HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - PORTA BELLA DEVAGMT (2)AGENDA REPORT
ity Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
Rich Henderson
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:, August 22, 1995
SUBJECT: Porta Bella Development Agreement
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
At the regular Council meeting on May 9, 1995, in Resolution 95-42, the City Council
approved the Porta Bella project, including Specific Plan No. 91-001, Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 51599, and Oak Tree Permit No. 91-033. Resolution 95-42 also adopted a General Plan
Amendment to modify the Highway Network of the Circulation Element of the General Plan,
including the connection of Magic Mountain Parkway to Via Princessa as an east -west
corridor, and the substitution of Santa Clarita Parkway for Rio Vista as a north -south
corridor.
Following the project approval, Council directed the Planning Commission to hold public
hearings regarding the proposed Development Agreement and to make a recommendation to
Council by July 25, 1995. Because of the Council summer recess, the Council date was
rescheduled to August 22, 1995.
The Planning Commission began the public hearing on the Porta Bella Specific Plan
Development Agreement on June 20, 1995, held the second meeting on the project on July
18, the third meeting on August 1, and continued the item to a special meeting on Thursday,
August 10. A fifth meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 15 (after the preparation of this
report.)
At the August 1 meeting, the Commission continued their review of the draft Development
Agreement and exhibits. The Commission reviewed various components of the agreement,
and directed staff to prepare a draft resolution summarizing the consensus position of the
Planning Commission. Staff prepared this resolution and presented it to the Commission on
August 10, with a summary of consensus points (Attachment 1) At that meeting, however,
a letter (Attachment 2) was submitted by the applicant regarding proposed changes to the
Development Agreement. Consequently, the Commission postponed discussing the terms of
S:\CD\CURT?EN G822.CMX ,
,ontinued To: I6_
the Agreement to allow time for the Commission, staff, and the public to evaluate the
changes. Commission then directed staff to report to the City Council that there was no
recommendation on the Agreement to date, and that several pieces of information are still
needed:
1. The cost of a performance bond, of an unspecified amount, to ensure that the
development agreement is fulfilled.
2. A "time -value matrix, indicating the value of infrastructure .fees submitted at
project approval compared to their value at the time of infrastructure construction.
3. The cost of providing additional indemnity insurance, to release the City from any
responsibility regarding future events and/or accidents on the project site.
4. A list and estimate of the value, per unit, of benefits to the City from the
development agreement, over and above those exactions and improvements required
in the project's Conditions of Approval.
The Commission also deliberated the value to the City of the proposed east -west road
construction, (the Magic Mountain/Via Princessa connection.) The discussion focused on the
dollar amount paid out initially by the applicant to design and construct the road and bridge,
the amount anticipated to be reimbursed by future developers, and the remaining
infrastructure deficit in the City Center, At issue was whether the applicant was paying his
proportionate share of infrastructure costs, and whether the City would benefit sufficiently
from the development agreement. Staff estimates that the complete City Center circulation
network costs are approximately $100,000,000; Porta Bella's share of this is approximately
$35,000,000, determined by the rough proportion of the project's burden on the existing and
planned network. These estimated costs are detailed in Attachment 3.
The Commission then directed staff to request of the Council additional time to work on the
development agreement, and to request direction regarding what priority Council has
assigned the benefits of the agreement. The principal benefits in question are:
1. Construction of Magic Mountain Parkway to Via Princessa as a through east -west
route, including a flyover bridge over San Fernando Road.
2. Grading and extending utilities to the City Hall/Civic Center property.
3. Dedication of the Metrolink Santa Clarita Station property to the City.
The Commission believes that the construction of the east -west through road is the crucial
priority in the development agreement, and that other elements, such as "2" and "3" above,
are secondary. However, the Commission requests confirmation from Council that this
priority is acceptable; if not, then the Commission requests that Council set priorities for the
S: \CMCUMENnP&1 22.CMK
elements of the agreement, and direct the Commission to proceed to craft the development
agreement accordingly.
Finally, the Commission strongly recommends that the City Council reinstate the Planning
Commission road network, including the Magic/Princessa connection as the new additional
east/west route.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive report, open public hearing, and receive testimony.
2. Direct staff to work with developer to acquire the information requested by the
Planning Commission.
3. Provide feedback to staff and the Planning Commission regarding Council's
preferences for prioritizing the various elements of the Development Agreement, and
regarding the Commission's road network.
4. Continue public hearing to September 12, 1995.
S. \CD\CURRENT \PAAM22. CMK
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY OF CONSENSUS POINTS
ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Summarizing the language included in the draft resolution, some of the primary consensus
points include;
1. A Development Agreement can be in the best interests of the City if adequate public
benefit is provided the City.
2. The Commission does not believe that an agreement longer than 15 years is advisable.
3. There should be a basic cost for the Development Agreement. Beyond that, the duration
of the Development Agreement shall be based on the needs of the City and the level of
extraordinary benefitprovided to the City by the applicant.
