Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-23 - MINUTES - ADJOURNED MTG (2)CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL ITEM 1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 23, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Boyer at 7:08 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, CA. Ed Dunn led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Councilmembers Darcy, Heidt, Klajic, Mayor Boyer and Commissioners Brathwaite, Cherrington, Mudugno, Garasi, and Woodrow were all present. Councilmember McKeon arrived at 7:26 p.m. Chairman Brathwaite turned the podium over to Commissioner Cherrington. Commissioner Cherrington outlined what the GPAC and community want from the General Plan. See Attached. Director of Community Development, Lynn Harris reported that this meeting has been scheduled for the City Council to receive the Planning Commission's report on the General Plan and the revised draft General Plan. Addressing the Council with matters of public concern were: Irving Dow, Bob Lathrop, John Drew, Margie Colette, Jack Ancona, Lee Schramling, Ed Dunn, Hal Good, and Alan Cameron. COUNCIL COMMENTS Comments were made from the Council regarding the zone recommendations and changes, densities within the plan and opportunities it may create, publicizing the proposed City Center project, land ownership, geographical center of the City, plans for a new library, building and hillside management, the history of the City, accomplishments of GPAC and the Planning Commission, and the wealth of the City. RECESS Mayor Boyer recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. RECONVENED Mayor Boyer reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. COMMISSION COMMENTS Comments were made from the Commissioners regarding commendations for the staff and for the GPAC, preserving the rural areas of the City. STAFF COMMENTS City Manager, George Caravalho commended General Plan consultant, Barry Hogan for his work on the General Plan, and distributed a letter regarding the proposed closure of Balboa Blvd. to Santa Clarita residents by Representative Hal Bernson. ADJOURNMENT At 9:20 p.m., it was moved by Darcy and seconded by McKeon to adjourn the meeting to May 28, 1991, 6:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, for the regular meeting of the Council. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. ADJOURNMENT It was adjourned by Modugno and seconded by Woodrow to adjourn to June 4, 1991, 7:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers for the Planning Commission regular meeting. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. ATTEST: Carl Boyer, Mayor City of Santa Clarita v onna Grindey City Clerk TRANSCRIPT OF PRESENTATION OF GENERAL PLAN TO CITY COUNCIL by PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN CHAIRMAN CHERRINGTON May 23, 1991 It's a distinct pleasure to represent the Planning Commission this evening in the presentation of the General Plan to you. It's a particular pleasure because it means now that I will be rejoined with my family, my employer will stop asking why I fall asleep during meetings and now the burden will fall to you. Sisyphus, as you know, was condemned to Hades to push a large stone up a hill from which it would roll down the other side and he would start the process over again. The Planning Commission has treated the General Plan as if a stone. Every time that we thought we just about had a handle on it, it would roll down the other side and we would find that there was something about circulation that needed to be addressed. We would get that in tow and then it was jobs/housing balance, and we had several stones, and I think I can speak for the entire Commission, we're delighted to be passing the stone. The General Plan is both general and a plan. This is one of the things that we found. It is not specific, it is not site specific, it is not road alignment specific, and it is a plan in the sense that it's a blueprint for all future development in our City. Citizens are given an identity as a result of this plan and a direction. Upon its adoption by the City Council, it becomes, of course, the law of the land and of land use in the City and we hope in the planning area beyond. What you are receiving from us this evening is not a still picture, it's more like a continuous video tape, one without end. We are simply taking a slice of time in the process of development which was begun by GPAC, the consultant and City staff, and will be continued by you, and even after your adoption it still remains a dynamic document subject to constant review, change and modification to keep it current and keep it reflecting the will of the people of this community. GPAC and its Chairman, Ralph Killmeyer, did an outstanding job of presenting us an excellent document with which to begin. We are grateful to the City staff and to the consultants, particularly to Barry Hogan, and to the Director of Community Development Lynn Harris and Principal Planner Christine Trinkley who was primarily responsible for keeping us on schedule and making it possible for us to be here this evening with you. For each element, GPAC, the consultant and the staff established goals and policies which reflected their vision of what the City of Santa Clarita can become in the 21st Century. Now, what you will hear from me this evening are five things. One, I would like to give you a little background of our deliberations on the program; second, I want to tell you what we heard the people of the community say to us in abundant writing and in their oral testimony during public hearings; third, I want to report on our focus for the plan, which *^ is a focus of growth management; fourth, I want to talk about how we came to develop the concept of a Valley Center; and fifth, I want to share with you our commitment to the implementation of this program once it has received adoption by City Council. Alright, first, what we did and how we got here this evening. Our review started when City Manager and the department heads met with us in December to share their perspectives on this General Plan based upon their own areas of