Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - PORTA BELLA SPECIFIC PLAN PH APPEALSAGENDA REPORT ty M ager A Item to be presented Lynn M. Harri!f:rW-z,-K PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 23, 1994 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEALS BY VARIOUS PARTIES CONCERNING THE PORTA BELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ENTITLEMENTS AND THE DECISION ON JUNE 21, 1994, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION; TO CERTIFY THE FEIR AND ADDENDUM SCH 92-041041; TO ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; TO APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51599 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 91-033; AND TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SPECIFIC PLAN 91-001 AND CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 93-003. DEPARTMENT: Community Development Staff provided an update regarding the Porta Bella project at the June 29, 1994, City Council Study Session. Since that meeting, three appeals have been filed regarding the Planning Commission decision and recommendation to the City Council made on June 21, 1994. Copies of the appeal letters are attached to this item. The Planning Commission resolutions, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Conditions of Approval approved by the Planning Commission for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51599 and Oak Tree Permit 91-033 are included in the Council's reading file for the Porta Bella Specific Plan and Development Agreement. ANALYSIS On June 21, 1994, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions P94-04 and P94-07 regarding the Porta Bella project, Master Case No.'s 91-164 and 93-12, in a 4-1 vote. The summary of the Planning Commission's decision is included in the previous agenda item regarding the Porta Bella Specific Plan, including a General Plan Amendment, and the Development Agreement. Since the Planning Commission decision, three separate appeals have been filed. Each appeal letter is attached, and the nature of the appeals are Continued To: 9-a y summarized as follows: 1. Porta Bella Appeal No. 1 (APL-PB 94-01) Everett D. Scott, Jr, Vice President of Keysor-Century Corporation, appealed the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and conditions, and the revised road network, particularly the off -site alignment of Magic Mountain Parkway proceeding easterly across Bouquet/San Fernando Road and across the Keysor-Century property. Keysor-Century is concerned that their property could be impacted by a future extension of Magic Mountain Parkway to the east of the railroad tracks adjacent to Bouquet/San Fernando Road prior to the proposed road taking access to the Civic Center Property and the Bermite site, Staff has begun to discuss this issue with Keysor-Century, other property owners, and the applicant and will update the Council at the hearing. Regarding off -site improvements, Condition ED-42 states in part, '....It is the sole responsibility of the developer to acquire the necessary right-of- way...:" Condition ED-43 also addresses the issue, stating in section d., "The applicant shall pay all of the City's costs of acquiring said off -site property interest...," should that become necessary, 2. Porta Bella Appeal No. 2 (APL-PB 94-02) Dean Cheeseman, Karl Kanowsky, and other Circle J residents appealed the approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Oak Tree Permit; the certification of the FEIR and Addendum, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Statement of Overriding Consideration based on all the issues raised in public testimony, Because of the general nature of this appeal, it cannot be summarized, though from previous public testimony and letters, staff has an understanding of the Circle J concerns. In general, the Circle J residents have expressed the greatest concern regarding the off -site extension of the Magic/Princessa corridor through their designated open space, with particular concerns regarding noise, aesthetic impacts, and pollution. The Planning Commission directed staff to study this alignment, which was done in the Addendum to the FEIR. The Commission reviewed the Addendum, including the environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and voted to recommend this roadway, The residents have also expressed repeated concerns regarding the issue of hazardous waste, variations from typical zoning standards, and hillside grading and ridgeline impacts. Circle J residents requested that the Commission consider Alternative No. 4 in the Environmental Impact Report, which was judged to be environmentally superior because of lower densities and lesser grading and ridgeline impacts. The Commission considered these concerns and Alternative 4 in their deliberations, but approved and recommended otherwise, as reflected in the resolutions. Porta Bella Appeal No. 3 (APL-PB 94-03) Mr. Sam Veltri, of Northholme Partners and the project applicant, appealed Traffic Condition TE-1 