4. The applicant offered to rough grade approximately 25 acres for the proposed Civic
Center Master Plan. The Commission does not believe this provides a substantial public
benefit at this time.
5. Staff listed the possibility that the applicant dedicate a 5 acre parcel on Santa Clarita
Parkway, south of Via Princessa, which the Planning Commission does not support.
6. The applicant offered to dedicate 6.2 acres of the Santa Clarita Transit/Metrolink site
as part of the Development, which the Commission does not support.
7.. The Commission does not support the extension of utilities to the Civic Center site as
part of the Development Agreement.
8. Staff listed the possibility that the applicant dedicate an 8 acre light industrial site near
Golden Triangle as part of the Development Agreement, which the Commission does not
support.
9. The Commission recommends that the construction of a usable, continuous segment of
an additional east/west major arterial should be the primary public benefit provided to
the City by the applicant in return for a Development Agreement. The Commission
recommends that the existing Magic Mountain Parkway be extended to the east to Via
Princessa and that Via Princessa be extended to Rainbow Glen as the primary additional
east/west corridor.
10. The Commission recommends that the City Council require substantial additional
requirements beyond that included in the "required level."
11. The Commission recommends that the City Council reinstate the Planning Commission
road network, including the Magic/Princessa connection as the new additional east/west
route.
12. The Commission recommends against including the potential gating of Carrie Lane as
S:\CD\CURRENnPBAC 22.CMK
part of the Development Agreement.
13. The Commission recommends that the City Council incorporate the revised DS -15
condition language regarding indemnification and liability, as provided in the second
legal opinion mandated by the Council on this issue.
14. The Commission recommends that the City have the ability to transfer densities within
the project site in response to unforeseen opportunities that might arise. However, the
Commission recommends against allowing the ability to increase overall project densities
as part of the Development Agreement,
15. The Commission recommends that the Council maintain the requirement that the
applicant may not begin construction of any residential, commercial, office, and/or related
uses until the entire site is certified as clean by Cal EPA; however, the Commission
recommends that construction of major arterials be allowed prior to the clean up of the
entire site provided that the road right-of-way and adjacent areas are certified as clean
by Cal EPA.
16. Staff had suggested the early completion of the people mover as a potential Development
Agreement deal point, which the Commission does not support.
17, The Commission is concerned that the front yards and common areas be maintained over
time, and recommends homeowner association policies that encourage a diversity of
landscaping treatments and self regulation of the neighborhoods.
18. The Commission recommends that the City Council obtain written verification from the
applicable School Districts indicating their satisfaction with the Conditions of Approval
for the project.
ANALYSIS
Staff has had several meetings and phone conversations with the applicant since the meeting
of August 1. In response to the Planning Commission consensus regarding the importance
of arterial segments, the applicant is modifying the proposed package. Staff is still awaiting
a written summary of the modified proposal, but the outline of the package is as follows:
1. The applicant withdraws the proposal to dedicate the 6.2 acres of the Santa Clarita
Transit/Metrolink site to the City.
2. The applicant withdraws the proposal to rough grade the Civic Center Master Plan site.
3. The applicant proposes that the construction of an east/west arterial, extending the
existing Magic Mountain Parkway to Via Princessa, and Via Princessa to Rainbow Glen,
should be the primary emphasis of the Development Agreement.
4. The applicant proposes to add the value of the Metrolink site and the grading of the
Civic Center Master Plan, approximately $5.5 million, to the construction of the new
east/west corridor.
S. \C➢\CURB ENT \PBAC822. CMK
5. The applicant proposes to add $1,000 per residential unit, or $2.91 million, payable at
the time of issuance of Building and Safety permits, to help finance the construction of
the new east/west corridor.
6. The applicant indicates that additional terms and ideas will be forthcoming, either in
written form or at the hearing.
Staff believes that the applicant is heading in the right direction with these modifications,
and staff will continue to work with the applicant on this issue up to the hearing date. This
revised proposal is worth approximately $3.0 million more to the City than the previous
proposal, and will help the City implement an additional east/west corridor, which has been
identified as one of the primary goals of the Commission, the City Council, and the overall
community. The applicant indicates that there are additional components to the proposal
that will add even greater value, and that the goal would be to provide a through connection
from Magic Mountain Parkway to Rainbow Glen early in the project.
S: \CD\CURREA`APRAGn2.CMK
ATTACHMENT 3
COSTS OF VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
Costs of Various Improvements: The City's Engineering staff has prepared cost estimates
of various infrastructure items suggested as deal points. These are preliminary estimates,
and the applicant and staff have not had an opportunity to review the estimates to reconcile
differences. As these are estimates, some figures are presented as a range. Staff will update
the Commission on any revisions at the hearing. (Modugno)
I. Non -Roadway Items/Costs
A. Grading: Civic Center Master Plan
(Grading on site: 300,000 - 400,000 cy
@ $1.10/cy = $330,000 - $440,000
Import material from Porta Bella:
150,000 - 200,000 cy @ $5 - 7/cy
= $750,000 - $ 1,400,000)
"cy"= cubic yard
B. Dedication of institutional parcel
at Via Princessa/ Santa Clarita
Parkway to the City
(4 acres @ $7,50 sq.ft.)
