HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-12-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - ANNEX 1990-03 (2)i &
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
Lynn M. arris
PUBLIC'BEARING. J
DATE: December 11, 1990
SUBJECT: Prezone No. 90-003 (Annexation No. 1990-03)
Ordinance No. 90-201
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
The proposal is for a "Prezone Ordinance" and related environmental
documents to be approved by the City Council on Annexation No. 1990-03.
The ordinance constitutes an amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the
City of Santa Clarita from existing Los Angeles County A-1-1, A-1-2,
A-1-20,000, A-2-20;000, and R -R zoning to compatible City zoning for the
purpose of annexation of land to the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed
ordinance sets forth applicable Government Code sections, reasons for the
prezone; exhibits identifying the site, and other required information.,
Annexation No. 1990-03 is a proposal to annex approximately 128 acres of
inhabited land to the City of Santa Clarita. The area is generally rural
residential in character with an estimated population of 109 persons
residing in approximately 35 dwelling units. The site is located in the
Sand Canyon area, east, west and north of the existing city limits, south
of the Southern Pacific Railroad, east & south of Oak Springs Canyon
Road, and west & south of proposed Annexation 1988-02. (See attached
map.) Annexation is requested by the property owners within the area, who
cite a desire for City services and local government permit processing.
There are no known persons or organizations opposed to this proposal, and
the annexation is supported by a majority.of area residents. The City
also seeks annexation of the property to avoid creating a "County island'
within the City's corporate limits.
On November 6, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P90-56
recommending to the City Council that it approve the request for a
prezone to City A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, and A-2-20,000 zoning
classifications; as modified from the original proposal, and that it
certify the Negative Declaration prepared for Prezone No. -90-003 and
Annexation No. 1990-03. The property owner of the single parcel affected
by the modification to the original prezone proposal does not object to
the Planning Commission's recommendation to the zone change from County
R -R to City A-1-1.
Agenda lten-J�!
0 6
Previous action taken by the City Council on Annexation No. 1990-03 is
the adoption of Resolution 90-134 (initiating annexation proceedings with
the LAFCO). Subsequent actions to be considered by the City Council
include adoption of a joint resolution with the County of Los.Angeles
regarding property tax transfer and a resolution by the City Council
making findings on the value of written protests and approving and
ordering the annexation of the project area.
1. Certify the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that
the proposed project will not have a significant effect on�the
environment.
2 Approve Prezone No. 90-003 based on the required findings.
3. Introduce the attached ordinance, Ordinance 90-201, waive further
reading, and pass to second reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance 90-201
Resolution No. P90-56
Staff Report
Negative Declaration
Location Map
Exhibit A - Legal Description
Exhibit B - Map
ANNX: 2
CITY.OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON
PREZONE FROM EXISTING LOS ANGELES COUNTY ZONING
(A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000 AND R -R)
TO CITY ZONING (A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000 AND R -R)
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION OF 128 ACRES OF LAND
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita regarding a Prezone from existing Los Angeles
County Zoning (A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000 and R -R) to
City Zoning (A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000 and R -R) for the
purpose of annexation of 128 acres of land to the City of Santa
Clarita. The Planning Commission recommends that the portion of
the property currently zoned County R -R be prezoned to City A-1-1.
The location is in the Sand Canyon area, east, west, and north of
the existing City limits, south of the Southern Pacific Railroad,
east and south of Oak Springs Canyon Road, and west and south of
proposed Annexation 1988-02. The project site includes 35 parcels
containing approximately 109 residents. No, change to the existing
development is proposed by the project.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 -Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita,
the 11th of December, 1990, 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. contracting the City Clerk's Office, Santa Clarita City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita.
If you wish to challenge this order 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 Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Dated: November 15, 1990
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: November 19th, 1990
9 PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 0
1. Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
2. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3. Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
S. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony
8. Discussion by Council
9. Council Decision
10. Mayor Announces Decision
ORDINANCE NO. 90-201
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
(Prezone No. 90-003)
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated
prezoning of certain properties located in the Sand Canyon area prior to
their annexation to the City of Santa Clarita (Annexation No. 1990-03);
and
WHEREAS, such zoning would become effective upon annexation,
described in Exhibit A and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated
within and made part of Section 22.60.190 of the City's Planning and
Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita City Council did set December
11, 1990, at the hour of 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, as the time and place for
a public hearing before said City Council, and notice of said public
hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, there was no testimony given
for or against the proposed prezone; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said Prezone was duly heard and
considered.
THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as
follows:
a. The prezone is a change to City A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000,
and A-2-20,000 zoning classifications on the properties
identified in Exhibit A prior to their annexation to the
City.
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and
comment by affected governmental agencies and the public,
and all comments received have been considered. The public
review period was from October 5, 1990, to October 26,
1990.
Ordinance No. 90-201 •
Page 2
CJ
C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant
to Sections 65090 and 65351 of the Government Code of the
State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any,
received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made
by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on their behalf, the
City Council further finds and determines as follows:
a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of a General Plan. There is
reasonable probability that this project will be consistent
with the General Plan currently being considered or
studied, that there is little or no probable detriment to,
or interference with, the future adopted General Plan if
the proposed resolution is ultimately inconsistent with
that Plan, and that'the proposed project complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and local
ordinance.
SECTION 3. In acting on the prezoning application, the City Council
has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines
as follows:
a. That a need for the prezoneclassificationsas originally
proposed to -A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000, and R -R
does not exist within the area of the subject property; and
That a need for the prezone classifications as modified
from the original proposal to A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, and
A-2-20,000 exists within the area of the subject property;
and
b. That the subject property is not a proper location for the
A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000, and R -R prezone
classifications as originally proposed; and
That the subject property is a proper location for the
A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, and A-1-20,000 prezone
classifications as modified from the original proposal; and
C. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare and.good
planning practice do not justify the prezone
classifications as originally proposed to A-1-1, A-1-2,
A-1-20;000, A-2-20,000, and R -R; and
Public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
planning practice justify the prezone classifications to
A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, and A-2-20,000 as modified from
the original proposal; and
Ordinance No. 90-201
Page 3
E
d. The proposed prezone classsifications as originally
proposed to A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000, and R -R
are not consistent with existing land use in the area and
would not change the existing zoning of the subject site;
and
The proposed prezone classifications as modified from the
original proposal to A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, and
A-2-20,000 are consistent with existing land use in the
area and would change the existing zoning of the subject
site; and
e. The Annexation No. 1990-03 prezoning area consists of 128
acres of land in the Sand Canyon area, located east, west,
and north of the existing city limits, south of the
Southern Pacific Railroad, east & south of Oak Springs
Canyon Road, and west & south of proposed Annexation
1988-02.
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and
considered the Initial Study prepared for the project and finds and
determines as follows:
a. Said study found that no adverse impact to the existing and
future environment of the.area would result from the
proposal.
b. The proposed prezone would not have a significant adverse
effect on the environment and a proposed Negative
Declaration was posted and advertised on October 5, 1990,
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
C. The City Council, based.upon the findings set forth
above, hereby finds the Negative Declaration is in
compliance with CEQA and it does certify the Negative
Declaration prepared for Prezone No. 90-003 and Annexation
No. 1990-03.
SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby
ordain that the:application for a prezoning is approved, and that the
official zoning map of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby amended so
that the subject property is prezoned A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, and
A-2-20,000 as modified from the original proposal.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on
the thirty-first day after adoption, or upon the effective date of the
annexation (Annexation No. 1990-03) of the subject property to the City
of Santa Clarita, whichever occurs last.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this
Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law:
Ordinance No. 90-201 •
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this. _ day of 1990.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, , City Clerk of the. City of
Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-_
vas regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the day of 1990. That
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the day of 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
ANNX: 1
RESOLUTION NO. P90-56
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PREZONE NO. 90-002
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated
prezoning of certain properties located in the Sand Canyon area prior to
their annexation to the City of Santa Clarita (Annexation No. 1990-03);
and
WHEREAS, such zoning would become effective upon annexation,
described in Exhibit A and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated
within and made part of Section 22.60.190 of the City's Planning and
Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission did set
November 6, 1990, at the hour of 7 p.m., in the City Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, as the time and
place for a public hearing before said Planning Commission, and notice of
said public hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, there was no testimony given
for or against the proposed prezone; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said Prezone was duly heard and
considered.
THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Planning Commission of the City
of Santa Clarita as follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and -determine as
follows:
a. The purpose of the prezone is to request the A-1-1, A-1-2,
A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000, and R -R prezoning of the properties
identified in Exhibit A prior to their annexation to the
City.
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and
comment by affected governmental agencies and the public,
and all comments received have been considered. The public
review period was from October 5, 1990, to October 26,
1990.