of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, which is the master condition from which the other traffic conditions follow, The applicant expresses concern that the full burden for all conditioned future traffic improvements within the surrounding area is placed solely on the Porta Bella project, both those necessitated by Porta Bella and as well as those necessitated by other potential future development, whether or not these other properties are actually developed and/or contribute their fair share. Staff, in coordination with the City Attorney's Office, has been reviewing the concerns raised by the applicant in the light of recent court decisions, and staff will keep the Council apprised of this. Legally, a project can be conditioned to mitigate its own impacts. It may be necessary to rewrite some of the condition language on technical grounds. In the Development, Agreement phase, should the Council pursue that, the City would have a subsequent opportunity to require additional infrastructure improvements to create usable road segments. One of the main concerns of the Commission was the construction of useful infrastructure improvements with each phase, with the recommendation that the applicant be allowed to pursue reimbursement mechanisms from adjacent land owners as they developed their properties. Staff is concerned that the processing of the Porta Bella Specific Plan and Development Agreement and the processing of the appeals of the Planning Commission's Porta Bella decision as two separate agenda items will create duplicative work for staff, redundant reports for Council, repetitive testimony, and increased hearing times. Staff believes that it would be better to package these items together because of their interrelatedness and for administrative efficiency. RECOMMENDATION:' Staff recommends that the City Council.. L Receive staff report and open the public hearing; 2. Set date for a joint study session with the Planning Commission for October 4; 1 Set date for field visit to the Porta Bella site for the week of September 12; 4. Continue the public hearing to the October 11, 1994, City Council meeting; 5. Direct staff to present the public hearing for the appeals of the Planning Commission decision on Porta Bella and the public hearing for Council consideration of the Porta Bella Specific Plan and Development Agreement together in a single agenda item for future Council hearings.. Attachments: Appeal letters Public Hearing Notice: Appeals current\pb_mr02.6jm 3 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 S. Discussion by Council 9. Council decision 10. Mayor announces decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEALS BY VARIOUS PARTIES CONCERNING THE PORTA BELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ENTITLEMENTS, AND THE DECISION, ON JUNE 21, 1994, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; TO CERTIFY THE FEIR AND ADDENDUM SCH 92.041041; TO ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; TO APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51599 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 91-033; AND TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SPECIFIC PLAN 91.001 AND CONSIDER 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 Specific Plan), Including Specific Plan No. 91-001; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51599; Development Agreement No. 93-003; Oak Tree Permit No. 91-033; and FEIR and Addendum SCH 92-041041. As indicated above, the following appeals have been filed: (1) Everett D. Scott, Jr, Vice President of Keysor-Century Corporation, appealed the vesting tentative tract map and conditions, and the revised road network, particularly the off -site alignment of Magic MountainParkway proceeding easterly across San Fernando Road and across the Keysor- Century property; (2) Dean Cheeseman, Karl Kanowsky, and other Circle J residents appealed the approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Oak Tree Permit, the certification of the FEIR and Addendum, the mitigation monitoring program, and the Statement of Overriding Consideration based on all the Issues raised In public testimony; and (3) Mr. Sam Veltri, of Northholme Partners and the project applicant, appealed Traffic Condition TE-1 of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The property, known as the Bermite site, Is located south of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Bouquet Canyon/San Fernando Roads, and north of the Circle J Ranch. 