Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-12 - ORDINANCES - ZONING CLASSIFICATION CHANGE (2)ORDINANCE NO. 95.6 AN ORDINANCE OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE TO ALLOW FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 91-001, WHICH INCLUDES A CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (RS), BUSINESS PARK (BP) AND OPEN SPACE (OS) TO SPECIFIC PLAN (SP), AND ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A CONSISTENT HEREWITH TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 996 ACRE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE BERMITE SITE LOCATED SOUTH OF SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD AND EAST OF SAN FERNANDO AND BOUQUET CANYON ROADS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. Applications for Specific Plan 91-001 and Oak Tree Permit 91-033 (Master Case No. 91-164) were filed by Anden Corporation, (the applicant) with the City of Santa Clarita on October 25, 1991. These applications were deemed complete on February 26, 1992. Subsequently the applicant submitted applications for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51599 and Development Agreement 93-003 (Master Case No. 93-012) on February 2, 1993. On March 9, 1993 the City deemed the application complete. The City was notified in August 1993 that Northolme Partners was the new project applicant. The applicant requested a specific plan for a comprehensive plan of development, including proposed modifications to the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the Unified Development Code within the project area. The plan proposed 1,678 single family homes and 1,560 multiple family homes on 399 acres; 91 acres of commercial and industrial uses; 14 acres of institutional uses; 434 acres of open space and recreational uses; 58 acres of streets; and the provision of related infrastructure on the site's 996 acres. A vesting tentative tract map was requested to subdivide the 996 acre site into 76 master lots to be further subdivided by merchant builders into future tract maps. An oak tree permit was requested to allow for the removal and/or encroachment into the protected zones of up to 73 native oak trees, including as many as five Heritage size oak trees. A development agreement was requested, however, the details of the agreement are yet to be negotiated. The project also proposes a General Plan Amendment to the Highway Network of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, including the substitution of Santa Clarita Parkway for Rio Vista as a north/south corridor and the connection of Magic Mountain Parkway to Via Princessa. The site is known as the Bermite site located south of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Bouquet Canyon Road/San Fernando Road; north of the Circle J Ranch Community; and west of the Golden Triangle Industrial area. The assessor parcel numbers for the project are 2836-012-010, 011, 012 and 019. b. The General Plan presently designates the project site RS with a Valley Center Overlay on the northwest portion of the site. The General Plan specifically mentions the Bermite site as an area ideal for a specific plan. Zoning on the site is presently RS (Residential Suburban). C. The project site is located in a hillside terrain with slopes in excess of 10%. CL The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an environmental impact report must be prepared. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Specific Plan and Oak Tree Permit was mailed on April 8, 1992 to affected agencies. Following submittal of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Development Agreement applications, a subsequent NOP was prepared and mailed on February 12, 1993. e. Since 1992 the City has leased a ten acre portion of the project site for use as the Santa Clarita Metrolink commuter Rail Station. The Specific Plan also proposes to provide corridors and construct portions of two proposed east -west arterials (Santa Clarity Parkway and Magic Princessa) that will provide alternative circulation routes through the center of the City which is presently in need of such roadways. The Specific Plan also includes an escalator and trail connection between the commercial and residential areas and the commuter rail station. f. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee met and the applicant has supplied the applicant with draft conditions of approval. g. The project has since been redesigned to subdivide the 996 acre parcel and allow the following land uses: 406.95 acres open space, 41.75 acres for parks and recreation, 10 acres for schools, 56 acres for streets, 4 acres for institutional uses, 299.8 acres for single family residential uses (1,244 units), 85 acres for multi -family residential uses (1,667 units) and 92 acres of commercial and industrial uses. An oak tree permit requests the removal of a maximum of 104 non -Heritage size oak trees and 5 Heritage size oak trees out of the 182 oak trees (including 10 Heritage size oaks) located on-site. h. The site was previously used as an ammunition, explosives and flares manufacturing and testing facility. Operations on the site were terminated in 1987. Heavy metals and other hazardous materials contaminated the site as a result of the previous use. A total of 14 hazardous waste clean-up sites, referred to in the project EIR as hazardous waste management units (HWMU's) have been identified and 13 have been cleaned -up under the direction of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The 13 identified sites have received clean closure certification from DTSC. Remediation efforts are continuing on the remaining open site. Information on an addition 64 HWMU's where hazardous waste has been identified is in the project EIR. Extensive grading and landform alteration have occurred over most of the site resulting in major surface disturbance, alteration of topographic relief, and modification of natural drainage patterns. The project proposes the extension of all utility services to the