The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-03-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - PH PORTA BELLA SP DEVAGMT (2)I AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval /2��z Item to be presented b�._ 7/1 � . Lynn M. Harris/ l -i PUBLIC HEARING DATE: March 28, 1995 SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing From February 21, 1995 Regarding the Porta Bella Specific Plan and Development Agreement As Well As the Three Appeals Filed Concerning the Decision By the Planning Commission DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On January 31, 1995, the City Council continued the public hearing for Porta Bella to a special meeting with the Planning Commission on February 21 in the Springbrook Avenue area to review potential alignments of the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway across San Fernando Road and the railroad tracks. At the close of the meeting on Springbrook Avenue, the Council continued the public hearing to March 28, 1995. Prior to the March 28 continued public hearing for Porta Bella, staff will have forwarded a letter to all those who testified on January 31, as directed by Council. ANALYSIS I. Magic Mountain Extension: a. The applicant favors an alignment, with a bridge, that minimizes impacts on the small business on Springbrook Avenue. Would cause impacts to Keyser -Century storage building, office trailer, and vacant land intended for offices (no plans filed). b. This proposal would bisect Hasa's land holdings, but not impact their operations. C. The applicant suggests working out a lot line adjustment between Keyser and Hasa to convey the undeveloped Hasa land to Keyser for office construction. d. Applicant estimates Magic Mountain bridge cost at $6 -to -8 million dollars. H. Extension of Magic/Princessa & Oakdale Canyon Bridge In Circle J Open Space: a. The applicant now proposes that Magic Mountain stay primarily within the confines of the Porta Bella project as a four lane collector that "T"'s into Via Princessa. Continued To: y- it —cls Agenda Item: i b. This proposal limits impacts to the extreme northwest portion of the open space. C. Proposal is similar to Circle J proposals. Noise, visual impacts, disturbance to Oakdale Canyon, and open space intrusions eliminated and/or reduced. d. The developer indicates that right-of-way for six lanes will be dedicated. e. Residents prefer that Via Princessa "T" into Magic Mountain. III. Magic Mountain At -Grade Crossing a. The feasibility of an at -grade crossing was studied in the Civic Center Master Plan(CCMP), and was rated significantly lower than a grade -separated extension. b. The CCMP was a reference for the DEIR and was available to the public. C. MTA and Metrolink staff strongly oppose any new at -grade crossings and will require closing two existing crossings of a similar magnitude to open another one. IV. Santa Clarita Parkway: a. The applicant's preliminary alignment is from Soledad Canyon Road to the existing interchange at Placenta Canyon Road and was not evaluated in the EIR. b. Prior to the construction of any off-site link of Santa Clanta Parkway, environmental review and public input would be required, including analysis of alternatives. C. Similar to the Planning Commission's decision, the Council can approve the road at a conceptual level as a future General Plan arterial. d. Other alignments are under discussion, including using Mad Mountain to Sierra Highway; shifting the current alignment study between AES and ARCO; and utilizing the Golden Valley interchange rather than the Placerita interchange. e. The private trail Mad Mountain would intersect at Sierra Highway, but would not access a freeway interchange.. Poor sight lines. Cheaper than existing proposal. f, Alignment splitting AES and ARCO to Placenta off -ramp would require more earthwork, oil field impacts, and delays related to oil production. Most expensive. g. Applicant would accept any of above, but believes that the existing proposal is superior. h. Newhall Ranch Road to Santa Clanta Parkway to Golden Valley interchange is inconsistent with the General Plan and existing alternatives. Underutilizes Placenta interchange and overburdens Golden Valley interchange. Could result in the deletion of Golden Valley from the network. V. Via Princessa and Circle J Estates: a. Via Princessa now comes within 150 feet of rear property lines; 400 feet now proposed. b. Circle J homeowners to decide if land south of new Via Princessa should be open space or should include large lot single family homes with the road a little closer. VI. Trails and Santa Clarita Parkway (SCP): a. No official adopted or proposed trails appear to be bisected by SCP, though some informal trails could be impacted. b. Per the applicant, the closest SCP comes to Foxie's field is a quarter -to -half a mile. C. Applicant willing to accommodate trails, including trail loop using canyon areas. VII. Status of Appeals: a, Applicant has proposed project changes to accommodate significant Circle J concerns. b. Staff and the applicant have nearly reached agreement on revised condition language. C. Keyser -Century has not indicated a response to new applicant proposals. RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive staff report; proceed with public hearing, instruct the audience that testimony shall be limited to new information, receive public testimony, close the public hearing; 2: Give preliminary approval of the project as recommended by the Planning Commission with any amendments as appropriate; and provide direction to staff regarding the appeals. 3. Direct staff to return with appropriate resolutions for certification of the Final EIR and Addendum. Attachment: Letter from Carl Kanowsky to Richard Henderson, City Planner, dated February 15, 1995 Current \ pb_ccr l l.kjm J y0,IL 4AR 0 A 14 coFlt� r +i CITY CLERK :� �, Carl Kanowsky, Esq. 22518 Jeniel Ct. Santa Clarita, CA 91350 (805) 254-8335 February 15, 1995 Mr. Rich Henderson City of Santa Clarita 23920 West Valencia Blvd, Third Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Henderson: As we discussed on Thursday, February 9, 1995, the business and property owners on Springbrook are eager to meet with both City representatives and the Porta Bella developer. We simply ask that one issue be addressed first, as directed by the City Council on January 31-, 1995. on January 31, 1995, the City Council, reaffirming prior comments and requests, asked staff to study both an at -grade crossing (at various locations) and different alignments an for dthe across proposed extension of Magic Mountain Pkwy. Boulevard and/or Bouquet Canyon. If Magic Mountain is four gan at - lanes, as the City Council seems tobecons less harmfu1 to the grade crossing is feasible and, potentially, rade crossing can be done, people on Springbrook, If such us at -grade about eop then it would makemoot any disCutaliagnmentshofpthele on Springbrook "whole". Similarly, differenffected. proposed bridge will reduce the number of businesses a May we suggest that the meeting between City staff and the people on Springbrook occur as soon as the staff has completed these studies and is prepared to present its findings along supporting documentation? Please let me know if this is acceptable. cc: City Council incerely, Carl Kanowsky .3E:CEIVED rr' 1 3 1995 C:Ty CWNCIL :F :Am-. A CLAWTA