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map proposes to create 76 master lots to be further subdivided in future tract maps. There are 182 oak trees on the site and the project may require the removal of up to 109 oak trees, including as many as five of the ten heritage oak trees. The Specific Plan proposes 2,911 dwelling units, including 1,244 single-family homes and 1,667 multi- family dwellings. The proposed Magic/Princessa corridor Includes an off -site segment within the designated open space of Circle J Ranch and another extending west from the project site to San Fernando Road. The hearing will be held by the City Council In the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 23rd day of August, 1994, 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 maybe obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Santa Clarta, 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 Clarta at, or prior to, the public hearing. Dated: August 1, 1994 Donna M. Grindey, CMC City Clerk Publish Date: August 3, 1994 June 29, 1994 Honor City Council City of Santa Clarita c/o Jeri Miller -Davis, Deputy City Clerk 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 M' ?OKTA 4PL-P& RE: Tentative Tract Map Appeal to Council This is an appeal from the Planning Commission approval (by adopting Planning Commission P94-07 on June 21, 1994) of vesting appeal from the Planning Commission approval (on June 21, 1994) of the conditions of approval of vesting tentative tract map no. 51599 and revised roadway network including but not limited to the following conditions DS-1, DS-2, DS-4, TE-1, TE-4, TE-11, ED-7, ED 8, ED-la, ED-11, ED-20, ED-40, ED-41, ED-42, ED-43. In order to preserve our legal rights under the law, one of the reasons for this appeal is to exhaust our administrative remedies. The city's unified development code section 17.03.030 tentative subdivision maps states that pursuant to the California subdivision map act, section 66411 Et. Seq., the Santa Clarita Planning Commission is designated as the advisory agency and is authorized to approve tentative subdivision maps including vesting tentative tract maps as specified under the subdivision map act. The Planning Commission in approving a tentative tract map shall amongst other findings, make a finding of fact that "the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with The Santa Clarita General Plan, this code....". "The Planning Commission shall act on the application for approval(of a tentative tract map) the the adoption of a resolution." (See commission resolution P94-07). "The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council." Appeals of the action of the planning commission may be made.... with the City Clerk within 15 calendar days KEY SO CENTURY CORPORATION 26000 SpringWook Ave. Box 924 Sa�Ia Clawa, CA 91380-9024 (805) 2592360. (818) 365-3991 City of Santa clarita June 29, 1994 Page 2 following the Planning Commission decision." We are filing this appeal within 15 calendar days of the commission's June 21, 1994 decision approving this vesting tentative Tract Map No. 51599. our representative, Mr. Roger Hutchinson, took up the matter of the appeal on June 23, 1994, with Mr. Richard Henderson, a principal staff member acting for the director of community development ands deputy city manager, (Under section 2.04.108. B). Also present were the city engineer and the city traffic engineer. We are convinced that this matter cannot be adjusted to the appellant's satisfaction before the expiration of the 15 calendar days following the commission's action of June 21, 1994. The specific grounds for the appeal are as follows: 1. The commission approved vesting tentative tract map no. 51599 and revised road network including an exhibit "A". This exhibit "A" along with figure it and figure 12 which are a part of the Porta Bella specific plan all indicate an off -site alignment of Magic Mountain Parkway proceeding easterly across San Fernando Road, the railroad right of way and approximately across our extensive Keysor-Century manufacturing facilities. This off -site right of way is a required part of tentative tract no. 51599. The commission approved this tentative tract map without requiring a specific alignment of Magic Mountain parkway so that it is impossible for us to tell the extent of the potential encroachment of this right of way upon our property and operations. However, there is no question that it most likely will have a substantial affect upon us. The involved city departments have indicated that it well may have a direct effect upon our property, especially because the road at this point will consist of a massive bridge with supporting columns. We cannot assume that our operations will not be totally and permanently disrupted under the vastness that this action affects upon us and so we appeal from the commission approval unless and until the location of this right of way and structure can we determined. Furthermore, we must be allowed to know if this alignment will detrimentally affect our operations before this tract and its road network is approved for the following reason. If the Magic Mountain Parkway alignment does terminate our operations, this would be contrary to the general Plan - and a required finding for the commission is that it not be contrary to the general plan. The reason that a closure of our operations would be contrary to the general plan is that our property is designated for industrial use in the plan and in the text of the general plan on page L-28 the stated GOAL No. 2.1 reads: promote the retention and provide opportunities for expansion of existing manufacturing of industrial land uses in industrial... locations. The termination of our operations would eliminate 105 existing employment opportunities. We are far and away the major contributor toward achieving the jobs/housing City of Santa Clarita June 29, 1994 Page 3 balance in the San Fernando Road area.. The city of Santa Clarita community strategic plan update (1991-1994), action item #5 entitled Jobs/Housing Balance states: adopt a general plan that will promote job and housing balance. The general plan was adopted June 25, 1991. The subject of jobs/housing balance is addressed through the goals and policies of the general plan and retention of local jobs is part of the action plan which is critical to the, implemen-tation of the strategic plan as a whole. Before approval of tentative tract no. 51599 it must be determined if 105 Keysor- Century employees will be put out of work because if this is to be the outcome, the approval of this tract will be contrary to the action plan of the strategic plan. The action plan was formally adopted by the City Council on July 10, 1991. 2. The commission approved the following conditions of approval of vesting tentative tract map no. 51599 from which we appeal, for the following reasons: DS-1. This conditions incorporates into the tentative tract map the Magic Mountain Parkway without determining its precise alignment. We object to a condition that makes it impossible for us to discern its likely consequences upon us. DS-2. Same reasons as DS-1. DS-4. Object that this condition conflicts with state subdivision map act law that the advisory agency (the planning commission) action is final unless appealed. TE-1. Object to the implementation or funding of these improvements not being required as the sole responsibility of the developer. The reason for our appeal is that the developer's lack of concern as to the immediate determination of the specific alignment and ultimate effect of Magic Mountain Parkway upon our property., which could result in an inverse condemnation of our property for which many millions of dollars (for property as well as a buy out of the displaced business) would be required - could become the responsibility of the city as an expense not contemplated by the bonds posted by the developer. TE-4. Object to -design (read location) of grade separation crossing of Magic Mountain Parkway not beino determined before commission action, as presently permitted in this condition. TE-11. Object for same reason as in TE-4. ED-7. Condition should require information re: infrastructure to city engineer before approval of tract by advisory agency so effects can be ascertained. If 6trb' I' City of Santa Clarita June 29, 1994 Page 4 ED-8. Object that the amendment to the circulation element of the general plan referred to in this condition should not be recommended for approval by the commission until there is specificity in the Magic Mountain Parkway alignment.. ED-10. Object that condition does not require preliminary design of Magic Mountain Parkway grade separated railroad crossing by our property prior to commission approval as is permitted by this condition. ED-20. object that condition applies only to public streets within the new development. It should also refer to off site streets. ED-40. Object that condition does not require location of slope easements for Magic Mountain Parkway right of way and structures in vicinity or upon our property to be predetermined before commission approves tentative tract. ED-41. Objection same as in ED-40 re: granting easements without locating them before commission approval of tentative tract ANWW. Object in that the condition requires the applicant to construct off -site improvements but does not require developer to give precise location of off -site improvements so that affected land owners can determine how they are affected and can thus object, if necessary,* the commission approves the tentative tract off -site improvements which become a fait accompli when they are later precisely aligned. ED-43. object that condition does not specifically include in the cost of acquisition the acquiring of an operating business and any losses which may occur in the closing of business and costs to compensate for future profits lost,due to the inability to relocate the operations. Request the following relief or action as the case may be from the Mrrwit resolutionP94-o7. 1. Grant the appeal. 2. Instruct the appropriate departments to require the precise alignment of the Magic Mountain Parkway and the precise location of appurtenance structures including slope easements etc. in the vicinity of the Drayton St. thereby altering and modifying vesting tentative tract map no. 51599 and revised City of Santa Clarita June 29, 1994 Page 5 road network (as shown on exhibit "A" in the planning department file) to reflect these precise alignments and locations, so that when these changes are made Keysor-Century Corporation may know how its properties are affected and may then make an informed decision and be permitted to appear before the council, if it appears that we are adversely affected, in order to testify as we should have been able toy before the commissionjin the first place. 