Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - CONTINUED PH PORTA BELLA PLAN (2)AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 8, 1994 City Mana€ Item to be Rich Henderson SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PORTA BELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THE THREE APPEALS FILED CONCERNING 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 BACKGROUND On October 11, 1994, the Council held a continued public hearing on this project in which they received a presentation by the City's environmental consultant on the EIR and Addendum, received a presentation from a representative of the California Environmental Protection Agency --Department of Toxic Substances Control, and discussed the Porta Bella site visit, joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session and the public testimony received to date. At this meeting the Council raised concerns that all the questions asked by the public may not have been answered. Staff has attached a matrix summary of questions and answers from the public and from the Council. One of the questions posed by Council concerned the financial capability of the developer and this question will be answered by the City Attorney at this hearing. ACTION The purpose of this meeting is three -fold. First, staff has compiled a list of the questions and answers which have been received on the project through various letters as well as responses to those questions. Second, to clarify the EIR. consultant's comments from the previous hearing, no "F" level of service intersections will be newly created as a result of this project alone based on the traffic Continued to:� Agenda Item: study performed for this project. The Porta Bella traffic study considered the build -out of Porta Bella along with build -out of other projects within the City and unincorporated county. Given this project and others at build -out, "14 intersections are anticipated to operate an "Y', or failure, level. As a result of conditions added to this project, the performance of six of these intersections are anticipated to be helped, leaving only eight of the 14 intersections at an "F level of service. The traffic study prepared for the Porta Bella EIR uses the joint City -County traffic model and specifically addresses the impacts anticipated from the Porta Bella project. The traffic study under preparation for the Central City Circulation Element project is also being conducted using the joint City -County traffic model, however, this study is focused on the macro, city-wide level, rather than on the project level as is the Porta Bella study. Therefore, the Circulation Element traffic study includes as an appendix an analysis of the Porta Bella traffic -related impacts, other than as part of the overall City traffic impacts due to future growth occurring valleywide.. The third purpose of this meeting is to report to the City Council that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Porta Bella ;project is complete and ready for certification per the Planning Commission's; recommendation., No new issues; relating to toxics and traffic have been raised at the Council level which have not already been explored and answered at the Planning Commission level. These traffic and toxics issues are well documented in the Environmental .Impact Report and Addendum and through earlier applicant, expert, staff and public testimony received on this project. The purpose of an EIR is to disclose anticipated project impacts. Council certification of an EIR and Addendum certifies that all reasonably anticipated impacts have been considered and that the disclosure is considered complete with regard to the legal requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for purposes of project approval. Certification of an EIR and Addendum does not approve a project or infer that a project will be approved. This action allows us to move forward with review of the project. ANALYSIS Three appeals have been received on this project and .may be addressed as follows: 1. Appeal from Northholme Partners relating to clarification of condition language concerning reimbursement. This issue can be resolved through use of new language. RECOMMENDATION: Provide documentation for changes to satisfy legal requirements. 2. Appeal from Keysor-Century concerning impacts to businesses in the Springbrook area due to possible alignments for proposed Magic/ Princessa. The applicant is addressing this issue through alternate design options which may limit impacts to Keysor-Century. RECOMMENDATION: Provide a condition that all affected property owners shall be made whole. 3. Appeal from Carl Kanowsky representing homeowners in Circle "J". This is a general appeal with a wide breadth of objections. Due to the extent of the objections, the City Council would need to find that a decision on the project will, in itself, address the issues. RECOMMENDATION: Council statement (per the advice of the City Attorney) that action on the project itself will address these issues. RECOMMENDATION FOR PROJECT PROCESSING: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Receive staff report, reopen the continued public hearing and request testimony on the appeals and on the project; 2. Take preliminary action on appeals as described above and instruct staff to amend documentation and present it to the City Council on November 22, 1994; 3. Accept the Planning Commission recommendation to certify the EIR and Addendum and direct staff to return with a resolution for certification; 4. Review the attached summary of issues raised to date and focus discussion on toxics and traffic circulation; 5. Reach consensus on the remaining outstanding issues of toxics and circulation; 6. Continue the public hearing to the November 22, 1994, City Council meeting and return with appropriate documentation. ATTACHMENT Porta Bella Summary of Questions and Answers dated November 8, 1994 Porta Bella Summary of Issues Letter of October 9, 1994 from Northholme Partners to Lynn Harris. current\pb_mr04.1h9 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PORTA BELLA SPECIFIC PLAN 91-001; WHICH INCLUDES AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-003. THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INCLUDES CHANGES TO 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 PLAN MAP. 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; Development Agreement No. 93-003; and Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum SCH 92-041041. Concurrently, the City Council will begin the public hearing for the appeals filed against the Planning Commission decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51599 and Oak Tree Permit 91-033 for the Porta Bella site on June 21, 1994. A separate public notice regarding the appeals will be mailed with this notice. The property, known as the Bennite 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 Specific Plan proposes 2,911 dwelling units, including 1,244 single-family homes and 1,667 multi -family dwellings. The proposal Includes: 449 acres of open space and parks; 300 acres of single-family uses; 85 acres of multi- family uses; 56 acres of streets; and 106 acres of commercial, office, business park, and Institutional uses. 