project site. j. Article 8-- Specific Plans Sec 65451 et seq of the California Planning and Zoning Laws defines the contents which must be included in a specific plan as follows: (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: (1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. (2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. k. Section 17.16.030 of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) identifies general requirements and performance standards for a specific plan zone. A Specific Plan Zone shall: (a) Include a mmi num of 100 contiguous acres. (b) Be determined by the Council after considering the recommendation of the Planning Commission. (c) Provide for the development of a comprehensively planned community within the zone that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations. (d) Provide for development within the zone in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth policies of the City. (e) Provide for the construction, improvement, or extension of transportation facilities, public utilities, and public services required by development within the zone. The design of the project concentrates development within areas disturbed by the previous industrial uses. The project proposes grading on approximately 603 acres of the project site. The total amount of grading involves approximately 18 million cubic yards of cut and 18 million cubic yards of fill, balanced on-site. in. An Environmental Impact Report and Addendum thereto have been prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. n. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEER) was circulated for review and comment by the affected governmental agencies and all comments received have been considered. The review period for the DEIR was from September 27, 1993 to November 12, 1993. A Final EIR (FEIR) dated January 7, 1994, was prepared which included responses. to comments received on the DEIR. As a result of public and Planning Commission comments on the project and the FEIR, the applicant modified his project. The Planning Commission directed staff to provide environmental analysis of the modified proposal and a FEIR Addendum was prepared dated April 8, 1994. A mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP) has been prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA and adopted by the Planning Commission simultaneously herewith pursuant to Resolution P94-04. o. The Planning Commission went on a tour of the Central Circulation System of the City on September 12, 1993. The purpose of this tour was to see the various sites where potential future roadways are proposed to be constructed. This tour included viewing the site and proposed roadways in the Porta Bella Specific Plan proposal including Santa Clarita Road and an extension of Magic Mountain Parkway. p. The Planning Commission received an informational presentation about the Porta Bella Specific Plan proposal at their regularly scheduled meeting on October 5, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. This presentation was given by the applicant and his consultants. Staff updated the Commission on the status of the EIR processing and let the applicant give a background on the project. The Commission also set a preliminary date for a tour of the Bermite site for Saturday, November 13, 1993. q. Several duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission commencing on October 19, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At that hearing the Planning Commission received a staff report from Kevin Michel, Senior Planner, and a review of the DEIR, save traffic/circulation issues, from the City's EIR consultants Tom Worthington and Randy Nichola of Impact Sciences, Inc. The staff report for that hearing reviewed existing state law and the City's General Plan and Zoning Code regarding Specific Plans; General Plan and Zoning Conformity; the relationship of the project to the Valley Center Concept and other elements of the General Plan; relationship to the Civic Center Project and Central City Circulation; Ridge Line preservation and hillside development, including the issue of "innovation'; and a review of environmental issues and alternatives included in the DEIR. The Commission identified areas of concern for further study and continued the public hearing to a field visit for the Porta Bella site for Saturday, November 13, 1993 at 9:00 a.m., beginning in the Council Chambers. The Planning Commission held a continued public hearing which included a field trip to the Porta Bella site on Saturday, November 13, 1993. at 9:00 a.m., beginning in the Council Chambers. The Commission conducted a detailed site visit of the Bermite/Porta Bella property, including 14 viewing points. The Commission continued the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on November 16, 1993. At the continued public hearing held on November 16, 1993, the Planning Commission discussed the field trip of November 13, 1994, identified more areas of concern and received a presentation from the traffic consultant, Justin Farmer of Justin Farmer Transportation Engineers, about traffic issues discussed in the DEIR and Specific Plan. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on December 21, 1993. On December 21, 1993, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing. In the staff presentation, staff provided a detailed review of the proposed land uses on the site. The staff report focused on the potential revision to the Magic Mountain/Via Princessa corridor; the relationship of the Porta Bella and Civic Center projects; General Plan Consistency; and the Land Use Section (Chapter 3) of the Specific Plan. This public hearing was continued to a study session on January 11, 1994, to address all issues other than traffic and circulation. The continued public hearing held on January 11, 1994 was a study session where the Commission discussed issues other than traffic and circulation including consistency with the General Plan; consistency with the Valley Center Concept; consistency with the Bermite section of the General Plan; proposed land uses and their location; -relationships to the Civic Center Project; relationships to the Circle J communities; impacts on school, fire, police, and other services; public testimony received to date; oak tree impacts; open space and recreation issues. The Commission continued this public hearing to the neat regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on January 18, 1994. The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on January 18, 1994, was postponed due to the Northridge Earthquake which occurred the previous day. The meeting scheduled for January 18, 1994, was rescheduled and so noticed to February 1, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the meeting room at the Bank of America, 23929 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita. On February 1, 1994, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing. At that hearing the Commission conceptually approved Phase 1 of the project and discussed the elimination of "Z" lots, the need for project compatibility adjacent to Circle J, and the need for additional analysis of the Magic Mountain/Via Princessa Corridor. The public hearing was continued to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 15, 1994. On March 15, 1994, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing at 7:00 p.m. at the William S. Hart School District Board Room, 21515 Redview Drive, Santa Clarita. At this hearing the applicant presented the revised project to the Planning Commission as described in Section 1g, including an approximate 10% reduction in residential units, the elimination of "Z" lots, the elimination of a multi -family project on lot 26 adjacent to Circle J and the use of larger lots adjacent to Circle J, and the Magic Mountain/Via Princessa corridor. The applicant and his consultant Monica Simpson of the SWA Group made a slide presentation on the various product types to be used in the project. The City's EIR consultant Mr. Randy Nichols of Impact Sciences gave an initial overview of the impacts of the proposed Magic Mountain\Via Princessa alignment. Impacts of the roadway alignments upon Circle J were discussed. The Commission continued the hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on April 20, 1994. The FEIR Addendum was completed on April 8, 1994 and copies were immediately made available to the public and the Planning Commission. This FEIR Addendum included a complete analysis of the modified project and the Magic Mountain/Via Princessa corridor, including a traffic study evaluating this proposed modification to the General Plan network. At the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 20, 1994, held at the William S. Hart School District Board Room, the Commission conceptually approved the project 3-1 (Woodrow dissenting vote, Doughman absent) and directed staff to return to the Commission with conditions of approval and a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 61559, Oak Tree Permit 91-003, contingent on City Council approval of the Specific Plan; certifying Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum SC 92-041041 and adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration; and recommending that the City Council shall approve the Porta Bella Specific Plan as modified by the Commission. The Planning Commission continued this public hearing to the regularly scheduled meeting on June 7, 1994. The project was re -noticed for the June 7, 1994 hearing.' At the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of June 7, 1994, held in the City Council Chambers, the Commission directed staff to make modifications to the conditions of approval, mitigation monitoring and reporting plan and resolutions approving this project. The Commission also asked for further information and clarification on hazardous and solid waste clean-up issues. The Commission requested additional information regarding the 64 additional sites in addition to the 14 HWMU sites. The Commission directed staff to return to the following meeting. The Planning Commission _ continued this public hearing to the regularly scheduled meeting on June 21, 1994. r. At the regularly scheduled meeting of June 21, 1994, the Planning Commission received updated information on the status of hazardous waste site clean-up on the site and received modified conditions of approval, a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan and resolutions approving this project as directed by the Commission on June 7, 1994. The information regarding the additional 64 non RCRA sites had already been commented on and referenced in the DEIR, FEIR, FEIR Addendum and MMRP. s. Numerous duly noticed public hearings were conducted by the City Council and are summarized as follows: (a) The City Council received an informational presentation about the Porta Bella Specific Plan proposal at a City Council Study Session on September 29, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita (hereafter, City Council Chambers). This presentation was given by the applicant and his consultants. Staff updated the City Council on the processing and status of the EIR. (b) The City Council received a subsequent informational presentation regarding the Porta Bella project at a City Council Study Session on June 29, 1994, in the City Council Chambers, following the Planning Commission decision to approve the project on June 21, 1994 This was an informational session only. The presentation by staff reviewed slides depicting the project design, land uses, densities, and product types. Staff updated the Council regarding the Planning Commission hearings on the project and the EIR. (c) Numerous duly noticed public hearings (including field trips) were held by the City Council commencing on August 23, 1994, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Staff presented a detailed project description, including: Specific Plan No. 91-001; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51599;; Oak