Several points should be understood: * There has been a general planning assumption that the Santa Clarita Valley can absorb a population of roughly 270,000 by 2010 if various infrastructure systems can be expanded on the same pace. This equates to roughly 93,000 housing units --of which roughly 50,000 already exist. This leaves approximately 43,000 units to be built over the next 20 years, or 2,150 units per year. The three Palmer projects would total 2,200 additional .units to be built on a 5-10 year horizon. * The County's current General Plan land use map does not yet represent a 270,000 population build -out. The newly recommended County General Plan amendments would "intensify" land uses such that 10,000 additional units would be accommodated. * The County's projection that only 25X of the 10,000 extra units will develop in the City is nothing but an assumption on their part. It does not, in any respect, affect the City's options, except that it reflects the County's intent;.to..continue.,allowing• urban -type residential development in non -urban,. non -infill areas. Similarly, the Palmer projects are not affected by the County plan .assumptions., ..The -.only "impact", is. -that- within the--broader.context of a 43,000 -unit limit Valleywide, the Palmer projects represent 2,200 of the theoretical 43,000 -unit capacity. * The issue, then, is whether the various Palmer projects meet City objectives given this finite number of future housing units. There are two perspectives that must be considered: a) The City would ideally wish to match the number and types of housing units with the anticipated demand and demographic needs. Those issues are being addressed. b) The City has an equally significant responsibility to match its capital needs for infrastructure with its capacity to pay for such improvements, relying largely upon exactions on the limited number of future units. Simply for example, if the City has a limit of 25,000 new units inside the City over the next twenty years, and if the City's road needs were $300 million over that period, then it would take a staggering $12,000 per unit just for road improvements. (The above numbers may be far removed from actual, but they do fall within the range of possibility on both counts.) All of this may argue that the City benefits by maximizing its exactions on new projects that are approved. It also argues for infill development which tends to be higher density and less expensive from an infrastructure standpoint. (And it argues for expanding revenue enhancement opportunities from other sources as well.). In short, arguments can be made in support of the Development Agreement concept as it' relates to the ultimate 2010 build -out assumptions for the Santa Clarita Valley and the necessary infrastructure improvement costs. * In regard to water, sewer, air and other capacity issues, the Palmer projects would represent a small part of the larger Valleywide issue. Regardless of how the 2010 population is reached, these capacity issues must be satisfactorily resolved. Both the water and wastewater utility providers have reported that they can expand to meet the 2010 horizon. Staff has not felt compelled to challenge these statements on the basis of the Palmer projects alone. These broader issues are, of course, critical to the General Plan and the utility companies will continue to be consulted. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is recommending approval of the Vista Terrace and Santa Catarina projects if the City Council's questions and concerns can be positively resolved. Staff is continuing to study the issues associated with The Colony and will report -•further as soon as its evaluation is complete. ATTACHMENTS Summary of Traffic Reports r CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mark Scott Director of Comm ity Development FROM: John Medina Director of P W rks DATE: March 23, 199 SUBJECT: PALMER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT As requested, we have analyzed the various traffic engineering reports for the three residential development projects which form the basis for the Palmer Development Agreement. In total, there were fifteen reports, supplements and addendums prepared before we believed sufficient data and information was provided to thoroughly analyze the potential impacts and advantages of the projects and the roadway agreement. We are now completely satisfied that a clear path of mitigation measures have been identified for each project. While the combined projects are expected to generate approximately 19,300 one-way vehicle trips per day, the mitigation and additional roadways identified in the reports and specified in the agreement provide over 100,000 vehicle per day roadway capacity. These mitigation measures and additional roadways not only satisfy the needs of the projects related traffic, they offer much needed relief for existing traffic in the City. The Lost Canyon Road connection between Jake's Way and Via Princessa, for instance, lessens the community's reliance on Sierra Highway for access to an from the 14 freeway. The Newhall Ranch Road connection offers an alternative to Soledad Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road as an east/west arterial. We are reminded of the dramatic improvement to traffic flow in the Bouquet Canyon/Seco Canyon area by the addition of Decoro Drive to the roadway network. Another significant issue which needs to be examined carefully with respect to the roadway agreement is the backbone of major arterial highways which is being formed with significant portions of Golden Valley Road being provided, we would have the ability to connect the upper regions of Whites Canyon to Highway 14 without reliance on Whites Canyon and Via Princessa. With Newhall Ranch Road being extended for over four miles along the Santa Clara River, we will have taken a major step toward realization of Route 126 across the Valley. With Lost Canyon Road, we are beginning to develop a parallel surface route to Highway 14 besides Sierra Highway. Mark Scott Palmer Development Agreement March 233, 1990 Page 2 All in all, the roadway agreement offers the Santa Clarita Valley what may be the opportunity of the decade to form the basis for the backbone roadway system that can restore some semblance of order to traffic flow in the area. The agreement also establishes the architecture and precedence for future roadway agreements in the region. For the various reasons stated, the Public Works Department strongly supports the Palmer Development Agreement and recommends approval of each of the development projects as well as the roadway improvement agreement. Attached for your information is a summary of the various traffic studies prepared for these projects. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 21, 1990 TO: Mark Scott, Director of Community Devel pment VIA: John Medina, Director of Public Works FROM: Ed Cline, Traffic Engineer \ SUBJECT: GH PALMER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND RELATED PROJECTS - TRAFFIC IMPACTS We have reviewed the various traffic impact reports prepared for the three residential developments being proposed by G.H. Palmer and Associates which forms the basis for the pending Development Agreement. Each of the reports for each of the projects have several supplements and addendums. For ease of handling, we will summarize each project and present its traffic generation forecasts, identifiable impacts and any recommended mitigation measures. In the case of Vista Terrace and The Colony, each study considered the other in accordance with their respective anticipated completion period. We'll start with the smallest project, Vista Terrace and work through to the largest, Santa Catarina. Vista Terrace Project Number of Units Actual Forecasted Traffic Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Study reported - 133 103 1035/day 82/hr 109/hr Anticipated Impacts - Significant impacts are expected along Sierra Highway at the various intersections in the vicinity. These impacts are primarily the result of other cumulative projects considered in the report. The subject project adds one or two percentage points to the volume/capacity ratios at each location. Recommended Mitigation - Restriping Sierra Highway to three lanes in each direction through these intersections is expected to mitigate these impacts back to an acceptable level at each location. Table #5 of the latest report, copy attached, outlines the mitigated volume/capacity ratios and service levels at these intersections. Mark Scott Palmer Development Agreement/ Traffic Impacts March 22, 1990 Page 2 In addition to these mitigation measures, the project should be conditioned to provide four lanes of traffic on Golden Valley Road, either through actual construction or cooperative agreement with other builders from Sierra Highway to Highway 14. A traffic signal is also needed at Sierra Highway and Golden Valley Road. The Colony Prolect Number of Units 800 Forecasted Traffic Generation 6400/day AM Peak Hour 515/hour PM Peak Hour 640/hour Anticipated Impacts Significant impacts can be expected to various intersections along Sierra Highway with traffic from this project as well as other cumulative projects considered as part of the report. The subject project adds from one to 25 percentage points to the volume/capacity ratios at the various locations 'impacted. Recommended Mitigation In addition to the third lane striping recommended along Sierra Highway in conjunction with the Vista Terrace project, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Improve the intersection of Sierra Highway and Highway 14 to include a traffic signal and an additional westbound (off -ramp) right turn lane. This work is being planned by the Los Angeles County Public Works Department to be included in the Whites Canyon/Via Princessa extension. It should be completed by the occupancy of The Colony project. Restripe Jake's Way approaching Sierra Highway from the east to accommodate a double left turn in addition to a dedicated right turn lane. 0 • Mark Scott Palmer Development Agreement/ Traffic Impacts March 22, 1990 Page 3 Widen and restripe Sierra Highway at Soledad Canyon Road to accommodate a third southbound through lane. Restripe the northbound lanes to convert the optional third left turn lane to an exclusive through lane. A signal modification will be needed to accomplish this proposed geometry. Provide a circulation system abutting and adjacent to the project that will consist of Jakes Way from Sierra Highway to Lost Canyon Road, Lost Canyon Road from Jakes Way to Via Princessa and Via Princessa from Lost Canyon Road to Highway 14. These measures will improve the volume/capacity ratios and service levels at all potentially impacted intersections to an acceptable level. These values are shown on Table #7 from the February 15, 1990 addendum and Table #7-A from the latest revision to the report. This circulation system will offer traffic from the project an opportunity to access the Highway 14 Freeway without the use of Sierra Highway. This expanded highway network can and would be used by residents of other nearby developments, thus actually reducing the dependency on Sierra Highway and reducing the overall traffic flow on Sierra Highway. The developer has also agreed to construct a one-half diamond interchange on Highway 14 at Jakes Way. While not a condition of this project, this improvement will offer another means of access to and from the freeway for citizens of the area. The issue of added traffic on the Highway 14 Freeway was not specifically addressed in the impact reports for this project. As previously stated, the residential project is expected to generate approximately 600 vehicle trips per hour during the peak hours. It's predicted that as much as 170 of these trips will want to use the freeway in the peak direction for their home -to -work and back trips. It is inevitable that this trip will