Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-07 - AGENDA REPORTS - CENTRAL CITY PLANNING (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Smyth and City FROM: George A. Caravalho, City Manager DATE: October 7, 1997 SUBJECT: PROPOSED CENTRAL CITY PLANNING EFFORT The Center City Specific Plan is proposed to conduct planning for a 1,325 acre irregularly shaped site fronting on the north side of Soledad Canyon Road and the easterly side of Bouquet Canyon Road (see attached map). This study would allow for the joint planning of parks, roads, and land use as well as the protection of the Santa Clara River. At its November 26, 1996 meeting,.the City Council directed staff to prepare and distribute a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit a consultant team to prepare a Specific Plan for the Center City project. These RFPs were distributed and The Planning Center was selected to prepare this Specific Plan. At its May 27, 1997 meeting, the City Council approved the first phase of work to be conducted by The Planning Center. This first phase consists of the collection of all relevant existing information on the site and a series of exhibits describing the opportunities and constraints for planning purposes. This work has been completed by The Planning Center. At the September 9, 1997 City Council meeting, staff presented a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) intended to outline the planning effort. This MOU was to be an agreement among the City of Santa Clarita, the Valencia Company, and the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA). At this meeting, the City Council raised several questions and issues regarding the proposed process and MOU and directed staff to return with additional discussion regarding these issues. The purpose of this Study Session item is to respond to concerns raised by the City Council and to provide the pros and cons of several alternative planning efforts. ANALYSIS First, it is important to respond to the issues raised by the City Council. Although a complete issue -by -issue response is attached, the key issues are responded to here. The City Council raised a concern that the MOU sets the stage for the City to conduct land planning for two land owners and that public funds would be used for this purpose. This is not true. The City's financial contribution to the Center City Specific Plan is private developer funds already collected and targeted toward the alignment of Santa Clarita Parkway. These funds ($246,024) have already been collected and allocated for this study by the City Council. The MOU only suggests that the Santa Clarita Alignment Study should be completed in concert with any land use proposals for the area around the future alignment. The Specific Plan has been suggested aiftjgLa Item: as the appropriate planning tool to accomplish this goal. Staff has also suggested the waiver of application fees for the Specific Plan because the plan would result in City benefits, namely the alignment of Santa Clarita Parkway, Newhall Ranch Road, and the protection of the river edge. The second important issue raised by the City Council was a concern that the City's participation in the preparation of the Specific Plan would suggest the City's pre -approval of the Specific Plan's outcome. The Council was particularly concerned that the City.staff, Planning Commission, and City Council could not be objective in their review of the project's merits if we participated in its design. Although this is of course a concern, staff suggested this alternative in order to provide the City with the opportunity for more impact on the project before it begins the public review process. The City Council is the ultimate authority in this matter and is not obligated to adopt the Specific Plan proposal. In addition, the MOU states that at any time during the preparation of the Specific Plan, any of the three parties may terminate the process if the plans do not reflect the stated outcomes or the interests of the party. In essence, staff has suggested an "out clause" to ensure the Specific Plan is satisfactory to the City. CENTRAL CITY PARK ALTERNATIVES One of the most significant potential benefits of this joint planning effort is the possible expansion and relocation of the Central City Park from Bouquet Canyon to the area along the Santa Clara River known as the Pan Handle. Initial planning efforts for the Center City Specific Plan have determined that this relocation of the Central City Park could result in a much larger park area which would combine active play fields and passive trails and pathways in a unique setting along the Santa Clara River. At the Study Session, staff will provide the City Council with an overview of options being considered. SPECIFIC PLAN PROCESSING ALTERNATIVES A. Continue currentprocess - This option would require that the City Council approve the original MOU between the three parties. Pros: Strong City Planning role in guiding the Specific Plan to ensure a collaborative City staff and community process Collaboration among all three parties throughout the planning effort Stong potential for public ownership of land adjacent to and including the Santa Clara River Park, road and land use planning would occur together Cons: Perception that City Planning staff would be unable to provide an objective review of the proposed Specific Plan B. Continue currentprocess but haveParhs/Recreation and Engineering be lead City staff' -This option would require that the City Council approve the original MOU among the three parties but change the Steering Committee representatives to Parks and Recreation and Engineering staff. Pros: City continues to design Santa Clarita Parkway and Central City Park Collaboration between all three parties throughout the