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 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 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: August 1, 1994 Donna M. Grindey, CMC City Clerk Publish Date: August 3, 1994 CURRENT\pb_ccn4.kjm PORTA BELLA SUMMARY OF ISSUES FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION OUTSTANDING ISSUES COMMENTS ALTERNATIVES ADVANTAGES DISAD7occur ■Site has previously Clean entire site Site receives a 1) May been graded over before any clearance before becausesignificant areas. construction activities grading occurs. costs fo begin. (The Planning total site.. CLEAN-UP OF THE ■Phased development Commission discussed PORTA BELLA SITE has already occurred and decided phasing 2) Will delay for grading and would be permissible construction of construction of the following DTSC roadways through the rail station. clearance of the area site. in the phase.) ■No grading will 3) Developer could occur in areas not subdivide site and not cleared by the State. develop by a master plan concept. ■This is a 996 acre project. Phase grading as 1) Construction of Whole site not ■The state EPA is the clearance is given phase one, including cleared at once. Will responsible agency from the responsible arterials, will occur limit ability to grade over remediation state agency sooner. areas of the site not efforts and grants yet cleared and may clearance, not the 2) Costs of clean-up slow development of City. efforts offset by the project. revenue from earlier ■The state EPA phases assisted City staff to add the condition allowing phasing as the state EPA clearance on portions of the site occur. PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 PORTA BELLA SUMMARY OF ISSUES FOR CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION PAGE 2 OUTSTANDING ISSUES COMMENTS ALTERNATIVES ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Move Magic-Princessa Eliminates need for Higher roadway ■The City needs east- out of Circle "J" condemnation of open visibility and west roads regardless approximately 150 space of adjacent increases grading on of this project. feet to the east. property hillsides (but not on any significant ■Elimination of ridgelines. roadways is not a PORTA BELLA viable option for this TRAFFIC project due to overall CIRCULATION City-wide circulation concerns. ■Condemnation is likely for construction Higher roadway of any major arterial. Move or redesign Will lower noise in visibility and grading Owners of condemned Oakdale bridge to nearby residential on hillsides but not property are to be lower noise from neighborhood. on any significant made whole. 65dBL to 60dBL. ridgelines ■The closest existing home to proposed Magic/ Princessa is 350 feet; consistent with other roads in the City. c.rrerrt\pb$e SUMMARY OF COUNCIL QUESTIONS RE: MASTER CASE NUMBERS 91-164 AND 93-012 PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 ISSUE RESPONSE 1. What are the City's Insurance The City can only condition the developer to construct improvements which are and Liabilities in Conditioning impacted by the proposed development. There must be a nexus between and Ensuring that Public conditioned improvements in the public interest and the anticipated project Improvements are Constructed specific impacts. There must also be a relationship or "rough proportionality" by the Developer? between the scope of the project and the degree of the dedications/improvements required. Reimbursement districts are a way to address the proportionality issue and have been mentioned previously. Note: These standards for weighing conditions do not apply to those conditions agreed upon though a development agreement. The City can require the developer to obtain a completion bond or other such method to ensure that conditioned public improvements are completed. (See confidential City Attorney Response letter re: Dedications and Exactions.) 2. How Does this Project Fit in The City is presently studying the overall circulation network in the Santa the East/West Route Clarita Valley. A traffic study is being prepared to address the network on a Discussion? What are the macro scale based on the joint City -County traffic model. This is the same Project Implications for the model used by Justin -Farmer in assessing the specific traffic impacts of the East/West Route Including Porta Bella project at a micro level. Newhall Ranch Road? With regards to the Porta Bella project, the issue is not one of "replacing" planned roadways, but rather one of how and where should portions of roadways already on the General Plan be built across the Bermite site. The question for Porta Bella at this point should be limited to project specific ones of where are we going to put an extension to Magic Mountain Parkway and an extension to Via Princessa which are already shown on the General Plan. This is the micro -level or project specific information provided in the traffic study for the Porta Bella EIR and Addendum. PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 SUMMARY OF COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 ISSUE RESPONSE 2. Continued... The question of an overall east -west route belongs to future discussions of the City Circulation Element Amendment when the city-wide, macro -level traffic How Does this Project Fit in study is analyzed. Whether the title of main east -west route should be given to the East/West Route Magic/Princessa, Newhall Ranch Road or some other roadway is irrelevant in Discussion? What are the terms of the Porta Bella project for the reason that all of the General Plan Project Implications for the arterials through the Bermite site are necessary. This is supported by Porta East/West Route Including BelWs own site specific traffic study. The information to be gained from the Newhall Ranch Road? City-wide traffic study will not be of assistance in determining the project specific circulation needs or alignments for Porta Bella since the city-wide study encompasses such an expanded scope. The best traffic information on Porta Bella impacts is already before you. The Porta Bella project is not adjacent to this roadway and discussion of this roadway isnot related to this project. Discussions of Newhall Ranch Road will be appropriate during consideration of the Center City Circulation Element Amendment. (EIR Transportation/Circulation Section see pages 6-236 to 6-276 and Addendum, Northholme Partners' letter of October 9, 1994 to Lynn Harris.) 3. What is the Corporate See confidential City Attorney Response re: Northholme Partners. Structure and Financial Status of Northholme Partners? Is This Appropriate for the Council to Consider? 