C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant
to Sections 65090 and 65351 of the Government Code of the
State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any,
received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made
by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further
finds and determines as follows:
RESO P90-56
DMW: 357
• 0
a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of a General Plan. There is
reasonable probability that this project will be consistent
with the General Plan currently being considered or
studied, that there is little or no probable detriment to,
or interference with, the future adopted General Plan if
the proposed resolution is ultimately inconsistent with
that Plan, and that the proposed project complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and local
ordinance.
SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained in this resolution,
the Planning Commission has considered certain principles and standards;
and finds and determines as follows:
a. That a need for the prezone classifications as originally
proposed to A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, and A-2-20,000, and
R -R does not exist within the area of the subject property;
and
That a need for the prezone classifications as modified
from the original proposal to A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, and
A-2-20,000 exists within the area of the subject property;
and
b. That the subject property is not a proper location for the
A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000, and R -R prezone
classifications as originally proposed; and
That the subject property is a proper location for the
A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, and A-1-20,000 prezone
classifications as modified from the original proposal; and
C. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
planning practice do not justify the prezone
classifications as originally proposed to A-1-1, A-1-2,
A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000, and R -R; and
Public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
planning practice justify the prezone classifications to
A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, and A-2-20,000 asmodified from
the original proposal; and
d. The proposed prezone classsifications as originally
proposed to A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000, and R -R
are not consistent with existing land use in the area and
would not change the existing zoning of the subject site;
and
The proposed prezone classifications as modified from the
original proposal to A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, and
A-2-20,000 are consistent with existing land use in the
area and would change the existing zoning of the subject
site; and
e. The Annexation No. 1990-03 prezoning area consists of 126
acres Iof land contiguous to boundary of the City of Santa
Clarita.
0**9B'�I��Y�
•
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed
and considered the Initial Study prepared for the project and finds and
determines as follows:
a. Said study found that no adverse impact to.the existing and
future environment of the area would result from the
proposal.
b. The proposed prezone would not have a significant adverse
effect on the environment and a proposed Negative
Declaration was posted and advertised on October 5, 1990,
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
C. The Planning Commission, based upon the findings set forth
above, hereby finds the Negative Declaration is in
compliance with CEQA and recommends to the City Council
that it certify the Negative Declaration prepared for
Prezone No. 90-003 and Annexation No. 1990-03.
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends to the City
Council that it approve the request for a prezone to the A-1-1, A-1-2,
A-1-20,000, and A-2-20,000 zoning classifications as modified from the
original proposal.
SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the 'adoption of this Resolution
to the Departments of Public Works, Fire, and Parks and Recreation,'and
shall give notice of this recommendation in the manner prescribed by
Section 22.60.190 of the City's Planning and Zoning Code.
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall expire and approval shall be null and
void if the City Council fails to act on said Prezone and Annexation
within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of November, 1990.
jouis Brathvaite, Chairman
- Planning Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of November, 1990, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners: Garasi, Cherrington, Modugno, Brathwaite
NOES: Woodrow
ABSTAINED:
EXCUSED:
RESO P90-56
M. Narris�, Director
•
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Prezone No. 90-003
DATE: November 6, 1990
TO: Chairman Braithwaite and Members of the Planning
Commission y
FROM: Lynn M Harris, Director of Community Development
CASE.PLANNER: Donald M. Williams
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: Generally located in the Sand Canyon area, east,
west, and north of the existing City limits, south of
the Southern Pacific Railroad, east and south of Oak
Springs Canyon Road, and west & south of proposed
Annexation 1988-02.
REQUEST: Prezone from existing Los Angeles County Zoning
(A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000 and R -R) to
City Zoning (A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000
and R -R) for the purpose of annexation of 128 acres
of land to the City of Santa Clarita.
BACKGROUND:
On August 14, 1990, at the request of area residents and pursuant to the
Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act.of 1985 (Revised 1990),
the City Council adopted Resolution No. 134, a Resolution of.Application
initiating annexation proceedings for the project area. The Local Agency
Formation Commission requires that the City prezone the territory to be
annexed. The requested prezone would fulfill this requirement.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposal is to prezone approximately 128 acres of developed
residential land from existing Los Angeles County Zoning (A-1-1, A-1-2,
A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000 and R -R) to City Zoning (A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000,
A-2-20,000 and R -R) for the purpose of annexation of 128 acres of land to
the City of Santa Clarita. Proposed zoning upon annexation as requested
would not change the existing zoning on the subject site.
