Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-31 - AGENDA REPORTS - PH PORTA BELLA SP DEVAGMT (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Tterq to presenteb enderson PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 31, 1995 SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM DECEMBER 13, 1994 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. DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND On December 13, 1994; the City Council continued the public hearing for the Porta Bella project and appeals to a specialmeeting on January 31, 1995 exclusively devoted to Porta Bella. The Council invited two Planning Commissioners to join them at the continued meeting and directed the applicant and surrounding property owners and other interested residents to work on the outstanding issues and to find solutions where possible. The Council also requested that a definitive list of issues and the status of each be presented by the applicant and interested members of the community at the special meeting. ANALYSIS The applicant and various segments of the community have had a number of meetings since the last Council meeting on this issue. The applicant and community representatives will provide the Council with updates during the public testimony. Of particular interest, the applicant met with the Board of the Placerita Canyon ,Homeowners Association on Wednesday, January 4. At the Board's request, staff did not attend this meeting. Staff did attend a three hour meeting on Saturday, January 21, between the applicant and representatives and residents of the Circle J community. A 13 -point letter dated December 7, 1994, from Carl Kanowsky to Sam Veltri served as the agenda for the meeting and a copy of the letter and two accompanying exhibits are included in the packet. The staff analysis, primarily consisting of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports and Addendum, are complete, and staff has no new information to present to the Council. Staff is prepared to' comment on the meetings attended and to respond to specific questions from Council. At the last hearing, the Council did not request any additional analysis of Agendaltem: _ staff, but rather directed the applicant and the neighborhoods to continue their dialogue and to report back to Council. Regarding the appeals that are in process on the project, staff is continuing to work with the affected parties, and with Council direction, these will be the focus of the next Council meeting on the project. RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive staff report, reopen the continued public hearing, instruct the audience that testimony shall be limited to new information, receive public testimony, close the public hearing; 2. Give staff and the applicant direction and decisions on the three outstanding issues, which are conditioning the removal of hazardous waste, the location and configuration of the circulation system, and the location and appearance of the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway through the Srpingbrook area. 3. Direct staff to finalize responses to the appeals as previously noted; 4, Give preliminary approval of the project as recommended by the Planning Commission; and, 5. Direct staff to return with appropriate resolutions for certification of the Final EIR and Addendum and for approval of the project as recommended by the Planning Commission.. Attachments: Letter, dated January 9, 1995, from Northridge Neurological Center to Mayor Darcy, Letter, dated January 7, 1995, from Carl Kanowsky to Sam Veltri. Letter with two pages of exhibits, dated December 7, 1994, from Carl Kanowsky to the City Council. Current\ pb_ccr07.kjm GC:LMH:RH:KJM 2Z fc. NORTHRIDGE NEUROLOGICAL CENTER Northridge Neurological Medical Group, Inc. 18433 Roscoe Blvd., Suite 210, Northridge, CA 91325 Phone: (818) 349-2503 FAX: (818) 349-2561, 349-4724 NEUROLOGY EPILEPTOLOGY NERVE AND MUSCLE DISEASES PAIN MANAGEMENT MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE NEURODIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY DAVID W. BRANDES, M.S., M.D. RONALD B. ZIMAN, M.D., F.A.C.P Dipbmete, American Board of Prychietry end Neurology Diplomat*, American Board of Parana" N+ W ffry and Neurology Fellow, American council, AAcademy of Neurology Diplomats, American Board of internal Medicine Follow, Stroke Council, American Heart Association Falb-, American Academy of Neurology Fellow, American EPgePW Society Fellow, American Epilepsy Society Fallow, Ravel Society of Medicine ROBERT C. COHENOUR, M.D. LAWRENCE A. WEINBERG, M.P.H., M.D. Diplomats, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology Bd.Elig., American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology Dipbmate, American Board of Quelifipation in Electroaneephebpathy Fallow, American Eleatrcermsphalographic Society January 9, 1995 Mayor JoAnne Darcy City Hall Santa Clarita, CA. 91321 Dear Mayor Darcy: I am a resident of Santa Clarita in Placerita Canyon. I have just heard about a prpposed,�roadr4me&Sa a"C rit [ lt*wray=ialri wbu2d jo n3w_ 4Yh Placeri . CaiIYSX�, ita3dr._ I am veh�nently opposed to this plan. This road would severely alter the rural nature of Placerita Canyon and seErns inconsistent with the Placerita Canycm