3. Instruct the appropriate departments to review the conditions of approval of vesting tentative tract map no. 51599 and revised road network which we specifically appealed from and report to the council on our reasons stated above for specific changes andpprepare revised conditions for your consideration *",,j8 after whiclfwould be able to appear and testify before your honorable body before you take final action on our appeal and on this tentative tract map. Sincerely, Everett D. Scott, Jr. Vice President Attachment: Exhibit "A" Figure 11 •.� �Z ! R � tz a .. �- .� t _ x V7 lr ST sq 9 O , . r Ketvued Roca{ NcN•urk r� HIGHWAY O a i twa) POUM ANE COLLWMR TWO LANE COLLECCOR VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SYSTEM later TM TWA lmt� isr! FIGURE 11 �xotacT stra ROUNDAYY NORTH NM 1a lak JUN 3 L & _ I_YNN M. HARRIS June 29, 1994 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 To Whom It May Concern: T0,4o 3e l((, / ppild qq -W LPL- P3 011i -u 1 This is to inform you that Roger Hutchinson is authorized to be our representative on behalf of all matters concerning applications by Northolme Partners for specific plan known as Porta Bella, for vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51599 and its revised road network shown on Exhibit "A", the General Plan Amendment to the circulation element (including off -site segments) and changing the site's General Plan designation to specific plan in the land use element and General Plan map, the proposed development agreement, the project EIR and addendum for the overall project - all having to do with the property .in and around the 900 plus acres formerly known as the Bermite site including all related matters. Sincerely, Everett D. Scott, Jr. ' Vice President PUBLIC RELATIONS PLANNING a ZONING ROGER S. HUTCHINSON GOVERMENTAL SERVICES CONSULTANT P.O. BOX 651 PHONE BEVERLY HILLS. CALIF. 90213 (213) 462.4500 KEYSOR-CENTURY CORPORATION 26000 Soringorook Ave Box 924. Sama Cianta. CA 91380-9024 (805) 259 2360. (818) 365 399, June 30, 1994 Dean Cheeseman 22288 Circle J. Ranch Rd. Santa Clarita, Ca. 91350 City of _Santa Clarita Donna Grindley, City Clerk 23920 Valencia, Ca. Ste 300 Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355 Ms. Grindley, �okn � e iGt /`lyeA.(" I-02_ At-PIq-02- On June 21, 1994 the City of Santa Clarita planning Commission passed the recommendations of staff to: 1)Adopt Resolution P94-04 to adopt a statement of overriding considerations; certify the FEIR and Addendum SCH 92-041041; and adopt a mitigation monitoring program; and 2)Adopt Resolution P94-07 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51599 and Oak Tree Permit 91-033. The resolution also includes a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council that the City Council: approve Specific Plan 91-001, known as Porta Bella, which approves a General Plan Amendment which includes the Highway Network of the Circulation Element (including off -site segments) and changing the site's General Plan designation to Specific Plan in the Land Use Element and General P-lap Map; begin processing of the Development Agreement,..includi6g referring the Development Agreement back to the Commission with direction; and, certify the FEIR and Addendum for the overall project. I am wishing to appeal to the City Council the Planning Commission approval of the Tentative map and Oak Tree permit. While my appeal may seem redundant, it is necessary. Eventhough, the specific plan is not approved,technically, they were final approval. The final approval of the Tentative Track map and Oak Tree permit does not have to go on to City Council for approval. Tentative maps should be approved after the Specific Plan is adopted and should conform to the Specific Plan. My appeal is based on all issues raised in public testimony. ThanlrY0u 6�j Dean Cheeseman CC: City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission Chairman Doughman June 30, 1994 VIA FACSIMILE 805-259-8215 Ms. Donna Grindey City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Ms. Grindey: per-613e1b �PpeA( I q-uz .A PL -P9 q4-02- This confirms your telephone conversation of June 30, 1994 with Carl Kanovsky regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Porta Bella project. As an appeal has already been filed by Roger Hutchison, there is no need for the undersigned individuals to pay a separate f*q.it,,a`-preserve their right of appeal or to pay any additional fees'at this time. we understand that if Mr. Hutchison Withdraws his appeal prior to consideration by the City Council then we would be required to pay the $460.00 processing fee. Also, this letter, as well as the one submitted earlier by Dean Cheeseman, will be incorporated into the appeal. Therefore, the undersigned wish to appeal