4. Is it Necessary to Have Bridges The applicant, City, SCRRA (Metrolink) and other interested parties, for Magic/Princessa Over San particularly the Circle "J" Homeowners and business interests in the Fernando Road and Over Drayton/Springbrook, area have discussed various alternatives to eliminate or Oakdale Canyon? reduce impacts from bridges. PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 SUMMARY OF COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 3 ISSUE RESPONSE 4. Continued... There seemed to be some confusion expressed by the Council at the October 11; 1994 meeting as to whether the need for bridges over San Fernando Road and Is it Necessary to Have Bridges Oakdale Canyon could be removed if Newhall Ranch Road, rather than for Magic/Princessa Over San Magic\Princessa became the designated east/west route. There are really three Fernando Road and Over issues here. One, is the issue of Magic/Princessa and Newhall Ranch Road a Oakdale Canyon? question of building one road and eliminating the other if one is declared an east -west route? Since these are both General Plan roads the question of eliminating one in favor of the other does not exist regardless of any future actions which may designate an official east -west route. They are both necessary Second, there is an issue of timeliness. The question of where and how to build Magic/Princessa is now relevant to the Porta Bella project since this general plan roadway traverses the project site. By comparison, Newhall Ranch Road is an off-site roadway unrelated to the Porta Bella proposal . Its development, therefore, is not related to the development of Magic/Princessa or Porta Bella. The third issue is bridging and alternatives. Bridging is related to the development of Magic/Princessa by virtue of its being a General Plan roadway, not as a result of any official east -west recognition. For San Fernando Road, bridging is necessary to clear the railroad tracks and gain the elevation needed to reduce the amount of grading necessary to construct the roadway. The applicant is working with property owners to reach agreements to allow for roadway construction. PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 3 SUMMARY OF COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 4 ISSUE RESPONSE 4. Continued... For Oakdale Canyon a bridge is the reasonable way to cross it with minimum impacts. This finding is substantiated in the EIR Addendum. To reduce noise Is it Necessary to Have Bridges and visual impacts to neighboring residences, however, the location of the for Magic/Princessa Over San bridge may be moved and the bridge design modified to aid in noise Fernando Road and Over attenuation. A condition may be added to limit noise at the nearest existing Oakdale Canyon? residence to a maximum of 60dBL from the projected 65dBL. (EIR Addendum pages 2-3, 10-11, 29-38 including diagrams and Northholme Partners' letter of October 9,'1994 to Lynn Harris, pages 2-4 and 11.) 5. What are the City's Risks In The State EPA is the responsible agency for ensuring proper site clean-up. The Approving a Project With State EPA assisted City staff in drafting a condition to allow phased clean-up Outstanding Toxic Clean-up and development of the site as approved by the Planning Commission, The Issues with CalEPA, City would need to ensure that the EPA had issued clearance letters prior to Specifically Regarding City issuance of grading or other construction permits by phased area. The Conditioning of Phasing, City has included a condition that requires there to be a toxics expert on-site to Developer Responsibility and oversee all grading activities which exceeds the State EPA requirements for Public Liability9 cleared sites. The Whittaker Corporation and EPA are working on a consent order to start the State EPA clean-up process which includes a workplan for Whittaker outlining a schedule of submittals, penalties for non-conformance, and both on and off-site scoping for toxics, including off-site drainage areas. See confidential City Attorney response re: Conditions Regarding Hazardous Materials. (EIR and Addendum, testimony of EPA representative Ms. Carla Slepak on October 11, 1994, Northholm Partners' letter of October 9, 1994 .) 6. What is the Relationship The joint City -County traffic model was used in the preparation of the specific between the City Circulation traffic study done for the Porta Bella project. The Center City Traffic Study Element Amendment Traffic does not specifically address Porta Bella traffic impacts. See November 8, 1994 Study and the Porta Bella Agenda Report and Above Discussion of Issue No. 2. Project? PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 4 SUMMARY OF COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 ISSUE RESPONSE 7. Are There Conditions that the Yes, the specific architectural and roadway design criteria would be applicable Architectural Design, to any future development, regardless of developer, because it is included as Circulation Features, etc. are part of the Specific Plan. Specific Plan approvals run with the land so any Preserved if the Project is Sold? future developer and development will be bound by it. 8. How Can the City Clarify See confidential City Attorney Response letter re: Dedications and Exactions. Agreements for Reimbursement? PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE RESPONSES REQUESTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL RE: MASTER CASE NUMBERS 91-164 AND 93-012 F-1 Question Issues Response 1. Letter of July 1, This letter raises concerns The issues of toxics has been identified in the EIR. Presentations on the 1994 from Carl over toxics, phasing of issue of toxics have been made before the Planning Commission and, Kanowsky grading, urges approval of most recently, by a state EPA representative before Council. The EIR Alternative 4, and Planning Commission did consider the issue of toxics and overall site raises concerns that clean-up vs. phased clean-up and development in its approval of the additional investigation project.. The Planning Commission certified the EIR and Addendum and should be done concerning found that the information in the document was adequate in terms of the seismology California Environmental Quality Act. This EIR and Addendum contains information on seismology, Alternative 4 which was rejected after consideration by the Planning Commission and discussions of the impacts of grading in terms of the City's Hillside Ordinance and visual . impacts. (EIR Geotechnical Considerations (pages 6-2 to 6-36), Aesthetics/Light and Glare (pages 6-148 to 6-172), Land Use (pages 6-173 to 6-204) Risk of Upset/Health Hazards (pages 6-205 to 6-220) and Addendum, Northholme Partners' letter dated October 9, 1994 to Lynn Harris. See November 8, 1994 agenda report analysis section page 2, appeal number 3.) 2. Letter of Request for study of other The applicant has been working with the City, SCRRA (Metrolink), August 31, 1994 alternatives to a bridge at homeowners (particularly Circle "J° residents), and businesses in the from Robert P. Magic Mountain/San Drayton/Springbrook area to find alternative alignments for Lathrop Fernando Roads Magic/Princessa. This has included looking at the viability of an representing underpass to accomplish this crossing; however, an overpass is the SCOPE preferred alternative for environmental, as well as cost and engineering constraints. (EIR Addendum discussions on Magic/Princessa pages 2-3, 10-11, 14-15, and 29-38, and Northholme Partners' letter dated October 9, 1994 to Lynn Harris, pages 2-3.) 