Special Standards District which has been established (City of Santa Clarita Development Code, Section 17.16.080). Other less costly and less intrusive proposals have been developed which would not damage the rural nature of Placerita Canyon and seem to be better choices. Please vote against further inpairnwnt of the erosion of the quality of life and damage to the enviro mlent in Placerita Canyon. i a'— i'!1 Brarldes 24725 Meadview Avenue Santa Clarita, CA. 91321 � w -t January 2, 1995 City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ,y�✓GE ,ITY puiA Gl Ar\'P Carl Kanowsky 22518 Jeniel Court Santa Clarita, CA 91350 RE: Impact of Porta Bella on Springbrook Businesses Dear City Council Member: JAN 1 2 1u As you know, I have been retained to represent the businesses on Springbrook who will be severely impacted by the Proposed extension of Magic Mountain Parkway to accommodate the Porta Bella project. On behalf of those businesses, we request that the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") on the project be ' recirculated, alternatives to the extension be studied and mitigation measures identified. RECIRCULATE THE EIR The EIR should be recirculated for two reasons. First, the business and property owners on Springbrook were never given notice of the project and its impact upon them. Second, the BIR {failed to consider the significant impacts the proposed extension 'of Magic Mountain would have on those individuals. Lack of Notification The California Constitution; California statutory law and California case law require that the business and property owners on SPr gtupQk should have been given notice of the EIR—and-given -given opportunity to comment upon it. — — Where a proposed project may substantially affect the fundamental interests of some persons, constitutional due -- - ---- b----- ---- standards require that notice must be "reasonably calculate their interests." Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 5� b0-' 8. -61Thus, the California Supreme Court, in interpreting the Constitution, found it a requirement that persons such as the business and property owners on Springbrook be given notice of the EIR and the project. As these same individuals are within close proximity to the proposed extension, 'I.CEQA would have similar requirements. However, these standards were not followed and these individuals were not (and still have not been) given formal notice. This failure prevented them from having an opportunity to testify before the Planning Commission, to provide written comments on the EIR and to protect their property and business rights. Significant Impacts Not Disclosed or Discussed Also, the EIR should be recirculatgd_asit failed to - n--- - ---- -- ---- consider signi_i.can impacts the Porta Bella project and the proposed Magic Mountain extension would have on the business and property owners on Springbrook. If, subsequent to_publ_ic review and—interagency consultation_ but _P_rior_to�natification, the Cit_y_gf_Santa Clarita adds significant newinformation to—the-EIR,-the agency must issue new notice and must recirculate the EIR for additional commentary and consultation. (Public Resources Code Section 21092.1) Where the changes or impacts are significant, the revised EIR must be subjected to the same "critical evaluation that occurs in the draft stage," so that the public is not denied "an opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the data and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom." Sutter Sensible Planning Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813, 822. Clearly, where a project will destroy or significantly impact a person's business or property, then there has been a significant impact. Testimony has already been provided to the City Council.as to what affect the Magic Mountain extension will have on these individuals. Despite this, the EIR is completely silent on this issue. It does not even discuss the extension (much less study mitigation measures or alternatives). Therefore, for these two reasons, the businesa aLd property owners on Springbrook request that the EIR be recirculated. Please provide a written response with explanation to this request. ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES SHOULD BE STUDIED As the EIR failed t_o even disc the magic Mountains----- extension, it similarly failed to identify alternatives or to propose mitigation measures. This failure must be rectified and the public provided with opportunity to participate and comment. Alternatives The business and property owners have requested that alternatives to the alignment of the Magic Mountain Parkway extension be prepared and studied. Some City Council members at 1,4 City Council meetings have also requested this. But, as of this) date, no alternatives have even been prepared, let alone studied i` CEQA requires that alternatives be identified in the EIR so that avoidable significant environmental damage can be substantially lessened or avoided where feasible. Public Resources Code section 21002. Based on this mandate, these owners request__that alternative.nments be alignments prepared, studied and subjected to public scrutiny and comment. -- — --- _ Mitigation Measures As already indicated, the due process requirements of the Constitution provide that mitigation measures be determined and considered. "The EIR must identify specific mitigation measures. Where several potential mitigation measures are available, each should be discussed separately; and the reasons for choosing one over the other should be stated.... (Guidelines, section 15126, subd. (c); see also, Stevens v. City of Glendale (2d Dist. 1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 986, 995-996.) Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, Remy, et al (1991), P. 193. As can be seen, mitigation o have must be identified, studied, public comment and the rationale stated. Obviously, this process Council orders it. The business this be done immediately and that process. f the impacts the extension will discussed, and available for for selections made must be can not begin until the City and property owners request that they be made a part of the Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of these requests. �Sincerely, � _ ` J . Carl J. Kanowsky cc: Business and Property Owners on Springbrook' Kevin Michel, City of Santa Clarita December 7, 1994 Mr. Sam Veltri Northholme Partners 330 Washington Blvd., Suite 400 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Dear Mr. Veltri: The residents of Circle J appreciate the willingness of Northholme Partners to now consider an extension of Magic Mountain that would not cross Oakdale Canyon. We would like to meet with you to discuss this and other issues regarding Porta Bella. We trust that you understand that as Circle J is s family-oriented community a meeting during the Christmas season and holidays is not feasible. We want to be fully prepared for this meeting and therefore suggest January 21st. We trust that this is convenient for you. -Also, before the meeting we would appreciate Northholme's written responses to these concerns we have raised regarding Porta Bella: 1. The entire Bermite site (as well as offsite contamination) should be cleaned to Cal -EPA's satisfaction before any grading or development begins. 2. The Whittaker Corporation, Northholme Partners, Banyan Management Corporation and all related partnerships, general partners, and corporations should agree in writing to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita as it relates to toxic, environmental, and hazardous waste issues. 3. These same organizations should also provide general liability and errors and omissions insurance with the City as the nAmed insuied. Given the tremendous exposure the City faces, ass appropriate amount may be $25 million. 4. The Magic Mountain extension should not be on Circle J open space. This means, of course, no Oakdale Canyon bridge or berm. 5. There should be a buffer of homes between Via Princessa and the Circle J Estates. To match the quality of homes in the Estates, the homes in Porta Bella creating this buffer should be on half -acre lots. 6. Following the recordation of the first master lot of each phase, adequate completion bonds should be provided to assure that the infrastructure for Porta Bella is completed on axtimely basis." Similar bonds should be required for all infrastructure improvements required in the Development Agreement. 7. Alternative 4 should be used in place of the Specific Plan. S. There should be three East/West corridors - CTAC (Via Princessa to Santa Clarita Parkway to Newhall Ranch Road), Magic Mountain and Via Princessa/Wiley Canyon. These three roads should be completed in this same order. The CTAC alignment should be built to Newhall Ranch Road and to Via Princessa upon completion of Phase I. CTAC would be six lanes, Magic Mountain two or four lanes, and Via Princessa/Wiley Canyon four lanes. 9. There should be a viable North/South corridor to Hwy.14 identified and completed at the same time as CTAC corridor discussed in #8. 10. Any extension of Magic Mountain must be engineered to bypass the businesses on Drayton and Springbrook. 11. There should be full public participation in all phases of the Development Agreement negotiations. 12. Fully recirculate the EIR as it relates to the toxic issues, traffic, the impact of the Magic Mountain extension on the businesses on Drayton and Springbrook, and the impact of the southerly extension of Santa Clarita Parkway on the businesses and property owners south of the Bermite property line. 13. Pursuant to section 17.80.040 of the General Plan, the following should be prepared: 1) a scaled three dimensional model showing before and after conditions, 2) a project simulation using computer-aided, three dimensional modeling coordinated with photography showing before and after conditions, 3) scaled, sight -line analysis drawings with views from City -selected locations showing precise visual impacts of the development proposal. As you know, Circle J has never been a one -issue group. Rather we believe that a wonderful project can be built on the Bermite site as long as certain changes and protections are implemented. We look forward to a frank discussion of these issues. Even though we gain nothing financially in this, we desire a development that mirrors the spirit of Santa Clarita and we are willing to volunteer our time to working with you to accomplish this goal. Sincerely, Carl Kanowsky an N 0 N