responsibility. From that time we heard from members of the GPAC speaking as individuals; we heard from members of the public; we heard from representatives of virtually every community organization; we heard from people who had not spoken to any public forum before who wanted to share their thinking with us. We encouraged them to write to us and they did. And what you see before you is a testament to what your Planning Commission has gone through in order to deliver just that top book to you this evening. We adopted a format for consideration at the first meeting. We took the GPAC's draft for each element and had a staff report that updated us that gave us some insight into how that element had been developed. We then heard public testimony on that element and at the closing of public participation we began our deliberations. Those deliberations began with a general review of the background section of the element which is taken from the warehouse of documentation called background information, and then we reviewed the goals and policies virtually line by line. In each case we made as the cover memo to the distribution of our resolution passed last Tuesday night indicates, a modification to update it with the most current information; to reflect the testimony that we had heard, and to incorporate those changes which we felt were best reflective of the will of this community. At the close of that we tried to reach consensus on the element. Which means only that we tried to agree that given what we know now, this is an acceptable element, but we reserve the right to come back and look at it again when we test for consistency when we have looked at other elements. At that point, we reopened the public participation portion of the hearing so that members of the public would be able to respond to our own deliberations. And quite frequently at our next meeting we would find another ream of written testimony commenting on what we had done at the meeting before. At our final meeting last Tuesday evening, last Monday evening was the last full meeting to discuss the text, we achieved consensus on all 12 elements taken as a whole. This does not suggest that all 12 elements are evenly written. In fact, it looks in some ways like a novel written by 12 authors. But there is an internal consistency as far as we can tell, between the 12 elements. Each of them is acceptable on its own, and we have found them acceptable as a group. On Tuesday then, we passed the resolution which has been distributed to you commending the General Plan for your consideration and recommending its adoption by you. Now second, what the people told us. They told us that this is an eclectic city. That the people want to take the best of what they already have and they want to get the best of what the future holds for them. There is a long-term rural environment here which people want to -2- preserve. But there are also new term commuters that treat this as a bedroom community who want to have all of the amenities of suburban life. Woven between these two groups is the desire for City identity and community integrity. A theme which we caught very early in the process and which came to culmination in the development of the concept of a Valley Center. They told us that they want to maintain that rural atmosphere and most important, they want to have local employment so that they don't have to commute over the hill to the Valley and the Los Angeles Basin. They want excellent schools without overcrowding. They want free-flowing traffic. They want adequate supplies of clean water. They want clean air and reduced pollution. They want full sewage treatment capacity. They also want cultural facilities in the City. They want recreational facilities in the City. They want excellent shopping capabilities and opportunities, again, in the City. They want open space. They want hillside management and ridgeline preservation and they want an aesthetic and environmental quality of life that can be achieved only by careful planning. In short, they want everything. We've kind of characterized it when they presented it, is what they really want to do is ride their horse to Nordstroms. Most importantly, the people told us to look through the windshield, not the rearview mirror. They don't want simply a continuation of the past, but they want to bring from the past the rural atmosphere and the laid back quality of life that is compatible with an urban development within the City. There is a desire to retain the best of the past and to provide the best of the future. The concept evolved of what I will call this evening an autonomous suburb. That is, one which is like Plano, Texas to Dallas or Aurora, Colorado to Denver or Marietta, Georgia to Atlanta. A city which has self-contained opportunities for employment, for cultural events, for educational opportunities, but which is also a part of a much larger community. A gateway from the south to the central valley and to Bakersfield and a gateway from the north to the Valley and to, the Los Angeles Basin. A commercial, educational, cultural and aesthetic center providing jobs, housing, shopping, recreation and open vistas for the citizens. Now three, the General Plan addresses the concerns of the people. Those concerns were for air quality, safety, community design, economic development and community revitalization, parks and recreation. But all of these turned out to be subordinate to two. Land use and circulation. As you will read in the introductory chapter to the General Plan, the Plan is designed to be the City's official policy with regard to growth management, particularly as it affects land use and circulation. Like the T-shirts that we sometimes see, the vulgar T-shirts that we sometimes see, growth happens. It can be encouraged, as some members of our community would prefer. It can be discouraged, as others would prefer, or it can be managed. We have opted as a Commission, the option of managed growth. Part of that concern comes from what we call the hole in the donut. If we do not manage growth, we become surrounded by Los Angeles County. And like the donut thrown into the boiling fat, it expands and chokes us off. Rather, we would see ourselves as the hub of the Valley where the important concentration is here and the management of the style of life comes from the center. -3- There is a fear of growth in the community, and its a well-founded fear. .