1 PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 3. Letter of The letter expresses The ultimate alignment for the Santa Clarita Parkway intersection with September 24, concerns over impacts of Placerita Canyon is still unresolved. The developer has been in contact 1994 from Ben the Santa Clarita Parkway with AES Placerita which operates a facility in the area which may be Curtis, alignment on Placerita bisected by a future alignment; however, it is unknown at this time what President Canyon Road. Claims the the future impacts of roadways development in this area will be. This Placerita Placerita HOA was not intersection location is not on the Bermite property and would be an off - Canyon notified adequately of the site improvement. The applicant has been in contact with the Placerita Property project. HOA and has even given presentations on this project to them. The Owners' complaint of inadequate HOA notification is unfounded. (Northholme Association Partners' letter dated October 4, 1994 to Mayor Pederson. Northholme Partners' letter to Pat Willette of the Placerita H.O.A. dated April 22, 1993.) 4. Letter of Regarding Santa Clarita The letter acknowledges that AES is aware of the proposed alignment September 26, Parkway alignment impacts however, it is not known at this time what the impacts will be to AES. 1994 from AES to AES operations. It is premature to say that the problems are insurmountable. Placerita to Sam Veltri 5. Letter of Proposes alternatives for The several alternatives submitted have received a preliminary review August 23, 1994 Magic/Princessa and a by staff and the applicant. These alignments can be used for discussion from Ron bridge over Oakdale between the developer and the Circle "J" homeowners. The roadway Druschen, a Canyon alternatives alignment for MagidPrincessa proposed by Northholme Partners is still Circle J Ranch the one addressed in the EIR Addendum. (EIR Addendum, Northholme resident Partners letter dated October 9, 1994 to Lynn Harris.) 6. Letter of Expresses concerns about The developer has been working with Hasa, Inc. to come up with an October 11, the alignment of the alignment which will minimize impacts upon their business. It will be a 1994 from MagicfPrincessa Bridge condition of approval that all property owners be made whole and this is Kevin Brogan, over San Fernando and its the responsibility of the developer. The EIR Addendum addresses Esq. impact upon Hasa, Inc, impacts anticipated as part of bridge construction including business representing relocation. See Confidential City Attorney Letter to Council re: Hasa, Inc. Proposed Interface of Magic Princessa with Industrial Park. PREPARED NOVEMBER S, 1994 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE RESPONSES REQUESTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL RE: MASTER CASE NUMBERS 91-164 AND 93-012 7. August 4, 1994 Expresses concerns over EIR Risk of Upset/Health Hazards section (pages 6-205 to 6-220) and letter from Carl toxic and hazardous waste Addendum, testimony from EPA, Northholme Partners' letter dated Kanowsky, 10 clean-up. October 9, 1994 to Lynn Harris, pages 7-10. See November 8, 1994 page letter and agenda report analysis section page 2, appeal number 3. presentation to Council on Expresses concerns over Northholme Partners' letter dated October 9, 1994 to Lynn Harris, EIR August 23, the East/West Corridor and addendum discussion on T�-ansportation/Circulation section, pages 6- 1994 236 to 6-276.. See November 8, 1994 agenda report analysis section page 2, appeal number 3. Expresses concerns over EIR Transportation/Circulation section (pages 6-236 to 6-276) and This is an extensive letter Traffic Addendum, Northholme Partners'letter dated October 9, 1994 to Lynn with numerous Harris.See November 8, 1994 agenda report analysis section page 2, questions. appeal number 3. These are the same questions Prefers the choice of EIR Alternatives section page 8-32, Northholme Partners' letter dated he raises as Alternative 4 October 9, 1994 to Lynn Harris. See November 8, 1994 agenda report part of his analysis section page 2, appeal number 3. Concerns about Magic EIR Addendum, Northholme Partners' letter dated October 9, 1994 to appeal. Please see the Mountain Bridge over San Lynn Harris. See November 8, 1994 agenda report analysis section page agenda report Fernando 2, appeal number 3. appeal Concerns with Land Use EIR Geotechnical Considerations (pages 6-2 to 6-36) and Land Use discussion. and Hillside & Ridgeline (pages 6-173 to 6-204) and Addendum and Northholme Partners' letter Development dated October 9, 1994 to Lynn Harris. See November 8, 1994 agenda report analysis section page 2, appeal number 3. Concerns with impacts to EIR Solid Waste Disposal System pages 6-332 to 6-433 and Addendum. Solid Waste Management. See November 8, 1994 agenda report analysis section page 2, appeal number 3. PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE RESPONSES REQUESTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL RE: MASTER CASE NUMBERS 91-164 AND 93-012 current\pubqueRt1ba PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Metrolink Escalator EIR page 6-260, Specific Plan. See November 8, 1994 agenda report analysis section page 2, appeal number 3. Questions the status of See Confidential City Attorney Letter to Council re: Northholme Northholme Partners Partners. Concerns over Seismicity EIR Geotechnical Considerations (pages 6-2 to 6-36) and Addendum, testimony, Northholme Partners' letter dated October 9, 1994 to Lynn Harris page 11. See November 8, 1994 agenda report analysis section page 2, appeal number 3. 8. Statement to Appeal of Planning Mr. Hutchinson has been working with the developer to develop an Council Commission decision, alignment which addresses Keysor-Century concerns. See Confidential delivered by concerned with impacts of City Attorney Letter to Council re: Proposed Interface of Magic Princessa Roger the Magic/Princessa with Industrial Park. (Northholme Partners' letter dated October 9, Hutchinson at alignment upon Keyser- 1994 to Lynn Harris. See November 8, 1994 agenda report analysis the Council Century and other area section page 2, appeal number 2.) Meeting of businesses. August 23, 1994 representing Keysor-Century Corp. 9. Comment from General Opposition to Comment noted. Gail West removal of oak trees, proposed density and ridgeline alteration current\pubqueRt1ba PREPARED NOVEMBER 8, 1994 NORTHHOLME PARTNERS 330 Washington Blvd. Fourth Floor Marina del Rey, CA 90292 October 9, 1994 101Efi 1��4 Ms. Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager Community Development 23920 Valencia Parkway Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91350 Re: Porta Bella Dear Ms. Harris: We are writing this letter to respond to the specific requests for information which various members of the City Council made during the Joint Study Session on Tuesday, October 4. At the outset, we would like to compliment the Planning Commission and the City Council for conducting the Joint Study Session. We believe that this unique approach gave members of the City Council the opportunity to comprehensively review all of the substantive issues arising out of the Porta Bella application and for members of the Planning Commission to share their considerable knowledge about the project with the City Council. We were particularly encouraged by the effort on the part of members of the City Council to identify those specific issues which primarily concern them and by their willingness to permit us to respond to those concerns. The following comments respond to those concerns. 