The.project site includes thirty-five parcels containing approximately 109
residents. No change to the existing development is proposed by the
project.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Pending adoption of a comprehensive General Plan by the City of Santa
Clarita, the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Area -Wide General
3-/
Staff Report -2- November 6, 1990
Prezone No. 90-003
Plan is being used as an interim guideline for evaluation of prezone
requests. In addition, all proposals are evaluated for compatibility with
the proposed General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita.
The land use designations for the project area under the County General
Plan are Nonurban 1 (Nl) and Nonurban 2 (N2). The land use designation
under the proposed City General Plan is Residential Very Low (RVL). The
prezoning as proposed is consistent with designations of both.the existing
County area wide General Plan and the proposed General Plan for the City.
ZONING AND LAND USE:
Existing Los Angeles County zoning regulations would be replaced with
compatible City zoning. The request is a change from County Zoning
(A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000 and R -R) to City Zoning (A-1-1,
A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20;000 and R -R) on 128 acres of developed
residential land.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of the State of California
requires environmental evaluation of all annexation prezoning requests. It
has been determined that proposed zoning upon annexation would not change
the existing zoning on the project and would not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. In accordance with CEQA, a Negative
Declaration was posted and advertised on October 6, 1990.
INTER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REV M:
Review of the project by City departments and outside agencies did not
result in any significant comments.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed zoning would not change the existing zoning on the project and no
change to the existing development is proposed by the project. It has
been determined that the proposed prezone would be consistent with
existing and future development on the project site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the
proposed project would not have a significant effect on.the environment.
Recommend approval to the City Council of Prezone No. 90-003 and Negative
Declaration of Environmental Effect.
Adopt Resolution P90-56 recommending approval of Prezone No. 90-003 to the
City Council and recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Effect prepared for this project.
DMV:337
3-a
I
�al r i r
T -7-
�S'LY.L.R.R/W ---- - - - - --
zz I �
A-2-20.000 I A-1-2 A
I
Q
J
U
11
0
I—
U
,
A-1-20.000
W'LY. LN. SEC24
(PROPOSED)
ANNEXAPUA-
ty
— 03
S LY. LN NW. 114,
SEC. 24
W'LY. LN. E.1/2 ,
W. %2,SW.1/4,SEC
p.m
ti
A-1-1
J
U
W'LY. LN. E.1/2, —
LEGEND: Sw.I4,sEC24 C
LLz -Li JUJANNEXATION BDRY.
----EXIST CITY BDRY.
u �
`U
wFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEV
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
IECKED BY: SCALE:
1"_-400'
?EA: JAMB. N.N.M.
=ILEDWITH THE CO. RECORDER
PROPOSED
ANNEXATION
N N0. 1988-02
ELY LN. W.I/2
Nyy SEC.24
i
A
N'LY LN S.W.1/4,SEC.24 CTR.
SEC.24
T.4 N.,RJS'
7-7 ? 77/77 %%—/7J—/
Q
U
SW.1/4,
SEC.24
A-1-1 Z
U
LL
0
� / U
S'LY. LN. N* Sw
SEC.24
ELY LN.W.I/2,Et�,SW. %4,
SEC.24
A-1-1
LN N!1 S�,S-W. %4,
PREZONE NO. 90-003
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
(Annexation No. 1990-03)
J3
0 •
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
PERMIT/PROJECT: Prezone 90-003, Annexation No. 1990.03
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita MASTER CASE NO: 90-109
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The project site is located in the Sand Canyon
area of the City of Santa Clarita and is bounded to the north, east and
west by ,the City, south of the SPRR line, and SE of Oak Springs Canyon Road.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Prezone from existing County of Los Angeles
zoning (A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000 and R -R) to compatible City
zones (same as above) for the purpose of annexation of 128 developed acres.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[ ] City Council
[X] Planning.Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant
effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be
adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] are not required. [ ] are attached. [ ] are not attached.
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY -DEVELOPMENT
11
Prepared by: • E. Aeuilar, Annexation Consultant
(Sig ure) (Name/Title)
Approved by: M. Williams. Associate Planner
gnature (Name/Title)
Public Review Period From 10/05/90 To 10/26/90 .
Public Notice Given On10/05/90 By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [ ] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
CERTIFICATION DATE:
2-7
E
INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT
PROJECT NAME: Prezone No. 90-003
Annexation No. 1990=03
Case No. 90-109
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
OWNER: Various
0
LOCATION: Generally located in the Sand Canyon area, east,.
west & north of the existing City limits, south of
the Southern Pacific Railroad, east & south of Oak
Springs Canyon Road, and west & south of proposed
Annexation 1988-02.