-• During the 80's, development did not bring with it free-flowing traffic or infrastructure. There is an infrastructure debt. The General Plan will fix that. The development of infrastructure in cultural and recreational facilities takes money, and the General Plan addresses that. It addresses it on what we call a pay-as-you-go basis. The General Plan says there will be no development until infrastructure is accounted for, and there are possibilities within the General Plan for catching up on past deficiencies as well. Essentially, growth will be limited to where full amenities, as well as necessities, are provided. Developers should understand that it will be more expensive to develop in this Valley in the future in order to provide preservation of the quality of life that is enjoyed in many of our communities now and to improve that quality elsewhere. The General Plan will not allow development without the concurrent or prior provision of infrastructure and amenities. In this regard, market conditions themselves will tend to limit growth. The Plan requires that mid -point density will be the maximum allowable for development unless there is exceptional benefit to the community. Now to meet State requirements, the Circulation Element reflects build -out of the Land Use Map, and the Plan attests that traffic circulation is in deed possible when build -out occurs. We had a great deal of difficulty with build -out and I'm not sure that the Commission has established a consensus on when that build -out will occur. You'll read in the General Plan the number 2010 or roughly 20 years out. But, that's when build -out occurs. We don't typically think that there is a date that can be attached to build -out, and that's because of the other limitations that we impose, including mid -point density as the maximum allowable and pay-as-you-go development. To know when build -out occurs is kind of like determining when a man becomes bald. It's clear that some men are bald and it's clear that other men are not. But it's difficult to find the day on which the bald man became bald. And that's kind of the problem we have with build -out in this Valley. It's difficult to tell when that will occur. But whether it occurs in 2010 or 2110, or even if it never happens at all, there is the commitment from this General Plan that circulation is possible, should that build -out occur. Quite frankly, this Commission does not recommend full build -out of the Land Use Map, and we think that there are structures within the General Plan which will prevent that full build -out from coming. But, one of the things that needs to be done, and will seek your direction on what role you would like us to play in this, is the determination of a shorter term circulation map, say one that would be effective by the end of the decade based upon the priorities as you see them. That is, one thing the Circulation Element does not address is the short term solution to our circulation issues. The Circulation Element also does not address alternative transportation. So, in a sense it provides us with the worst case scenario. If in deed we receive train transportation or improved bus transportation within the City and between the City and other communities, if bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways are developed, and if jobs/housing balance improves, then perhaps the demands on our roadways will not be as great as that which the Land Use Map currently suggests. The Circulation Element also does not address our local issues. It is a mega plan for major thoroughfares, and this Commission still has SM difficulties with issues like circulation in Sand Canyon and Placerita s—* Canyon as primary examples. The Circulation Element suggests that in order to provide adequate traffic flow at full build -out, we would have to do some things like open gates. Such as the gate on Calgrove. It is what we are calling environmentally and culturally insensitive. It takes away mountain ridges and takes away trees, and that's why this Commission is, and I'm sure you will hear from my colleagues if this does not fully represent their view, do not suggest that ultimate build -out of the plan is either desirable or possible. In addition to the pay-as-you-go development and the mid -point density limitation, other growth mitigation measures that are built into the General Plan are: 1) The jobs/housing balance itself. You will read that at build -out, the number of jobs will exceed the number of workers in our Valley. And this will bring additional revenues to us that will enable us to create some of the amenities that are described therein. 2)) There is a strong environmental emphasis in the General Plan. There is acknowledgement of our Oak Tree Ordinance; there is recognition that we are working diligently on a Hillside Development and Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance; there is recognition of the River Study and all that that will do to maintain the environment and limit development. 3)) There is a monitoring project. A project to develop a monitoring system that will monitor each project in terms of its infrastructure and will monitor the cumulative effect of development on infrastructure needs. This is a way of putting on the brakes so that we do not allow development to exceed the pay-as-you-go infrastructure development. 