1. Traffic and Circulation. (a) Phasing of Infrastructure. As proposed by the Applicant, this Project consists of logical segments of roadways to support each phase of the proposed development in Porta Bella. Under the proposed plan, specific road improvements must be constructed to serve the phase of the development to be constructed and to mitigate the traffic impacts of that phase. Prior to recordation of a map for any portion of the project, the prerequisite for the commencement of any substantial construction on,a phase of the project, the City must approve all of the work which assures the City that the required roadway segment will and can be built. This includes all of the detailed engineering for the roadway segment as well as right of way arrangements. It Ms. Lynn M. Harris October 9, 1994 Page 2 also includes all performance and completion bonds which assure the City that the roadway segment will in fact be constructed. If the Applicant cannot provide the City with the required work, rights of way, and assurances with respect to a roadway segment, the Applicant must find an acceptable alternative or it cannot proceed with the related phase or portion of the project. For example, 60% of the project's total trips are generated by certain phases of development which depend upon the completion of Santa Cladta Parkway. Before maps for those phases can be recorded and construction commenced, the Applicant must engineer the Parkway in accordance with attached preliminary designs, must make arrangements for the acquisition of all right of ways, and must post performance and completion bonds for the Parkway. If for any unforeseen reason the Parkway is not feasible, the Applicant must find an alternative route acceptable to the City before it can proceed with those phases of development. The foregoing raises two important points. First, the failure of the Applicant to proceed with any subsequent phase of the Project will not contribute to the existing infrastructure deficit of the City. Second, under current law, the City may not require the Applicant to correct infrastructure problems which are not reasonably caused by the Project. If the City wishes the Applicant to assist the City in its efforts to cure its current regional infrastructure deficit, it must explore this assistance through the mechanism of a development or other agreement with the Applicant. (b) Magic Mountain Parkway Extension at San Fernando Road. The Applicant is implementing the General Plan's extension of the Magic Mountain Parkway through the Porta Bella Specific Plan. The Civic Center architects have identified four proposals for achieving this extension to the east of San Fernando Road: (i) an at -grade intersection; (ii) an over -crossing; (iii) an under -crossing; and (iv) the Drayton Street intersection. When the Applicant initially proposed Porta Bella, it included an at -grade extension of Magic Mountain Parkway at San Fernando Road. This at -grade extension is one of the alternatives for this intersection proposed by the Civic Center architects. After the initial proposal of the Applicant, the Planning Commission proposed the Magic/Princessa alignment. This alignment requires the Applicant to adopt the more expensive alternative for the intersection, an over -crossing. This over -crossing will include ramps which will be connected to San Fernando Road and will accommodate the transition between Magic Mountain Parkway and San Fernando Road from four directions. The remaining two alternatives, particularly the undercrossing of the tracks and road, probably cannot meet highway design criteria without significant landform impacts. Ms. Lynn M. Harris October 9, 1994 Page 3 The over -crossing will result in a bridge that begins on the east side of the South Fork Bridge and gradually ascends to provide the proper clearance over San Fernando Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. The preliminary elevations indicate that the bridge will have 17 to 25 feet of clearance over the road and tracks which is not significantly different than the height of the paseo bridges throughout Valencia. The bridge continues to rise beyond the railroad tracks as it extends easterly into the City property, thereby minimizing impacts to the adjoining hillside. The bridge reaches approximately 50 feet above the ground at its easternmost terminus where it begins to follow the existing terrain at ground level. A graphic depiction of this facility, together with various refinements are currently being prepared to respond to individual property owners concerns in an attempt to discover the best solution. (c) Magic/Princessa Alignment. (i) The Magic/Princessa Alignment provides a cross-town route and would divert current cross-town traffic away from the Circle J Community. The Planning Commission revised the Porta Bella proposal to include the Magic/Princessa alignment in response to testimony during extensive public hearings conducted by the Commission and in response to directives from the City Council to seriously consider the Magic/Princessa alignment. The alignment provides a direct cross-town route, maintains the residential and pedestrian quality of the Porta Bella and Circle J communities, and minimizes through traffic within Circle J and Valencia. In fact, the proposed alignment diverts regional traffic away from Circle J by diverting traffic onto the MagicfPrincessa alignment and away from Via Princessa at the point where Via Princessa enters Circle J and proceeds from there to bisect the center of the Circle J community. This alignment helps to replace capacity which was lost when Route 126 was eliminated. The EIR's traffic study confirms that the Porta Bella roads will enhance the City's transportation network and that the inclusion of Magic/Princessa will improve the level of service at Bouquet Junction. (ii) The Magic/Princessa alignment is compatible with the findings of CTAC. The Magic/Princessa alignment is compatible with the proposed CTAC route and the findings of CTAC. CTAC proposed a network of roads for the circulation of traffic in the center of the City. Magic/Princessa and the proposed CTAC route work together to supply east -west circulation within this network of roads. (iii) The Magic/Princessa alignment satisfies sound principles of land planning. The Magic/Princessa alignment runs between the Circle J community and the Porta Bella community. This location of the alignment maintains the integrity of both neighborhoods as two separately planned communities without disrupting the internal neighborhoods. In addition, Ms. Lynn M. Harris October 9, 1994 Page 4 the alignment provides the best opportunity to utilize the topography while complying with highway design criteria. The proposed alignment utilizes the topography to shield the roadway from public view. It is physically impossible to accommodate both Magic/Princessa and Main Street within the developable area of Porta Bella. The location of the Magic/Princessa alignment has been carefully planned to preserve the residential character of the Porta Bella and the Circle J communities by circulating cross-town traffic around and not through these communities. This alignment permits Main Street to serve as the transition road which collects local traffic from the neighborhoods of Porta Bella and conducts that traffic to the Magic/Princessa corridor. Main Street is the Bermite Connector required by the General Plan. Main Street establishes the pedestrian character of Porta Bella. With its expanded pedestrian parkways, residents can walk safely to all key elements