to the City Council the Planning Commission's approval of the Porta Bella project, including the following: Master Case Numbers 91-164 and 93-012 (Porta Bella Specific Plan), including Specific Plan Number 91-001; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51599; Development Agreement Number 93-003; Oak Tree Permit Number 91-033; and the approval of the Staff Recommendation 1) Adopt the resolution to a.) Approve Master Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51599 and Oak Tree Permit 91-033 with conditions contingent on City Council approval of the Specific Plan and b.) recommend approval of the Porta Bella Specific Plan 91-001 and amendment of the Circulation Network of the General Plan to the City Council and consideration of a Development Agreement; 2) Adopt resolutions certifying the Final Environmental l�LRIV b WWUULi �CUJ.u`JL-r-vJ7L UU� V♦ 7-� ♦:+•-.� IV .:;vu� ; v.JVw Ms. Donna Grinday June 30, 1994 Page 2 Msct Report and Addendum 1SCH 92-041040, including a Statement of Overriding Consideration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. This appeal is based upon all the issues, material, evidence and testimony in the ,public record of all the hearings by the Planning Commission on these topics. If any of the above is not in conformance with your understanding, then please notify me in writing immediately. Thank you for courtesy and cooperation. Respectfully submitted, Carl J. Kanowsky Terry Kanowsky Dean Cheeseman Sue Cheeseman Connie warden r Ron Druschen ,. Terri Wachter Oswaldo Lopez John McVay Jan Porlier Lorraine Kenny Greg Kenny Jeff Koskie Terri Koskie John Rowinski Clay Porlier Judy Kennedy Douglas Meskell Cheyl Baca Jim Rennedy Robert Turchan Jan Porlier Ron Wachter Barbara Meskell William House Virginia Bowman Scott Bentley Renee Sabol Ms. Donna Grindey June 30, 1994 Page 3 Nora House Stephen Parks Alan Sabol Nancy Parks Mitch Uberstien Jan Uberstien CJK/ M1137.wr cc: Planning Commission e„s � July 1, 1994 VIA FACSINILE 805-2S9-s125 Ms. Donna Grindey City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Ms. Grindey: PO iz7A ;E �L,� A ?I� APB pgqu-uv please add Randy Shatz pof the eople appealing PceritatheanyorHomeowners the Association to the list of p Ple approval kyyplanning Commission of Aorta Bella. Respectfully submitteSf, Oki K .j V4 Carl Jtxanovsky cc: Planning Commission 10'd 810'ON 8Z:9T D6,10 Inr Z680-GZ8-OT£:131 A3100M 8 N?13A July 19, 1994 Northholme Partners 330 Washington Boulevard Fourth Floor Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Ms. Donna Grindey City Clerk 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ?dr jc� ic' ila II Prd �tf U3 PL-- � 01'-f —0 3 Subject: Planning Commission Resolution P94-07 for approval of VTTM 51599 Dear Ms. Grindey: Northholme Partners does hereby appeal the Planning Commission approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51599. Specifically, this is an appeal of the Traffic Engineering Conditions of Approval. In this regard, we specifically object, among other things, to the following highlighted language: "The fair share contribution of the project shall be determined based upon traffic This appeal is necessitated by; 1) The vague language of condition TE-1; 2) The possibility that the TE conditions could require the applicant to implement roadway or intersection improvements that either may not be warranted or may be required to mitigate impacts due to traffic generated by other projects than Porta Bella; Ms. Donna Grindey July 19, 1994 Page 2 3) The traffic study, in part, involves evaluating traffic conditions at a macro -level, includes assumptions related to developments over a period of twenty years and does not identify Porta Bella's share in the construction of these improvements. The traffic study was conducted as a part of the Specific Plan EIR effort and prepared in accordance with the industry standards for traffic studies for this type of Project. The traffic study is a comprehensive analysis of all traffic generated within the study area, including Porta Bella. As such, the traffic study includes background traffic which will be generated by sources other than Porta Bella or arise out of future development which may not occur in the time frame envisioned. The road and intersection improvements described in the Conditions of Approval are in response to the cumulative impacts of all study area traffic generators. The TE conditions do not acknowledge the distinction between the road and intersection improvements required for the adequate accommodation of Porta Bella's traffic and the background traffic generated by the growth of the community at large. Therefore, the TE conditions serve to mitigate all traffic impacts that are projected for the region regardless of source and regardless of whether development in the region occurred as projected. The foregoing clearly violates law. In the recent decision on June 24, 1994, of Dolan v. City of Tigard, 62 USLW 4576 (1994), the United States Supreme Court held that conditions of