4) And .lastly, there is the Valley Center itself as a way of mitigating growth. The Valley Center does what the people in this community told us that they want. It provides identification for Santa Clarita. It is a place where people can go; it is a place where people can do things. And it maintains the integrity of our communities and subcommunities. The GPAC began with a concept of town centers in each of our communities. All that this Commission has done is to bring those to a central focal point so that by allowing greater density in that Valley Center, we can lower the densities in the communities and tend to preserve their current identity, the Newhall, the Saugus, the Canyon Country, the Valencia and our two major subcommunities, Sand Canyon and Placerita Canyon. Valley Center, as we have described it and as it is described in this General Plan, is the only higher density area in the City. It is a place for higher density use for both residential and commercial office use. Communities remain viable under what has been changed to a community/commercial designation, that is, all of the shopping facilities for example, in Newhall and along the -5- strip in Canyon Country, would not only remain, but would r� prosper under this concept. All that we would do is to bring a focal point into this urban center. That urban center is divided essentially into four quadrants by the Santa Clara River and its tributaries and by the existing main thoroughfares. The first of those centers I will call a retail component, and it is roughly the southwest center focused around the mall, River Oaks Shopping Center and the Valencia Auto Center. This is an area where higher residential development is possible, and in fact, already exists in some locations along Valencia Boulevard, and would be a focus of major retailing. The second area would be in the southeast quadrant, that's the Civic Center/Entertainment Information component. And this is almost a double-decker as described in the General Plan. On the top is our City Hall and Civic Center and at the bottom is perhaps the hub of the Santa Clarita night life, restaurants and facilities for night-time activities. To the north of the Santa Clara River and east of Bouquet Canyon would be the Recreational/Environmental component; the Saugus Rehabilitation Center and the panhandle area where the General Plan envisions a swimming complex, tennis facilities, water conservation gardens, nature centers, that sort of thing. And in the fourth quadrant at the northwest, is what we call the marketplace component. This is north of the Santa Clara and �^ west of Bouquet where there would be a mixture of mixed use of residential and marketplace facilities, retail boutiques to attract shoppers from Magic Mountain, perhaps even a farmer's market. A fifth component sort of runs through the entire center, and that we call the Office/Financial Corridor, linking the retail component and the Civic Center along Soledad Canyon, Valencia Boulevard and perhaps out Tourney as well. Where there is already an existing spine of office development, we think that's appropriate to continue that trend and provide the office/financial district for the City of Santa Clarita. The Valley Center creates an identity for the citizens of Santa Clarita. Our concern is not so much that others outside this Valley know who we are, but that we know who we are. It provides us a focal point for all of our activities which would be sewn together by non -automobile transportation. A trainline around that would get us from one quadrant to another from within the center. It provides things to do and places to go and it does allow for lower density development in our separate communities, enabling them to keep their identity. How do we pay for all this wonderful stuff. I want to remind you that we said mid -point density was the maximum developable, unless there was significant advantage or benefit to the City. By limiting higher development, higher than mid -point development, only within the Valley Center, we are able to provide those additional benefits and amenities through such development. M8 Now fifth of the five things that I said I would talk about this evening. The Planning Commission is committed to implementation of this Plan. As it was delivered to us by the GPAC, each section contained a rather significant implementation. As we reviewed that, we found that it did not go as far as we wanted it to go. There were "shoulds" and "ought tos" where we thought there should be "shalls" and "wills". But we recognized that the process of moving from "should" to "shall" required prioritization. And it was far too important to deliver this product at this time to meet our state requirements and to give us a foundation for implementation, that we decided that it was best to extract from those elements details of implementation. So as you read through the implementation of all but those sections which have state -mandated implementation sections, you'll find a series of bullet items. But I represent the Commission tonight in telling you that it is our plan, as a Planning Commission, to address implementation separately from this document. We propose to present to you subsequently, an implementation plan which will prioritize the steps for implementation and bring what is a vision and a dream down to hard core reality, by telling you what we believe can be done in the next year, the next three years, perhaps the next five years. As part of that implementation plan that we will present to you, we will prepare the growth management and monitoring system which will give us a mechanism for measuring each project on its own merits and will give us a basis for determining the cumulative effect of development within the City. We will also be working on the Hillside Development and Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance, and we will be starting this summer on the City's first home-grown zoning ordinance. Now in conclusion, what we did was to listen to the people of the City and hear what they told us, and about their fears and their concerns and their vision of the City of the future. We focused the General Plan on the issue of growth management. We found the Valley Center as the link which tied all of those concerns together and solved them, and we established a commitment to proceed with implementation of the Plan. Upon your adoption of the General Plan, growth in this Valley will no longer be subject to fear. Instead, growth will provide the resource for the City to provide the amenities that all of our people want. Santa Clarita will become the first City truely designed for the 21st Century. We commend to you the General Plan. -7-