of their community, including the village, parks, and school. This pedestrian orientation reduces vehicular trips throughout the city. (iv) The Magic/Princessa alignment does not unfairly impact the Circle J residents. The proximity of the alignment to Circle J is far better than the proximity of many other roads to adjacent residents. The nearest Circle J residence to the Magic/Princessa alignment is 150 feet.. The nearest Claiboume residence is approximately 500 feet. These distances compare very favorably to the distances between residences who are adjacent to other similar roads in the Santa Clarita area where the nearest residences are within 50 feet of a major roadway. For example, consider the proximity of McBean Parkway to many of the homes in Valencia. Although the Magic/Princessa alignment is not needed to mitigate the impacts of Porta Bella's traffic and was imposed upon the Applicant's proposal to satisfy regional traffic concerns, the Applicant has offered to provide additional buffering to minimize the impacts that the alignment might have upon the small number of Circle J residents who are affected by the alignment. This buffering includes earthen berms, landscaping, and setbacks. The addendum to the E.I.R. states that this additional buffering (together with the distance) has reduced all impacts of the alignment on affected Circle J residents to non- significant levels. (d) Oakdale Canyon Bridge. The continuation of Magic Mountain Parkway to connect to Via Princessa to form the Magic/Princessa alignment includes a bridge over Oakdale Canyon. The bridge will span approximately 400 feet between the ridges and is approximately 60 feet above the center of the canyon at the bridges highest point and diminishing as the canyon's side slopes ascend to the bridges abutments at each end. The proposed alignment is designed to minimize the visual and noise impacts by utilizing the topography Ms. Lynn M. Harris October 9, 1994 Page 5 to conceal the road from the perspective of the Circle J community. Visual and noise mitigation techniques include landform grading, construction of large earthen berms and specific bridge design to lessen noise. As stated previously, the E.I.R. has concluded that the impacts of this bridge will be adequately mitigated by the proposed buffers and the natural terrain. Attached to this letter is a preliminary study of this facility. (e) Santa Clarita Parkway. As a replacement to Rio Vista Road, the Santa Clarita Parkway alignment will conduct traffic flows more effectively than Rio Vista and, accordingly, will serve the purposes of the General Plan. In contrast to the alignment of Rio Vista Road, Santa Clarita Parkway avoids the placement of two large 6 lane roads side by side and adjacent to the railroad tracks. The replacement of Rio Vista with Santa Clarita Parkway relieves adjoining neighborhoods from noise and dust, avoids disruption to the College Campus, and eliminates property configurations which force properties to be adjacent to roads on the front and backs sides of their property lines. Santa Clarita Parkway also diverts traffic away from Placenta Canyon Road, thereby helping to restore the privacy of that neighborhood. The proposed location of the Parkway properly spaces the roads to provide better distribution of traffic throughout the vicinity. Along much of this route, Santa Clarita Parkway is devoid of adjoining development and affords scenic opportunities. It also provides road access to portions of the. City to the south of Porta Bella which formerly had no roads planned for the area. The proposed Santa Clarita Parkway is feasible and is comparable to Rio Vista Road in projected costs and displacements. The preliminary designs which have been provided to staff and are attached demonstrate that it is physically feasible to construct this parkway from Bouquet Canyon Road intersecting Placerita Canyon Road and connecting to the 14 freeway. The Applicant and its consultants have been careful to cause the alignment to avoid traversing or interfering with improved properties and businesses. The alignment is purposefully located westerly of the overhead electrical transmission lines which also minimizes disruption to the existing oil fields. Consequently, the estimated cost of this alignment is very similar to the costs and displacements that would have been incurred if Rio Vista had been retained as a major thoroughfare. The Santa Clarita Parkway alignment has been studied in detail to prove its feasibility. Those studies have been submitted to the City and have been reviewed by the City's environmental and traffic consultants as part of the project's traffic and circulation element. As discussed previously, phases of development which depend upon the parkway cannot commence until the parkway has been fully engineered to the reasonable satisfaction of the City. This detailed engineering and corresponding right of way worst for the Ms. Lynn M. Harris October 9, 1994 Page 6 alignment will commence only after the alignment has been generally approved as part of a specific plan for the area. 2. E.I.R. Alternative 4. (a) Alternative 4 would result in an inferior project in comparison to the Porta Bella proposal. The E.I.R. alternative 4 represents an inferior project in comparison to Porta Bella. This alternative would use a rigid application of the Hillside Ordinance to restrict all development in the Project to slopes of less than 25%. As a practical matter, Alternative 4 would distribute densities to the southern portion of the site in conflict with the Valley Center Overlay and would intensify densities in vehicular dependant, disjointed and isolated neighborhoods. As a result, Alternative 4 would "conflict with one of the major changes made to accommodate the concerns of residents of Circle J; the significant decrease in densities in the southern portion of the project nearest to Circle J. Each of the foregoing points is discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. (b) Alternative 4 would promote isolated 'leapfrog' communities which would be antithetical to the pedestrian concept of the Porta Bella plan. Altemative 4 would promote poorly distributed higher density development and a 'leapfrog" neighborhood pattern by disregarding the unique characteristics of this property. Traversing the predominant development areas are several swales with side slopes that exceed 25%. This topography creates narrow bands of alternating flat and hill terrain. If development were strictly confined to areas with less than 25% slope, narrow, segregated strands or isles of development would emerge.. This disjointed development pattern would destroy the pedestrian quality of the proposed development and promote dependence upon vehicular usage. This would result in the installation of inefficient and expensive infrastructure to serve and connect the segregated neighborhoods. (c) Porta Bella complies with the purposes and objectives of the Hillside Ordinance. In conjunction with the General Plan, the Specific Plan for Porta Bella meets the objectives of the Hillside Ordinance. The Specific Plan clusters development on slopes of less than 25%. It alters the ridgeline landform only as a consequence of remedial grading for previous site disturbance, for the installation of community facilities or due to geotechnical