Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 08 033 APPEAL (2)Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: DATE: October 26, 2010 SUBJECT: A REQUEST TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033 OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JUNE 2, 2009, APPROVAL OF A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.28 ACRES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council conduct the continued public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the appeal of Master Case 08-033, overturning the Planning Commission's June 2, 2009 approval of a 99,000 square -foot commercial development in the Community Commercial (Planned Development Overlay) zone. BACKGROUND The project, originally submitted to the City in February 2008, consisted of five buildings totaling approximately 99,000 square feet, and included a drive-through use, a hotel use, grading in excess of 10,000 cubic yards, and three buildings that would exceed 35' in height. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project which included mitigation measures in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Hydrology and Water Quality. At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 2, 2009, the project was approved by the Planning Commission in a 4-1 vote. On June 8, 2009, the project was appealed by Councilmember McLean. A public hearing was opened at the August 25, 2009, City Council meeting, and was subsequently continued to October 27, 2009, December 8, 2009, January 12, 2010, and July 13, 2010. Each continuance was requested by the applicant. On January 12, 2010, the City Council received a presentation on the Sierra Crossing commercial project. A resolution of denial was prepared based on site design issues and impacts to the onsite 'N �r aW To: d , o riparian habitat. However, no action was taken by the City Council. At that same meeting, the Redevelopment Agency directed staff to enter into an agreement with Poliquin Kellogg Design Group (PKDG) to conduct a conceptual design and economic analysis for the entire southeast quadrant of Newhall Gateway, which includes the Sierra Crossing project site. The analysis area consists of 18.6 acres and encompasses the triangular area bounded by Newhall Avenue on the north, Sierra Highway on the west, and State Route 14 ori the east. In response to the Redevelopment Agency's action, the City Council tabled the appeal of Master Case No. 08-033 for six months to allow PKDG to complete their task. Results for the conceptual design for the southeast quadrant of the Newhall Gateway area were presented to the Redevelopment Agency on June 22, 2010. The preferred option that was selected by the Redevelopment Agency included 269,000 square feet of commercial space with ten buildings, including a 5 -level parking structure. With the conceptual Newhall Gateway design work completed, the Sierra Crossing commercial center project, Master Case 08-033, was presented to the Council for consideration on July 13, 2010. No action was taken and, at the request of the applicant, the item was continued to October 26, 2010, to allow time for the applicant to consider revising the development plan. Prior to the October 26, 2010, City Council meeting, the applicant requested in writing that this item be continued to a date uncertain. In addition, the applicant clearly states that he has no interest in being partners with USC, the adjacent property owner, or the City to realize the concept plan that was created for the quadrant. Based on the applicant's concerns listed in the continuance letter, the issues raised in the project appeal letter over site design, environmental, and historic resources in the area, and based on the Redevelopment Agency's support for a comprehensive development plan for the entire Newhall Gateway area, staff recommends approving the appeal of Master Case No. 08-033 rather than to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain. For this reason, a resolution approving the appeal of Master Case No. 08-033, overturning the Planning Commission's approval of the Sierra Crossing commercial center project, has been drafted for the Council's consideration. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Direct staff to return to Council with a resolution denying the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission's June 2, 2009, approval of the project. 2. Other action as determined by Council. FISCAL IMPACT No direct fiscal impact is anticipated as a result of this action. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Site Plan Continuance Letter 10-12-10 Staff Report 7-13-10 available in the City Clerk's Reading File RESOLUTION 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08-005, MINOR USE PERMIT 08-008, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 08-006), OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT FIVE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 99,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NEWHALL AVENUE AND SIERRA HIGHWAY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF NEWHALL, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (APNs 2827-005-014, 015, 027, 028, AND 029). SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita (hereafter "City") hereby makes the following findings of fact: a. On February 27, 2008, SFXS Partners (the applicant) submitted an application to construct the Sierra Crossing shopping center consisting of five buildings totaling approximately 99,000 square feet, and containing a drive-through use, a hotel use, grading in excess of 10,000 cubic yards, and three buildings that would exceed 35' in height on vacant property in the Community Commercial Planned Development Overlay (CC(PD)) zone; b. The project site includes five parcels: Assessor Parcel No. 2827-005-014, 015, 027, 028, and 029, and is located on the southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway in the community of Newhall; C. On June 2, 2009, during a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission, by a 4-1 vote, approved Master Case 08-033 and all associated entitlements including Conditional Use Permit 08-005, Minor Use Permit 08-008, and Oak Tree Permit 08-006; d. In that same 4-1 decision to approve the project, the