approval mustmeet two tests: (1) there must be an essential nexus between a project and the conditions imposed on it, and (2) the city must also prove proportionality between the conditions imposed upon the project and the extent to which the proposed project is responsible for the impacts mitigated by those conditions. See also Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987). Clearly, the Conditions of Approval fail to meet this test by imposing all regional mitigation traffic measures as TE conditions for the Porta Bella Vesting Tentative Map. In view of the foregoing, condition TE-1 was inserted to permit the City to determine anticipated traffic conditions and associated mitigation measures based on traffic studies closer to the time of development of each phase and whether any given condition is reasonably connected to the impacts of the Porto Bella project. Condition TE-i was also inserted because the traffic study did not include a fair share analysis of the Project's proportionate share of the traffic mitigation measures. Despite the original purpose of condition TE-1, the language of the condition TE-1, as highlighted at the beginning of this letter, would withhold occupancy permits for any phase until the completion of all traffic improvements identified in the TE conditions for that phase, even though studies may demonstrate that those conditions are not applicable to the Porta Bella project. In addition, this highlighted language does not take into Ms. Donna Grindey July 19, 1994 Page 3 consideration impacts which may not exist if currently projected background growth does not occur. Therefore, the highlighted language emasculates the whole purpose of condition TE-1. That language deprives the Applicant of its legal right to demonstrate the specific impacts associated with the development of each phase of the Project and the applicable mitigation measures for such impacts. In addition, this language prevents the road and intersection improvements from being sized in relation to project's actual traffic conditions and impacts as they occur. In summary, condition TE-1, as currently drafted imposes upon the Project the absolute burden of completion of all road and intersection improvements identified in the Traffic Study. It places the responsibility of the road and intersection improvements on Porta Bella, whether or not Porta Bella generates the traffic impacts or whether the traffic impact even exists. Absent the project impact, it is inappropriate and a violation of law to require the improvement. In fact, the withholding of occupancy permits for any phase where the proposed road requirements are adequate to satisfy the project's impacts directly contradicts the purpose of the project EIR. The major deficiencies in the TE-1 condition may be corrected by doing the following: 1. Delete the highlighted language quoted at the beginning of this letter; and 2. To clarify the purpose of TE-1, replace the fourth paragraph of TE-1 (commencing with the phrase, "The off -site improvements") with the following paragraph: "The traffic study assumes that off -site improvements as indicated in the traffic study will be in place concurrent with each of the three phases of this development. Since the requirements for these improvements arise out of projected future development and regional traffic improvements, as distinguished from project specific traffic impacts, the applicant may submit additional traffic studies which demonstrate that the traffic impacts of Porta Bella can be mitigated by mitigation measures, which may be different than the TE conditions which follow. The traffic mitigation measures which are identified by any such studies and adopted by the City Council shall be implemented to address the impacts of the project. In this connection, Applicant shall be entitled to submit a traffic study prepared immediately before the recordation of each final map for each phase of the Project, which traffic study shall analyze the traffic impacts with respect to such phase. Such study shall be reviewed by the City and used by the City and its legislative bodies to determine the Project's fair share of traffic mitigation measures. The Applicant shall have the right to appeal from any adverse determination with respect to such subsequent studies and allocation of traffic mitigation measures to the Project, notwithstanding any statue of limitations Ms. Donna Grindey July19, 1994 Page 4 (including without limitation Sections 66452.5, 65009, and 66499.37 of the California Government Code) applicable to the appeal of the Conditions of Approval as currently approved." If the changes described above or alternatives acceptable to all parties are not made, then the Applicant hereby appeals all of the TE conditions as excessive and in violation of the standards announced in the United States Supreme Court decisions of Nollan v California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987), and the above referenced Dolan decision. Wry truly yours, Salvatore J. eltri