Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - TTM 31236 CUP 89-015 ZC 89-006 (2)AGENDA REPORT UNFINISHED BUSINESS DATE: August 14, 1990 City Manager Item to be presented George A. Caravalho SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 31236, Conditional Use Permit No. 89-015, and Zone Change 89-006 (Santa Catarina - Palmer); adoption of resolution for project denial. Resolution No. 90-162 DEPARTMENT: City Manager BACKGROUND At the last meeting the City Council approved a motion to deny without prejudice the Santa Catarina Project and directed staff to prepare a resolution for final action on August 14. This Resolution is attached and ready for Council action. The Resolution denies the proposed Santa Catarina project applications as referenced above and further finds that it is not appropriate for the City to enter into a development agreement for Santa Catarina. The Council's motion did not address previous Council actions relating to the Colony project 800 unit contingent approval or the West Creek project affordable housing transfer contingent approval. These approvals were contingent upon adoption of a Development Agreement. The Development Agreement application is still an open case in the Community Development Department; amended to delete all sections relating to the Santa Catarina project upon adoption of the attached Resolution. The applicant has contacted staff and written a letter (attached) proposing a compromise project. Staff has responded they are under direction to prepare the Resolution as described, and that further Council direction is needed before this proposal can be properly analyzed at the staff level or before subsequent development negotiations can take place. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL . 1. Adopt Resolution and pass a motion to deny the Development Agreement. 2. Adopt Resolution and request a staff analysis on the July 31, 1990 compromise proposal. 3. Rescind previous direction and delay adoption of Draft Resolution pending review of the July 31, 1990 proposal. 4. Adopt Resolution and make a subsequent finding it may be appropriate to enter into a Development Agreement on the Colony project and West Creek project anddirect staff to schedule a public hearing on an Adopted: Agreement (j �Dont1lWd APP Item: / RE MMENDATI oluti n and provi�irection.to RESOLUTION NO. 90-162 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31236, ZONE CHANGE 89-006, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-015 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City does hereby find and determine as follows: a. An application for a zone change, vesting tentative tract map and conditional use permit was filed with the Santa Clarita Department of Community Development by G. H. Palmer and Associates. The purpose of the zone change application was to facilitate an amendment of the zoning from A-2-1 and M-1 1/2.to RPD -11U. The purpose of the tentative tract filing is to subdivide the property into 10 residential lots for condominium purposes for construction of 1452 residential condominium units. The purpose of the conditional use permit is to allow a planned residential development. b. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee reviewed this application with the applicant on September 140 1989. C. This application was heard by the Planning Commission at a consolidated public hearing on October 17, 1989.and.continued to a future date uncertain. The project was re -advertised for February 6, 1990 and then continued to March 1, 1990. The Planning Commission subsequently adopted Resolution P90-10, approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 31236, Conditional Use Permit 89-015 and recommending approval of Zone Change 89-006 to the City Council. d. The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission and a duly noticed consolidated public hearing was held by the City Council on March 13, 1990.- The subject project was discussed at meetings of the City Council including public hearings on March 27, April 17, April 24, May 2, May 15, June 12' and June 26, 1990. Also a study session reviewing the subject matter of the application was held on April 23, 1990. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on their behalf the City Council finds and determines as follows: a. The subject property of Tentative Tract 31236 is 135 gross acres of unimproved land located southeast of the easterly terminus of Ermine Street and north of the Santa Clara River in the vicinity north of Santa Clara Street. b. The request is for a change of zone from A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural) and M-1 1/2 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) to RPD -11U -(Residential Planned Development, 11 units to the acre maximum density) for the creation of 1452 residential condominium units. C. Several conceptual changes and variations to the applicant's proposal were discussed at the public hearings by the Council. d. The project is located near residential units and would have an impact on the lifestyle of the nearby residents. e. That modified conditions.do not warrant a revision in the zoning plan as it pertains -to the property under consideration. f. That the particular property under consideration is not a proper location for the proposed zone classification. Multiple -family zoning needs to be buffered from existing single-family neighborhoods. g. That placement of the proposed zone at such location will.not be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare and in conformity with good zoning practice. The intensity of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing uses in. the area. h. The City is proceeding in a timely manner with the preparation of a General Plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project will not be consistent with the future General Plan., On July 25, 1990, the General Plan Advisory Committee requested staff to consider placing the property in the Low Density Residential category. i. The recommended change of zone from A-2-1 and M-1 1/2 to RPD -11U would result in a significant adverse environmental effect, since the existing riparian areawould be endangered or.lost. j. The project was required to prepare an environmental impact report. k. The environmental impact report submitted to the City Council for review is deficient in some respects, as noted in the Attorney General's letter; alternatives have not been analyzed, impacts and possible mitigations have not been fully explored. 1. The proposed tract map and conditional use permit are not consistent with the present zoning. SECTION 3. In acting on the re -zoning and other -applications. the City Council has considered certain principles and standards and further finds and determines as follows: a. That modified conditions do not warrant a revision in the zoning plan as it pertains to the subject property. The applicant has - not demonstrated a need for multi -family zoning in the area. b. That a need for the proposed zone classification does not exist within the area of the subject property. Presently no need has been demonstrated for multi -family housing in this area. c. That the subject property is not a.proper location for the Residential Planned Development zone classification. The existing single-family neighborhood adjacent to this property,is more.compatible single-family zoning. d. That the placement of the proposed zone at the subject property will not be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare and in conformity with good zoning practice. The existing residential neighborhood adjacent is all of a single-family housing type. e. There is a probability that the design of the proposed subdivision will not be consistent with the future General Plan. The apartment buildings will not be consistent with the Plan if a Low Density Residential category is placed on the property. f. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. This hillside property would require major changes in the natural environment to construct this multi -family development. g. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. This hillside property lies near many existing single-family homes. Major changes in the landform would be' required to provide the pads for -the multi -family _ structures. h. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are , likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The riparian area.has not been fully addressed regarding short and long term impacts. i. The conditional use permit as proposed could adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area. The nearby single-family neighborhood is not compatible with multi -family development. j. The conditional use permit could be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site. Existing homes and yards in the area would provide a less desirable environment for view, noise and activity level. k. The conditional use permit could jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public, health, safety or general welfare. The resultant activity level of this proposed project could be greater than in the existing neighborhood at present. 1. That the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a General Plan. There is a reasonable probability that this re -zoning, tract map and conditional use permit will be inconsistent.with the. General Plan proposal which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if this re -zoning is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing the -City Council does hereby deny the application for a zone change, tentative tract map and conditional use permit and determines that the official zoning map of the. City of Santa Clarita shall not be changed on the subject property as proposed in the application. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS day of MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa.Clarita at a regular meeting' thereof, held on the day of 1990 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 199al AFH E ri �;cyTA IAARITA 31 July 1990 Mr. George Caravalho City Manager CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Ca 91355 Dear George: 991 G. H. Palmer Associates Real Estate Development 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 Citythe 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 inthefuture would be as follows: Continued... 11740 SAN VICENTE BLVD. SUITE 208 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 (213) 2073100 FAX [213) 207-2162 M 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. 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 and take the very substantial risk Continued... Mp Mr. George Caravalho 31 July 1990 Page Three 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, Dan Saxon Palmer, Jr. OSP:cs/73090.caravalho Enclosure 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