C. Dedication of Metrolink station
lot to the City (initial premises - 6.4 acres)
D. Extend infrastructure improvements to
Civic Center/Park site (includes sewer
water, storm drain and roadway improvements)
E. Dedication of light industrial site with
access off of Golden Triangle/Redview
(8 acres @ $5.60/sq.ft.)
Subtotal: Non Roadway Items/ Costs
3:\CD\CURRFWnPB CM2. CMR
$ 1,080,000 - $ 1,840,000
$ 1,307,000
$ 2,081,553 (City's appraisal)
$ 2,509,000 (Whittaker's appraisal)
$ 450,000
$ 1,952,000
$ 6,870,553 - $ 8,058,000
II. Roadway Items/Costs
A. Magic Mt. (San Fernando Rd. to Rio
Vista) TE -4, Phase (P-1) Bridge $7,000,000
(Full Width) Roadway $1,800,000
Right -of -Way $2,000,000
B. Magic Mt. (Rio Vista to Via Princessa) $4,800,000
Assuming no bridges. 50' wide. TE -5, P-1
C. Via Princessa (Magic Mt. to Rainbow Glen) $5,100,000
Assuming no bridges or ROW costs. TE -5, P-1
50' wide.
D. Magic Mt. (Rio Vista to Via Princessa) $4,800,000
Assuming no bridges. 50' wide. TE -12, P-2
E. Via Princessa (Magic Mt. to Rainbow Glen) $5,100,000
Assuming no bridges or ROW costs. TE -12, P-2
50' wide.
F. Santa Clarita Pkwy. (Soledad to Via Prin-
cessa) TE -13, P-2 $8,300,000
G Santa Clarita Pkwy. (Soledad to Bouquet)
TE -17, P-3 Bridge $9,000,000
Roadway $7,400,000
ROW $7,000,000
H. Santa Clarita Pkwy. (Via Princessa to Sierra)
TE -17, P-3. (No bridge assumed) Roadway
ROW
I. Via Princessa (Magic Mt. to Wiley Canyon Rd.)
TE -18, P-3. Bridge
Roadway
Subtotal: Roadway Items/Costs
Subtotal: Non Roadway Items/ Costs
Totals: Roadway and Non Roadway
8 \CD\CURRENnPRAG822.CMK
$8,400,000
$7,000,000.
$10,000,000
$ 9,000,000
$96,700,000
$ 6,870,553 - $ 8,058,000
$103,570,533 - $104,758,000
Public Hearing Procedure
1. Mayor opens hearing
*States purpose of hearing
2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice
3. Staff report
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent)
*Proponent
7. Mayor closes public testimony
8. Discussion by Council
9. Council decision
10. Mayor announces decision
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PORTA BELLA DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT 93-003.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita regarding
Master Case No.'s 91-164 and 93-012 (Porta Bella) for Development Agreement No. 93-003;
and Environmental Impact Report and Addendum SCH 92-041041. In general, in a
Development Agreement, the applicant seeks to vest development rights and additional years
to complete a project in return for additional public benefits provided to the City. The subject
of the hearing is the terms of the potential Development Agreement. On May 9, 1995, in
Resolution 95-42, the City Council approved the Porta Bella Specific Plan (91-001), including
Vesting Tentative Tract'Map 51599 and Oak Tree Permit No. 91-033, and directed the
Planning Commission to hold hearings on the Development Agreement and to make a
recommendation to the City Council. As approved in Resolution 95-42, the project includes:
76 master lots; 2,911 dwelling units (1,244 single-family homes and 1,667 multi -family
dwellings); 449 acres of open space and parks; 106 acres of commercial and office uses; the
removal of up to 109 oak trees; and, an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General
Plan. The City Council has delayed the second reading of Ordinance 95-6 (which would
approve the required zoning for the site and allow special development standards) until the
completion of negotiations between the applicant and Keysor-Century regarding the
acquisition of property for the extension Magic Mountain Parkway to the east. An
Environmental Impact Report and Addendum #SCH 92-041040 were prepared to analyze the
project impacts and identify mitigation measures.
The property, known as the Bermite site, is located south of Soledad Canyon Road, east of
Bouquet Canyon/San Fernando Roads, north of the Circle J Ranch communities, and west
of the Golden Triangle Industrial area. The ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.'S are 2836-012-010,
011, 012, and 019. The site consists of 996 acres formerly used for industrial purposes.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 22nd day of August, 1995, at or after 6:30
p.m.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter
at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office,
Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, California.
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
Dated: July 30, 1995
Donna M. Grindey, CMC
City Clerk
e:\cd\current\pbdacc 2.kjm