Tree Permit No. 91-033; and DEIR57IR SCH 92-041041. Staff described the project as modified by the Planning Commission, including: 2,911 dwelling units, comprised of 1,244 single-family homes and 1,667 multi -family units; 106 acres of commercial, office, and business park; and over 450 acres of open space on a total of 996 acres. Staff presented summaries of the three appeals. One, by Dean Cheeseman, Carl Kanowsky, et. al., appealed all aspects of the project as approved by the Planning Commission without any specificity. Another, by the project applicant, Sam Veltri of Northholme Partners, appealed the language of Traffic Condition TE -1, arguing that as drafted, the condition could mandate the project to contribute more than its fair share of infrastructure improvement in comparison to the impacts of the project. The last, by Everett Scott, Jr., Vice President of Keysor-Century and his designated representative, Roger Hutchinson, was on behalf of Keysor-Century, a business and property owner, that could be impacted by the proposed bridge extension of Magic Mountain Parkway, argued that the alignment should be explicitly defined. Staff initially presented the project and appeals as two separate items. The Council heard extended public testimony from the applicant and the general public, at this and all the other subsequent meetings and study sessions, except where noted. Council directed staff to combine the items into a single agenda item in future hearings. The Council moved to continue the public hearing to a field trip, beginning at the Santa Clarita Metrolink and Transportation Center, which is located on that portion of the project area fronting on Soledad Canyon Road, on September 24, 1994 at 7 a.m.. The Council also moved to hold a joint study session with the Planning Commission on October 4, 1994, at 7 p.m. to discuss the Planning Commission review process and decision for Porta Bella. (d) At 7 a.m., on September 24, 1994, the City Council reconvened the public hearing for the Porta Bella project at the Santa Clarita Metrolink and Transportation Center on the Bermite site, the area proposed for the Porta Bella development. Staff and the applicant conducted a comprehensive field visit, describing: road alignments; product types and locations; areas impacted by hazardous wastes; the relationship to the Civic Center property and the Civic Center Master Plan; project impacts and proposed mitigation; and issues relating to the three appeals filed on the project. At the conclusion of the field tour, the City Council continued the public hearing to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on October 11, 1994. (e) Though not specifically a Porta Bella hearing, the City Council conducted a Study Session on September 14, 1994, in the City Council Chambers, regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment to revise the Circulation Element and Network of Arterial Highways, including direction to staff to continue additional traffic modeling. The Circle J community presented four alternative corridors to the Magic/Princessa alignment proposed by the project applicant. The Porta Bella Specific Plan includes a General Plan Amendment to modify the Circulation Element of the General Plan. (f) On October 4, 1994, at 7 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, the City Council and the Planning Commission conducted a joint study session to review the Planning Commission's deliberations and decisions regarding the Porta Bella project. The Commission reviewed their deliberations regarding. General Plan ' consistency; project characteristics such as density, product types, and design guidelines; the importance of linking land use and transportation planning, as proposed by the plan; project modifications mandated by the Commission, including density reductions, reduced grading impacts, and the Magic/Princessa connection; hazardous waste status, clean-up, and the adopted conditions of approval; roads and infrastructure and the applicant's fair share; oak tree impacts and mitigation; the EIR and Addendum; the Statement of Overriding Consideration; and the appeals of the Planning Commission. This was an informational meeting only, and na decisions were made. (g) The City Council resumed the public hearing for the project on October 11, 1994, at the City Council Chambers. Staff reviewed the various aspects of the project application and the three appeals filed against the Planning Commission decision. The City's Environmental Consultant, Randy Nichols of Impact Sciences, gave a detailed presentation on the Environmental Impact Report and Addendum. discussing impact areas, mitigation measures, and the Statement of Overriding Consideration adopted by the Planning Commission. Carla Slepak, from the California Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Toxic Substances Control described their work in reviewing the existing conditions on site, the requirement for site clean-up, and their coordination with City staff in drafting the conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved by the Planning Commission. Council directed staff to work with the applicant regarding his appeal of Traffic condition TE -1 and to set up guidelines for a reimbursement district to satisfy the requirement. The Council discussed: results of the traffic modeling study, proposed roadways, and traffic mitigation; hazardous waste and the need to clean-up the site; and, liability and insurance issues. The Council moved to continue the public hearing to November 8, 1994, in order to discuss the site visit, the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, and the public testimony received to date. (h) The City Council resumed the public hearing for the project on November 8, 1994, in the City Council Chambers. Staff reviewed the issues involved in each of the three appeals filed on the project. As directed by Council, staff had prepared extensive comments to respond to a letter from Carl Kanowsky, the designated spokesperson for the