considerations. Also, the Plan locates on the significant ridgeline community facilities which the Hillside Ordinance specifically identifies and permits. In so doing, Porta Bella preserves the significant ridgeline, maximizes contiguous open space, provides community facilities available for public use and maintains the landform. It should be pointed out that this particular property is characterized by significant amounts of highly disturbed terrain with marginal V' Ms. Lynn M. Harris October 9, 1994 Page 7 environmental appeal. Therefore, the application of a rigid 25% slope restriction to the unusual landforms of the property would merely serve to preserve large amount of disturbed terrain at the expense of such objectives as the Valley Center Overlay, proper density distribution, accepted standards of good planning and design and pedestrian orientation. (d) Alternative 4 would conflict with the Valley Center Concept of the General Plan. A rigid 25% slope restriction would also promote poorly distributed, higher density development in conflict with the Valley Center Overlay. As currently designed, Porta Bella clusters development so that development sometimes extends to contiguous areas that exceed 25%. Even though the imposition of a rigid slope restriction would remove density from the contiguous areas, the Hillside Ordinance and the applicable General Plan elements would permit the transfer of the density to the remaining developable area. This transfer would intensify densities in those areas to as much as 10 dwelling units to the acre if the transfer took place in the southern portion of the property. If the transfer took place in the northern portion of the property, the limited amount of developable area under the slope requirement would yield excessively high densities. In effect, Alternative 4 may decrease overall project density but it achieves this objective only by concentrating higher densities in many areas of the project. Under the most logical density transfer alternative, higher densities would be distributed to the southern portion of the project in close proximity to Circle J (in contrast to Porta Bella). The effect of this density transfer directly conflicts with the Valley Center Overlay and with major statewide and local efforts to intensify development adjacent to commuter rail facilities.. 3. Site Investigation of Hazardous and Solid Materials. (a) The California Environmental Protection Agency ("Cal -EPA") is the recognized governmental authority for the remediation of hazardous materials on the Bermite Property and Cal -EPA and Whittaker have been conducting a careful and extensive investigation of the Property and remediation effort since 1987. Cal -EPA is the recognized governmental authority which is responsible for the supervision of any investigation of hazardous materials on the Bermite Property and the remediation of any hazardous material found as a result of that investigation. Cal -EPA has been supervising the investigation and remediation of this property since 1987. During that period, activities intended to identify, assess and remediate any problems have been extensive. (i) The Remediation of the 14 Permit Sites. Under new environmental laws promulgated in 1980, Whittaker sought and received permission in 1980 to operate 14 hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal sites on the Bermite Property, When Whittaker decided to cease Ms. Lynn M. Harris October 9, 1994 Page 8 those operations in 1986, Whittaker submitted closure plans to Cal -EPA and the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States for those sites. These closure plans triggered the process by which 13 of the 14 sites have been fully certified as "cleaned closed". Some of these sites required no remediation at all to obtain the clean closure certification. Whittaker continues its state of the art efforts to remediate the 14th site and Whittaker and its experts are optimistic that closure will occur is the near future. (ii) Extensive Testing Throughout the Bermite Site. During the period commencing in 1987, Whittaker conducted extensive testing and investigation of the Bermite Property under the supervision of Cal -EPA. These tests included soil borings, the installation of ten monitoring wells, ground water samples and soil vapor samples at many locations throughout the property. In fact, hundreds of soil cores and thousands of soil vapor and water samples have been collected and tested to date. (iii) 64 Sites Identified by Whittaker for Additional Investigation. The 64 additional sites to which members of the public and the Council constantly refer represent a very broad identification of any location on the Bermite Property where any solid waste or hazardous material was or may have been handled. The re -identification of these locations merely assists Cal - EPA and Whittaker in their collaborative efforts to determine whether additional investigations of the Bermite Property are necessary and to what extent. . The 64 sites have been disclosed to governmental agencies in the past. Some of the 64 sites have been the subject of many investigations including extensive soil and soil vapor sampling and reports by Whittaker, by Cal -EPA and by U.S. EPA as early as 1985. Several of the 64 sites were investigated and eliminated by Cal -EPA during the development of the Metrolink Station. The 64 sites should not be confused with the 14 permit sites. The 14 permit sites represented active facilities which required permits in 1980 for their continued operation as active facilities for the storage and handling of hazardous materials. In contrast, the 64 sites are sites where historically there is some evidence that solid waste or hazardous material may have been handled. These sites were identified from time to time through timely searches and evaluations of numerous records and re-identified after additional searches and evaluations. (b) The conditions of approval for hazardous material have been approved by Cal -EPA and subject the Project to intense supervision. As a responding agency in the E.I.R. process for this Project, Cal -EPA has confirmed that the hazardous materials conditions of approval for the project, as currently approved by the Planning Commission, will effectuate the Ms. Lynn M. Harris October 9, 1994 Page 9 continuation of the thorough investigation of the Bermite site and any necessary remediation. These conditions of approval for the project require the Applicant to satisfy all requirements of Cal -EPA with respect to hazardous materials, including site investigation and any necessary remediation arising out of that investigation. The Applicant must satisfy these requirements prior to the City's determination to issue grading permits. In addition, the conditions of approval require all grading to be subject to the supervision of an on-site inspector. That inspector will have the authority to halt grading activities if any hazardous materials are discovered. No work can resume until the location of any such discovery has been fully investigated and remediated to the reasonable satisfaction of Cal -EPA. As discussed below, Whittaker and Cal - EPA expect to enter into a complete agreement concerning the nature and scope of those investigations which Cal -EPA will require to complete its supervision of the