cause an incremental impact to the freeway. Furthermore, there are no immediate plans for improvements to the freeway. Mark Scott Palmer Development Agreement/ Traffic Impacts March 22, 1990 Page 4 This incremental impact will inevitably be overshadowed by additional traffic by development from well outside of the City's boundaries. For this reason, the City needs to rely heavily on outside relief to solve this pending deficiency. It would be difficult to expect development within the City to fund the freeway improvements as well as provide the much needed internal highway network. It should be pointed out that The Colony project, as an 800 unit residential development, is expected to generate hourly traffic volumes during commuter periods similar to a 600,000 square foot industrial development on the site. The major difference would be that the directional peak flows would be reversed. A 600,000 square foot industrial project represents approximately 30 percent coverage of the 45 acre site. Santa Catarina Prosect Number of Units 1,452 Forecasted Traffic Generation 11,860/day AM Peak Hour 767/hour PM Peak Hour 719/hour Anticipated Impacts Traffic forecasted to be generated by this project would be expected to create significant impact's to several intersections along Soledad Canyon Road if the entire project was accessed solely by Golden Valley Road between the development and Soledad Canyon' Road. While the intersections of Soledad Canyon Road at Whites Canyon Road, Sierra Highway and Golden Valley Road themselves would experience acceptable service levels, Soledad Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road and Newhall Ranch Road are predicted to be impacted by this and numerous other projects considered at the cumulative level. . a r • 0 Mark Scott Palmer Development Agreement/ Traffic Impact March 22, 1990 Page 5 These impacts are shown as mitigated to an acceptable level with the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road (Route 126) from Golden Valley Road to Bouquet Canyon Road. Table #1 and Table #5 of the report depict these impacts and the resultant mitigation. Since the project is proposed to be occupied in phases and one-half of the units are expected to be in place before the Newhall Ranch Road connection is made, an evaluation was also made of the projected impacts to the road system at the interim level. This interim level would be comprised of one half of the units generating traffic with only Golden Valley Road as access. The studies indicate that the various intersections in the system will continue to operate at an acceptable level with the exception of Bouquet Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. This intersection is predicted to deteriorate by one percentage point (from volume/capacity [v/c] ratio of 0.89 to v/c ratio of 0.90) with project traffic in the interim condition. This is expected to occur only in the afternoon peak hour. The 0.90 v/c ratio, while not ideal, is tolerable over the relative short term. This condition is the worst case with a full one-half of the units occupied without Newhall Ranch Road being extended. Conceivably, this condition would only exist until the very next unit in Santa Catarina was occupied. Another issue with this project is the connection of Ermine Drive. The study predicted that approximately 1,100 daily trips would be drawn through the established neighborhood from Santa Catarina, presumably to attend schools or visit parks. The bulk of the trips from Santa Catarina are estimated to traverse south over Golden Valley Road to Soledad Canyon Road for work and shopping related purposes. • 0 Mark Scott Palmer Development Agreement/ Traffic Impacts March 22, 1990 Page 6 The study further predicted that a like amount of traffic (1,100 trips/day) would be attracted over Golden Valley Road through the Santa Catarina project from the existing residential development. Considering the attractiveness of the route, the 1,100 trips per day estimate may be conservative. This travel pattern can be expected to impact the existing community in the following manner: A significant increase in daily and hourly volume on the presently terminated westerly segment of Ermine Drive. No significant change is expected on the easterly end of Steinway Drive because the increase in traffic by Santa Catarina residents will be off -set by present volumes diverting to the new street connection (Golden Valley Road). A possible reduction in traffic could be realized on Camp Plenty Road because of the more attractive route out of the established area being provided through the Santa Catarina project. Recommended Mitigation The major mitigation measure, namely the extension of Newhall Ranch Road from Golden Valley Road to Bouquet Canyon Road, also contributes greatly to relief of the existing capacity constraints at several intersections served by the project. In addition, several specific measures are recommended with the Santa Catarina project. They are: - The Santa Catarina Development should participate in funding the area -wide circulation improvements as required in the Bouquet Canyon Improvement District by constructing Golden Valley Road across the Santa Clara River. r Mark Scott Palmer Development Agreement/ Traffic Impacts March 22, 1990 Page 7 - Extend Golden Valley Road from Soledad Canyon to the Project as a four (4) lane secondary highway, except the Santa Clara River Bridge. - Construct Golden Valley Road across the Santa Clara River as a two lane bridge plus emergency shoulders. Provide also for a left -turn lane at Newhall Ranch Road, if the intersection is within 300 feet of the end of the bridge. - Extend Newhall Ranch road from Bouquet Canyon Road to Golden Valley Road as a two (2) lane highway with shoulders (40 feet total) and four (4) lane graded section. - Construct a traffic signal at Soledad Canyon Road and Golden Valley Road. - Construct a traffic signal at Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road. JEM:ec:gmm