Circle J homeowners et. al. appeal and legal representative for certain small business owners located on Springbrook Avenue, and these responses were reviewed at the meeting. The Council discussed hazardous wastes and the necessity to clean the entire site before constructing the project, traffic impacts, the release of legal opinions, the unacceptableness of the Oakdale Canyon Bridge, ground and water contamination, fault lines, impacts on small businesses, the role of the CaIEPA/ DTSC in managing the site clean-up, road financing, the General Plan amendment of the circulation element proposed by the project, and impact of proposed new roads and bridges on property owners. Council moved that staff should continue to work on appeals issues, to require that the entire site be cleaned up prior to allowing new construction, to examine the impact of roads and to look for an alternative to the bridges, and to deny certification of the EIR at this time pending additional review. The meeting was continued to the November 22, 1994, City Council meeting. (i) At the meeting on November 22, 1994, at the City Council Chambers, the Council reviewed the traffic conditions for the project. The feasibility of an at -grade crossing to extend Magic Mountain Parkway was reviewed. The proposed bridge over Oakdale Canyon was discussed, including other available options. The EIR analysis of these issues was reviewed. The potential impacts of new road infrastructure on property owners were reviewed, including compensation, condemnation, and relocation. The Council directed that staff release City Attorney analyses on the project to the public. The meeting was continued to December 13, 1994, City Council meeting. (j) At the continued public hearing on December 13, 1995 in the City Council Chambers, the staff reviewed staff responses to questions raised at the November 22, 1994, City Council meeting. Staff reviewed the Consent Order, which mandates the investigation and clean-up of the site, agreed to between CaIEPA/ DTSC and Whittaker/Bermite, the property owner. Staff reviewed the impracticality of an ' at -grade crossing to extend Magic Mountain Parkway over San Fernando Road and the railroad tracks. Staff reviewed the aspects of the project as approved by the Planning Commission, including phasing, road infrastructure, and the EIR Addendum. The Council did not take public testimony, but continued the item to an adjourned meeting on January 31, 1995, 6:30 p.m., for the specific purpose of discussing Porta Bella with at least two Planning Commissioners. (k) The City Council, with members of the Planning Commission, met on January 31, 1995, in a public hearing exclusively devoted to the Porta Bella Specific Plan et. al., and the three appeals filed against the Planning Commission approval and recommendation. The Planning Commissioners reviewed the major issues that they considered in making their recommendation to the City Council. The applicant and community representatives reported on various meetings held to reach compromise and/or a consensus position. The Council heard extensive public testimony and directed staff to respond in writing to all the questions raised. The applicant offered a revision to the project in schematic form, which greatly reduced the impact in the Circle J open space. The revised proposal does away with the Magic/Princessa major highway connection and substitutes Magic Mountain Parkway as a four lane collector that "T's into Via Princessa, which is located primarily on the project site with minimal impacts to the Circle J open space and includes the elimination of the Oakdale Canyon Bridge. Because of concerns raised over the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway across San Fernando Road, particularly, whether it should be a bridge or not and what specific properties might be impacted, the Council continued the public hearing to 4 p.m., February 21, 1995, at Divided Lite, 25835 Springbrook Avenue, Santa Clarita. (1) The City Council and Planning Commission convened a joint meeting at 4 p.m. on February 21, 1995, at the parking lot of Divided Lite, 25835 Springbrook Avenue, Santa Clarita. Staff.provided background on the existing Circulation Element of the General Plan, which indicates the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway through the Springbrook area. Staff reviewed the Civic Center Master Plan, approved by Council and referenced in the EIR, which included a matrix ranking various alternatives to extend Magic Mountain Parkway, and which favored a grade -separated extension generally proceeding along the existing alignment as defined by the new bridge crossing the South Fork of the Santa Clara River. The applicant reviewed various alignment proposals for the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway, which included markings in the field to depict the proposed location and height of the bridge. At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council continued the meeting to March 28, 1995, and directed the applicant to continue working with staff, property owners, and businesses in the area. (m) At the continuation of the public hearing on March 28, 1995, in the City Council Chambers, staff reviewed the detailed responses prepared to all the issues raised at the January 31, 1995, meeting by the public and by the City Council. These issues included, but were not limited to: condemnation issues; EIR issues; hazardous waste; project density; insurance and indemnification; off-site roadway segments; OSHA requirements; Placerita Special Standards; the proposed school site; Springbrook businesses; streams; and trails. The staff report, in brief, indicated that the applicant proposes to extend Magic Mountain Parkway with a bridge that primarily impacts the Keysor-Century and Hasa properties, rather than the small business owners on Springbrook. The applicant proposes to work with the affected property owners. The applicant reaffirmed the commitment to eliminate the Magic/Princessa connection as a six -lane highway substantially encroaching into Circle J Homeowners open space and requiring the Oakdale Canyon Bridge, and substituted the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway as a 4 -lane collector, primarily within the project area, with minimal disturbance to the Circle J open space, and which "T"s into the proposed Via Princessa alignment. The applicant proposed to dedicate sufficient right-of-way for 6 lanes. The report provided additional testimony that an at -grade crossing for the Magic Mountain extension is infeasible. Three alignment studies for the proposed Santa Clarita Parkway, prepared by the applicant, were discussed, with the applicant favoring an alignment consistent with the previously submitted feasibility alignment submitted to staff, intersecting with the public portion of Placenta Canyon and generally between the existing industrial and residential uses, providing a landscaped and bermed buffer. The off-site extension of all proposed roadways, including Santa Clarity Parkway, Via Princessa, and Magic Mountain Parkway, will require additional environmental review tiered to the environmental work already prepared for the project. The applicant agreed to re -align Via Princessa so that the centerline is no closer than 400 feet to the southern property line, with the area to the south of the alignment to be developed with large lot estate homes or to be left at open space, with this determination to be made by the homeowners association for the homes south of the property line. Regarding the status of the appeals, the applicant and staff continued to work on revised language for Traffic ^` Condition TE -1. A number of the proposed design changes offered by the applicant address concerns of the various Circle J neighborhoods. The applicant continued to prefer an alignment that primarily impacts Keysor- Century and the Hasa companies while limiting impacts on the small Springbrook businesses. At the close of the hearing, the Council continued the item to the April 11, 1995, regularly scheduled City Council meeting, directing that public testimony should be limited to the Keysor-Century appeal (n) At the meeting of April 11, 1995, the Council reviewed issues regarding the three appeals. The City's Environmental Consultant, Impact Sciences, reviewed issues studied in the Environmental Impact Report. Council reached consensus regarding various project modifications, including: a. The entire site must be cleaned prior to new development. b. Curb, gutter, and landscaping on Springbrook, north from Drayton Street. C. No construction traffic on Springbrook Avenue. d. Drainage improvements and a second access for Oak Orchard. e. Project will adhere to future building and seismic codes. f. Equestrian crossings for Santa Clarita Parkway. g. A gate guarded entry from Via Princessa to Karrie Lane. h. Relocation of Magic Mountain and Via Princessa further from existing homes. i. No Oakdale Canyon bridge, and impact to Circle J Open Space very minimal. j. A berm and landscape plan for Magic Mountain Parkway and Via Princessa. k. Magic Mountain as a four lane collector on site, with right-of- way for two more lanes. The Council continued the meeting to the April 25 meeting, indicating that testimony would be limited to the draft conditions of approval for the project. Furthermore, the Council indicated that written comments could be submitted until April 28, with the applicant having until May 3 to respond to comments. (o) On April 28, 1995, staff and the applicant apprised the Council of the status of the negotiations of the appeal filed by Keysor- Century, and the proposed settlement of the issue.Staff presented additional background regarding the project site. The revised language for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Condition TE -1, agreed to by staff and the applicant, was reviewed and approved as modified. The Council heard testimony and closed the public hearing. Staff reiterated that due to the all-encompassing nature of the Circle J et. al. appeal, that their issues were addressed in testimony, by project modifications by the applicant, and by staff responses, in writing, to the various issues brought up. the Council moved to certify the EIR and Addendum, and to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration. After discussion, the Council continued the meeting to the May 9, 1995 City Council meeting. (p) On May 9, 1995, after discussion regarding the project and the conditions of approval, the Council moved to affirm the Planning Commission's approval of the Tract Map and the Oak Tree Permit, to adopt the Specific Plan, including modifications to the Zoning Map, General Plan Land Use Map, and General Plan Circulation Network, as approved and modified by the City Council. The Council further moved to refer the Development Agreement back to the Planning Commission for their advice, as required by City Ordinance, prior to Council review and action. SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds as follows: a. At the hearings described above, the City Council considered staff presentations, staff reports, Planning Commission resolutions, applicant presentations, and public testimony on the proposal, and the FEIR and FEIR Addendum prepared for the project. b. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems, since water, sewage disposal, fire protection and hazardous material cleanup are addressed in the MMRP and Conditions of Approval. C. The project complies with the general requirements and performance standards for the Specific Plan Zone. The project is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan Zone which was created to: facilitate development of certain areas by permitting greater flexibility and consequently, more creative and imaginative designs; promote more economical and efficient use of land while providing a harmonious variety of choices, higher level of amenities, and preservation of natural and scenic qualities of open space; and ensure that development substantially conforms to the approved plans. d. The Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum identify certain significant environmental effects. The Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum identify feasible mitigation measures for each of these impacts with the exclusion of air quality, biological resources, aesthetics, light and glare, risk of upset/health hazard, transportation and circulation, and cumulative solid waste impacts which cannot be avoided through mitigation. The identified mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP) and conditions of approval for the project. The Addendum studies the connection of Magic Mountain Parkway to Via Princessa. The traffic study concluded that the proposed road would offer circulation benefits and that the noise, visual, and aesthetic impacts would not be significant and could be mitigated. The alignment of this road was further modified by the City Council to greatly minimize the impacts in Circle J Open Space and to eliminate the Oakdale Canyon bridge, thereby greatly reducing the impacts on adjacent existing residential development. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: a. A FEIR and FEIR Addendum, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations for this project have been prepared and circulated in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopted as certified as required by that Act. b. This project as modified by the City Council will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. C. The project is compatible with existing development in the area, consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning. d. The applicant has substantiated the findings for approval of a Specific Plan, and Zone Change, as modified by the City Council. e. The City Council has adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts in the project which cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels (Resolution 95-41; adopted April 25, 1995) and certified the FEIR and FEIR Addendum (SC 92-041040) (Resolution 95-41, adopted simultaneously herewith.) SECTION 4. The City Council hereby: approves Specific Plan 91-001 consisting of zone change from Residential Suburban (RS), Business Park (BP) and Open Space (OS) to Specific Plan (SP); adopts special development standards as identified in the attached Specific Plan (Exhibit 1). SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after adoption. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED AND APPROVED this 12th day of September , 19 95. M#YOR ATTEST: 1""' � Z"') ITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 95-6 was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of Anaust 19__2a__. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of September , 19qr,_ by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Boyer, Heidt, pedersoni Smyth, Darcy NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS mom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS ,one ITY CLERK KJM:LHS:FLF:lp pbcoar& Wm ORDINANCE NO. 95-6 A SUMMARY OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE TO ALLOW FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 91-001 WHICH INCLUDES A CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (RS), BUSINESS PARK (BP), & OPEN SPACE (OS) TO SPECIFIC PLAN (SP), & ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A CONSISTENT HEREWITH TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 996 ACRE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE BERMITE SITE LOCATED SOUTH OF SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD AND EAST OF SAN FERNANDO AND BOUQUET CANYON ROADS SECTION 1, 2 & 3: City Council made numerous findings to provide the context for the adoption of the Ordinance. SECTION 4: The.City Council hereby approves Specific Plan 91-001 consisting of zone change from Residential Suburban (RS), Business Park (BP), and Open Space (OS) to Specific Plan (SP); adopts special development standards as identified in the Specific Plan. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after adoption. SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance in a newspaper f published and circulated in said City at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at 1 which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted at City Hall in the City Clerk's Office. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED this 12th day�of --§m2tgMbe;1995. PANNE DARCY, MAYOR CITY CLERK i STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 95-6 was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on 22nd day of August 1995. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of September , 1995, by the following vote to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ORD.95.6PTAB. Boyer, Heidt, Pederson, Smyth, Darcy L'Vone onei' ONNA M. RI .' CITY CLERK ATTACHMENT B DS -15 (INDEMNITY CONDITION) All grading activities on the property, which is composed of approximately 996 acres and is commonly known as the Bermite Site, located south of Soledad Canyon Road and east of Bouquet Canyon and San Fernando Roads ("Project Site"), shall be continuously monitored on-site for hazardous and solid waste materials to the satisfaction of appropriate agencies, including the City. If "hazardous" or "toxic" wastes are encountered, work must be stopped in that area and the appropriate agencies, including the City, shall be notified. Mitigation measures imposed by the appropriate agencies, including the City, shall be adhered to. The current owner of the project site, Whittaker Porta Bella Development, Inc., and Whittaker Corporation, and any future owners (except for the ultimate purchaser/user of individual parcels of property), as well as the applicants (including, but not limited to, Miden Corporation, Miden Northholme Partners, BMC Northholme Corp., Northholme Partners), for each of them and each of their successors and assigns (which indemnifying parties are hereinafter referred to as "Indemnifying Parties") shall execute