Planning Commission also adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project; e. During the Planning Commission meeting on this matter, representatives for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment spoke in opposition of the project citing impacts to Newhall Creek and a representative from the Old Town Newhall Association spoke in favor of the project citing the need for additional jobs and to support the downtown Newhall redevelopment effort; f. On June 8, 2009, the project was appealed to the City Council by Councilmember McLean for issues related to the overall site design for this highly visible, major gateway entrance to the City, aesthetics and the impact the project would have on surrounding viewsheds, and environmental issues relating to impact to Newhall Creek; .3 g. On August 25, 2009, a public hearing was opened by the City Council on this matter and, at the request of the applicant, was continued to October 27, 2009, in order to provide time for the applicant to discuss a modified project with an adjacent property owner; h. On October 27, 2009, the appeal was again continued, at the request of the applicant, to December 8, 2009, so that the Redevelopment Agency, as part of its regular meeting on November 24, 2009, could explore hiring an architectural and design firm to comprehensively plan the southeast quadrant of the Newhall Gateway; On December 8, 2009, the City Council received testimony from the public and also the applicant and, at the applicant's request, continued the public hearing to January 12, 2010; On January 12, 2010, the City Council received a staff presentation, testimony from the public and also the applicant, and at the request of the applicant, continued the public hearing to a date uncertain; k. On July 13, 2010, in a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council received a staff presentation, testimony from the public and also the applicant, and at the request of the applicant, continued the public hearing until October 26, 2010, in order to explore the possibility of incorporating the project into a larger development in the Newhall Gateway area; 1. On October 12, 2010, the applicant requested in writing that the public hearing for Master Case No. 08-033 be continued to a date uncertain; M. On October 26, 2010, the City Council received a staff presentation, public testimony and also testimony from the applicant, and closed the public hearing. SECTION 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts, the staff report accompanying this item, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the findings listed in Section 17.03.040(E)(1) of the Unified Development Code, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. Finding required in Section 17.03.040(E)(1): "That the proposed location, size, design, and operation characteristics of the proposed use is in accordance with the purpose of this development code, the purpose of the zone in which the site is located, the Santa Clarita General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City; " 1) The City Council cannot make this finding because the project does not meet the purpose of the Planned Development Overlay Zone as listed in Section 17.16.020(A) of the Unified Development Code (UDC). As stated in Section 17.16.020(A) of the UDC, the purpose of the Planned Development Overlay Zone is to facilitate development that is creative and imaginative. The project is not creative or imaginative. The project is a typical freeway -oriented commercial center and does not meet the City's vision for development at a major gateway entrance into the City and the project does not facilitate development that would promote more economical and efficient use of the land than would otherwise be permitted under conventional zoning. The project does not provide a sufficient mix or variety of uses, or a sufficient level of amenities, nor does the project sufficiently preserve natural resources or scenic qualities of surrounding open space. The project would fill in a portion of Newhall Creek, remove oak trees, and does not integrate the historic former US Route 6 right-of-way into the development. 2) The City Council cannot make this finding because the project does not conform to the development standards of the Planned Development Overlay Zone as found in Section 17.16.020(G) As stipulated in Subsection (G)(1), the, project is not compatible with, or complementary to, existing and potential development in the immediate vicinity because it under utilizes commercial land adjacent to office parks and proposed movie studio uses. As a project within a gateway entrance to the City, the floor area ratio should be better utilized and should be comparable to other approved projects in the area. The buildings should be distinctive in their architecture and design and create a strong sense of place for the City's Newhall entrance. As stipulated in Subsection (G)(8), the project does not relate harmoniously to the topography of the site nor does the project make suitable provisions for the preservation of the existing watercourse and drainage area contained in Newhall Creek, oak trees, or significant flora and fauna in that the project was not designed to make use of or preserve these features. Instead, the project would destroy 300 linear feet of verdant creek bed, its associated bank, and riparian environment. Minimal attention was given to oak tree preservation, and the project works against the topography of the site instead of working with it SECTION 3. MINOR USE PERMIT AND OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Any development or project within the Planned Development Overlay Zone requires a Conditional Use Permit. Without the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, the uses contemplated by the Minor Use Permit, along with the removals and encroachments that would have been permitted by the Oak Tree Permit, cannot be approved. SECTION 4. Based on the findings contained in Sections 2 and 3 above, the City Council hereby upholds the appeal of Master Case 08-033, overturning the Planning Commission's 4-1 decision to approve the project along with the following entitlements: Conditional Use Permit 08-005, Minor Use Permit 08-008, and Oak Tree Permit 08-006; and does not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan that was prepared for the project. 