property. (c) The Consent Agreement between Cal -EPA and Whittaker is expected to provide for the comprehensive investigation of the entire site at one time. In November of 1993, Whittaker provided Cal -EPA with a detailed report of all possible areas known where solid or hazardous waste may have been handled or disposed. This response was not the result of legal action. It was a voluntary response to a request for information from Cal -EPA. After the submission of that response and in an effort to expedite the investigation of the Bermite site, Whittaker submitted a work plan on May 3, 1994, well before any request for such a work plan became part of any proposed consent agreement. This work plan set forth a proposed plan for the thorough investigation of each of those sites identified in its response to Cal -EPA where further action was warranted. Subsequently, the Permitting Branch of Cal -EPA issued its first draft consent agreement on May 18, 1994. At this time, Whittaker has not yet received the anticipated final consent agreement and, therefore, it is inappropriate for Whittaker to supply the Council with any unauthorized versions of the agreement. A consent agreement previously provided to the City Council by members of the public was a working draft that has been marked 'Void and Invalid more Appropriate Department Now in Charge." As a draft, this document does not represent the considered conclusions of the issuing governmental authority and was prepared before the appropriate governmental authority could complete its full evaluation of all assembled technical information. Final signoff on the consent agreement is anticipated to occur shortly. At that time, the final consent agreement will be made available to the City Council. After the delivery of the work plan in May, 1994, Whittaker met with representatives of Cal -EPA to discuss the best mechanism for answering all potential environmental questions which might be raised regarding the Bermite Site. The consent agreement, which is expected to be finalized in the Ms. Lynn M. Harris October 9, 1994 Page 10 near future, is the result of those discussions. Whittaker has requested that Cal -EPA look at an all encompassing assessment of the entire property to avoid any future questions regarding a unit -by -unit or problem area only approach to the site. This new agreement will provide the framework for Whittaker and Cal -EPA to move from assessing discrete sites identified as possible areas requiring investigation to a program where Whittaker voluntarily will assess the entire site, without question as to jurisdiction of authority to a specific area, in cooperation with Cal -EPA's Site Mitigation Branch. Further, the consent agreement outlines a Public Participation Plan that provides the framework for Whittaker and Cal -EPA to work cooperatively so that the public and community are involved in Cal -EPA's decision making process. The timing of future environmental work will be dictated by the consent agreement which will include a rigorous schedule with initial due dates occurring within 10 days after signing the agreement. The consent agreement will include penalties for failure to comply up to $25,000 for each day Whittaker is not in compliance. Further, State law requires Whittaker to provide, on an annual basis, substantial financial assurances that it can fund the estimated costs associated with the hazardous materials sites on the property. The consent agreement and existing statues also allow Cal -EPA to take over the environmental activities at the site if requirements of the final consent agreement are not met. In summary, the conditions of approval, as currently approved by the Planning Commission, are consistent with Cal -EPA's jurisdiction over the Bermite Property with respect to hazardous material investigation and remediation. The Consent Agreement will identify in detail the scope of the investigation that remains to be completed and the time frame for the completion of that investigation. State law requires Whittaker to demonstrate its financial ability to pay for the investigation and any projected remediation. The Applicant must satisfy the requirements of Cal -EPA before the City makes its determination to issue permits. 4. School Facilities. After discussions with the relevant school districts it was determined that an elementary school is required. This school site has been designated in the Porta Bella Specific Plan and further discussion reveal that the project falls within the jurisdiction of two elementary school districts. During meetings with the superintendents of these schools districts, each expressed an interest in the site. However, further negotiations regarding the acquisition of this site are pending the resolution of the boundary revision by the two districts. At the time that the elementary school will be necessary to serve the future residents of Porta Bella, the site will be processed for state acceptance.. As is customary, if the state does not accept this site an alternative location or the funds to secure an alternative site will be provided.. Ms. Lynn M. Harris October 9, 1994 Page 11 5. Seismology and Grading. The grading for Porta Bella has been designed to be compatible with the proposed Civic Center site plan. Concurrent grading activities of both sites is possible. If the Civic Center site is graded but construction of the Civic Center building is subsequently delayed, acceptable techniques are available to stabilize the site, including traditional erosion control as well as hydroseed mixes employing native vegetation seed mixes. In areas of fill, proper grading techniques including alluvial removals, corrective grading, placement of subdrains, compaction of soil, and slope maintenance provide for seismic stability. On lots which transition from cut and fill, pads will be over -excavated with an additional layer of soil added to stabilize the final design grade. This provides a layer of material to support the structure's foundation. Grading of Porta Bella will be in accordance with the codes and ordinances in effect or as updated to contemporary standards at the time of permitting. Bridge design will involve significant soil and geotechnical investigation. At the appropriate time, these constraints will be incorporated into the structural design of the bridges. Final bridge design will incorporate any updated seismic codes and design criteria to withstand future seismic events. The design of Porta Bella is in conformance to the Alquist-Priolo study area identified on site. Setbacks from the fault line have been established pursuant to the extensive geotechnical and soils investigation, including trenching, boring, and research. If new data is discovered which raises additional concerns prior to obtaining grading permits, the proper geotechnical mitigation will be included to the reasonable satisfaction of the City. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. We believe that these comments together with the volumes of analysis to which the project has been subjected assures the City Council that the project is a viable and positive contribution to the City. We respectfully request that you provide these responses to the City Council to expedite its favorable consideration of Porta Bella. Very truly gyqurs, ��cz:v,t () Salvatore J. Veltri