an indemnity and hold harmless agreement in which the Indemnifying Parties agree to indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City) and hold the City harmless from any and all liability, costs, fines, penalties, charges and/or claims of any kind whatsoever (including, but not limited to, the death or injury of any person and damage or injury to property including loss of value) ("Liability") caused by, arising from, or by reason of, the presence of any "toxic" or "hazardous" substance or material, as those terms are currently or hereinafter defined in California or federal law, whether presently found on the Project Site or later discovered on the Project Site. A current definition of "toxic" and "hazardous" materials, as defined in California and federal law, is attached hereto as Exhibit "G". Notwithstanding the foregoing, an Indemnifying Party shall not be required to indemnify the City for any Liability arising from "toxic" or "hazardous" substances or materials which were not present on the Project Site or portion thereof as of the date of sale of such Project Site, or such portion thereof (as the case may), by such Indemnifying Party to a third party. It shall be the Indemnifying Parties' obligation to establish that any "toxic" or "hazardous" substances were deposited on the Project Site after the date of sale of such property to a third party either to the City's satisfaction or in a court of law. Until such time as the responsibility for the "toxic" or "hazardous" substances or materials is so established, the Indemnifying Parties shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City and its agents, officers and employees against and from arty and all liabilities, demands, claims, actions or proceedings and costs and expenses incidental thereto (including costs of defense, settlement and reasonable attorneys' fees), which any or all of them may suffer, incur, be responsible for or pay out as a result of any actual or potential damages, personal injury or death, injury or damage to property including loss of value, which may arise, directly or indirectly, from the presence of any "toxic" or "hazardous" substance or material on the project site and Indemnifying Parties or Indemnifying Parties' contractors' subcontractors', agents' or employees' activities and/or operations conducted in connection with the clean up and/or remediation of any "toxic" or "hazardous" substance or material on the project site. In addition, Indemnifying Parties shall require that all of its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees (collectively "Contractors') employed to conduct activities and/or operations in connection with the clean up and/or remediation of any "toxic" or "hazardous" substance or material on the Project Site agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City for all Liability resulting from the Contractors' activities and/or operations conducted in connection with the clean up and/or remediation prior to engaging in any clean up and/or remediation activities. The foregoing indemnity is intended to operate as an agreement pursuant to Section 107(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U. S. C. Section 9601, et sea.. and California Health and Safety Code Section 25364 to assure, protect, hold harmless and indemnify the City from liability. Pingmm\ds-15. EXHIBIT G Hazardous Materials - Any hazardous or toxic substance, material, sewage or waste which is regulated, controlled or prohibited by statute, rule, regulation, decree or order of any governmental authority, the State of California or the United States Government now or at any time hereafter in effect. The term "hazardous materials" includes; without limitation, any material or substance which is: 1. Defined as a "hazardous waste," "extremely hazardous waste," or "restricted hazardous waste" under Section 25115, 25117 or 25122.7, or listed pursuant to Section 25140 of the California Health and Safety Code. Division 20, Chapter 6.5 (Hazardous Waste Control Law); 2. Defined as a "hazardous substance" under the Carpenter -Presley -Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act. Section 25316 of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8 ("HSAA Act"); 3. Defined as a "hazardous material," "hazardous substance," or "hazardous waste" under Section 25501 (I), (k) and (1) of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.7 (Hazardous Materials Release Plans and Inventory); 4. Defined as a "hazardous substance" under Section 25281(d) of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.7 (Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances); 5. Defined as "waste" in Section 13050 (d) of the California Water Code (the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Act); 6. Petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel, or any mixture thereof; 7. Listed under Article 9 or defined as hazardous or extremely hazardous pursuant to Article 2 of Title 22 of the California Administrative Code, Division 4.5, Chapter 10; 8. Designated as a "hazardous substance" pursuant to Section 311(a) (14) of the Federal i Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U. S. C. Sections 1251, 1321(a) (14); 9. Defined as a "hazardous waste" pursuant to Section 1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 42 U. S. C. Section 6901, 6903 (5); 10. Defined as a "hazardous substance" pursuant to Section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), as amended, 42 U. S. C. Section 9601 (14); 11. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos or urea formaldehyde foam insulation; 12. Organochlorine pesticides (GCBs), including but not limited to DDT, DDD, and DDE; or 13. Any other chemical, material, or substance that because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, exposure to which is limited or regulated for health and safety reasons by any governmental authority, or which possess a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the work place or the environment. ping=m\exhib•g.