planning effort Good potential for public ownership of land adjacent to and including the Santa Clara River Park, road and land use planning would occur together Cons: May be more difficult to coordinate the City design/planning efforts with those of the two land owners C Discontinue the MOU and allow the two land owners to prepare their own Entitlements - With this alternative, no action would be required by the City Council. Pros: City staff would clearly be the objective third party reviewers of proposed plans Avoid any public perception that the City is planning private land RECOMMENDATION Cons: A Specific Plan may not occur - instead, each land owner would submit individual projects without coordination with City projects Proposed project will only be required to comply with the General Plan (without consideration of revisions that would result in improved development in the area through the Specific Plan) Receive staff presentation and provide direction regarding the preferred alternative. ATTACHMENTS Response to issues raised by the City Council at its September 9, 1997 meeting Local Vicinity Map Project Site Map cd \council \centercc.j jl CENTER CITY STRATEGY MEETING Issues Raised at September 9, 1997, City Council Meeting 1. The City being the lead agency in the project. The wisdom of having the City be the lead agency for the project was questioned. The City has a recognizable interest in the proposed project in that the central park, river, and infrastructure (roadways) are major components. By entering into the Memorandum of Understanding with CLWA and NL&F, staff is hoping to both preserve the City's interest in the project and ensure that the City has the maximum amount of impact on the project. 2. Ensuring that the Bridge and Thoroughfare Fees for Newhall Ranch Road and Santa Clarita Parkway are to be paid by Newhall Land & Farming. Concern was raised at the meeting that Newhall Land & Farming should not be exempted from payment of B & T fees. The Central City site is located within the existing East-West B & T District and, as such, the mechanism is in place for assessing roadway fees. There has been no discussion of waivers for the proposed project. 3. Approving the MOU gives the appearance of project Pre -Approval. There was concern expressed at the meeting relative to the policy implications of a "pre - approval." The MOU allows the City to work closely with the two land owners and gives the City the opportunity to have an impact on the outcome of the project design. The proposed project will be analyzed and prepared objectively; however, the MOU does not grant or imply that the City Council will take any specific action on the proposal. 4. Cost of Contract. There was concern expressed at the meeting that the cost of the contract is too high. Staff is concerned with keeping the cost of the proposal as low as possible. There are numerous studies associated with the proposed project which increase the cost of the plan's preparation. It is, however, important to note that the cost of the project preparation will be borne by the Castaic Lake Water Agency and Newhall Land and Farming. Although the City has committed to funding a third of the cost of the plan, the funds which are to be used are monies which were already collected from developers and earmarked for individual elements of the overall project (e.g. park plan, Santa Clarita Parkway alignment, etc.). 5. Hillside Ordinance. There was concern raised at the meeting that the Hillside Ordinance has been ignored with regard to the placement of water lines and roads. The City's Hillside Ordinance is an important element of the City and an essential component of the proposal. As such, it will be adhered to during the planning and analysis stages of the proposed project: Through the comprehensive planning of the project, staff hopes to be able to repair some of the existing, visible intrusions into the hillsides which were previously approved. 6. Public Participation. Concern was raised at the meeting relative to the public's participation in the planning process. Staff recognizes the importance of this project and the need to secure input from the community. As part of the planning process for the project, an aggressive public participation program will be developed which allows the public the maximum amount of input into the process. The final Scope of Work for the public participation element could be brought before the City Council for review and approval prior to execution. 7. City's Involvement in Process. It was originally believed that the City would just be overseers of the project. The central park, river area, and roadway system are elements of the project which are very important to the City. By entering into the MOU with the other parties, the City does not lose any of the objective ability to oversee the proposed project. In fact, the agreement will allow the City to have more of an impact on the proposal before it reaches the public hearing stage. 8. Newhall Land & Farming and CLWA being held to Standards. There was concern about what assurances we might have that NL&F and the CLWA will be held to high standards. By becoming involved in the proposed project, the City will have the maximum opportunity to ensure that the highest development standards are met for the project. The City can ensure not only the finest park facilities possible but also the highest quality residential and commercial development on-site. 9. Santa Clara River. There was a concern that we will be paying for the river bottom. Through the design of the proposed project, it is staff's hope to incorporate the river into the park design and have the City own both the river and park in fee. SANTA CLARITA Local Vicinity SANTA CLARITA CENTRAL CITY SPECIFIC PLAN 21 ��THE �VC�ENTER G NNG A