3 SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October, 2010. ATTEST: CITY CLERK El MAYOR APO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do 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 26th day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: E CITY CLERK 7. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution 10- adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on October 26, 2010, which is now on file in my office. Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this _ day of 2010. City Clerk By Deputy City Clerk CITY CLERK :'7 — - ---- - - --- 150 V) Hfi �i yocioo 00490 a wf f T—C-r kk Ai N AM, .1s ...... . ..... . . I ---- ---- --- LLJ I NIN G. ,ail �', a: c W L ILI 11) , Ci Iii f T—C-r kk Ai N AM, .1s ...... . ..... . . I ---- ---- --- LLJ I NIN SFXS Partners _ 24933 Railroad Avenue Santa Clarita, CA 91321 October 12, 2010 City of Santa Clarita, City Council Mayor Laurene Weste and Council Members 23920 Valencia Blvd Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Sierra Crossing development (Master Case No. 08-033) Dear City Council Members; At the request of the Mayor, on September 13, 2010 there was a meeting between Mike Redmond, Craig Peters and Don Cruikshank (representing SFXS, the applicant), Paul Brotzman, Lisa Webber, and Armine Chaparyan (City staff), and Larry Kosmont and Ken Hira from Kosmont Companies. The purpose of the meeting was to review the existing application and the concept plan presented by the Poliquin Kellogg Design Group. Our goal was to begin the process of coming up with a plan for the Newhall Gateway quadrant that works in the current the economic environment and addresses the more overall development goals of the City. During the last City Council meeting the following objectives were cited: A. Design a plan that promotes connectivity to all properties within the quadrant; B. Prevent any proposed building and grading from occurring within the on-site riparian area to preserve the natural habitat; C. Transform the function of the on-site riparian area from a drainage way into a project amenity; D. Incorporate former historic U.S. Highway 6 into the project design; E. Provide a multi -use trail along former U.S. Highway 6 and the riparian area; F. Maximize the development potential for all properties in the quadrant with uses that will better serve the community and compliment other uses planned for the vicinity; G. Create a strong street presence along Sierra Highway; H. Ensure financial feasibility of the conceptual design; To these objectives these are our responses and requests: 1. We have no interest in putting anymore funds into a project which was approved by the Planning Commission just because the City now wants it incorporated with an adjacent property owner, USC. 2. USC does not have any willingness to develop, but simply wants to sell the property for a price which is not realistic in this economic climate. As you may or may not know we have made several attempts to purchase the property over the last 5 years for a reasonable price. We will not, and should not be required or forced by the city, to purchase the USC property at unreasonable costs for a sub -standard uncertain /d development plan that has no approvals or guarantees. Additionally any entitlement work done on the USC property simple drives up their unrealistic price. 3. We do not believe the conceptual master plan prepared by the City is economically viable. The architecture, the city designed, is too costly even in the best of times to be supported by currents lease rates. The site plan, preferred by city staff, incorporates 140,000 sq.ft. of office space into the project. Craig Peters and other local real estate professionals and advisers have suggested that there maybe 5 to 10 year supply of office space already available on the market. Additionally the parking ratio of 3.07 to 3.52 /1000 sq.ft. which was designed into the city design is unacceptable. Just to name a few things. 4. If the City wants to pursue this plan which includes our property, then it should buy our property and proceed with spearheading a combined project with USC. We have no interest in being partners with USC or the City. 5. The Sierra Crossing Project which was approved by the planning commission had an approved SAA, Streamline Alteration Agreement, with the CDFG. It also was approved by the ACOE and it was only waiting for the signed CEQA document. But because survival of our current project is in question I requested and was granted by the CDFG the opportunity to rewriting the work description on that SAA document. This SAA could be approved by the CDFG with out the CEQA document from the City. I will provide a copy of that SAA to the City when it is finished. Our goal is to create a great project for the City which works as a Gateway to the City. However, we will not and can not continue to pour investors' money into the great uncertainty which has now been created by the City. We realize that these new proposals substantially change the nature of the project. Pursuant to these goals, SFXS requests a continuance of their application to a future date uncertain while some of the new opportunities discussed at the meeting are more fully explored. We appreciate your consideration of our request. Thank you, Mike Redmond SFXS Partners NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting held July 13, 2010, continued a public hearing on ITEM 23 PUBLIC HEARING A REQUEST TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033 OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JUNE 2, 2009, APPROVAL OF A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.28 ACRES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE to October 26, 2010. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. Dated this 14`" day of July, 2010. SARAH P. GORMAN, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) SARAH P. GORMAN, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on July 14, 2010, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. S^.CITY\Public I Icarings\Continued PI NIC 08-033 TO 10-26-10.doc 1 SARAH P. GORMAN, CITY CLERK ` Santa Clarita, California r I t