REQUEST: Prezone from existing Los Angeles County Zoning
(A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000 and R -R) to
City Zoning (A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20,000, A-2-20,000
and R -R) for the purpose of annexation of 128 acres
of land to the City of Santa Clarita.
The project site is fully developed and contains approximately 109
residents on approximately 35 lots. No change to the existing
development is proposed by the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of
Santa Clarita in the area generally known as Sand Canyon.' The
site abuts existing City boundaries to the south, east and west,
and is bounded to the north by proposed Annexation 1988-02 The
project site and surrounding unincorporated areas are
characterized by semi -rural residential development typical of the
area.
The Southern Pacific Railroad is located north of the project
area. Oak Springs Canyon Road borders the area on the west and
north. Proposed Annexation 1988-02 is located east and north of
the project site. The Angeles National Forest is located "east of
the project area.
Proposed zoning upon annexation as requested would not change the
existing zoning on the project site and would not significantly
impact the environment. {
mi
•
CASE NO. 90-109
PREZONE NO.: 90-003
ANNEXATION NO.: 1990-03
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form BJ
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Prepared by: Donald M. Williams
Project Location: Generally located in the Sand Canyon area, east. west &
north of the existing City limits, south of the Southern Pacific
Railroad. east & south of Oak Springs Canyon Road. west & south of and
proposed Annexation 1988-02.
Project Description: The project consists of the annexation of 128 acres
of inhabited land to the City of Santa Clarita and includes proposed
zoning upon annexation from Los Angeles County A-1-1, A-1-2, A-1-20.000.
A-2-20.000 & R -R to City A-1-1. A-1-2. A-1-20.000. A-2-20.000 & R -R.
General Plan Designation
Zoning: L. A. County A-1-1. A-1-2. A-1-20.000, A-2-20.000& R -R.
Applicant: City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Constraint Areas:
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction r
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [ ] [ J [X]
d. ' The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Any increase in wind -or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ J [ ] [X]
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... [ ] [ ] [X]
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ ] [ ] [X]
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? [ ] [ ] [X]
3-9
0 0
2 -
YES MAYBE NO
i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... .[ ] [ ] [X]
j. Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [ ] [ I [XI
k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? . ...................... [ ] [ ] [X]
1. Other? [ ] [ l [X]
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ I ['] [XI
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............: [ ] [ ] [XI
d.� Development within a high wind hazard
area? ...................................... [ ] [ I [XI
e. Other? [ ] [ ] [X]
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? [ ] [ ] [XI
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. [ I
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... [ ]
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ]
e. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ]
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ]
g. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................ [ I
- 3 -
YES
MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? .......... ( ]
[ ] [X]
i.
Other? [ ]
[ ] [X]
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ........... ( ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ...................................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
5.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? .................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ J
[ ] [X]
6.
Noise. Will the 'proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ]
[ ] [X]
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ]
[ ] [X]
8.
Land
Use. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? ....................... [ J
[ ] [X]
b.
A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ]
[ ] [X]
0
- 4 -
C. A use that does not adhere .to existing
zoning laws? ..............................
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? .....................
YES MAYBE NO
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. [ 7
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [ ]
10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? .......................... [ J
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ [ l
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ ]
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ 7
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location; distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [ ]
b. Other? [ ]
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ]
b. Other?. [ ]
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial.additional
vehicular movement7 ........................ [ ] [ ] [X]
3:l�Q
- 5 -
YES MAYBE NO
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [ J [X]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................ [ ] I I [XI
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. I l I I [X]
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ] [ ] [X]
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .............................. [ ] I
I (XI
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? ........................... I ] (
I [XI
b.
Police protection? ......................... [ ] [
I [X]
C.
Schools? ................................... [ I [
I [XI
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? ....: [ J [
I [XI
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ ] [
I [X]
f.
Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [
I [X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . .................................... [ I 1.1
[XI
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? [ J [
] [X]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ...................... [ l [
I IXI
b.
Communications systems? .................... [ ] [
I- [X]
C.
Water systems? ............................. [ I I
I [XI
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [
I [XI
e.
Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] [
] [X]
9-i3
- 6 -
YES MAYBE NO
f. solid waste and disposal systems? I ] [ ] [X]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] I ] [X]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] I ] [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X]
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ]
[ ] [X]
17.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ................................... I ]
[ ] [X]
18.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in -
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... I ]
[ ] [X]
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ....................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ]
I ] [X]
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ]
I ] [X]
20.
Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ ]
I ] [X]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] I ] [X]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] I ] [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X]
L
- 7 -
Discussion of Impacts.
Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact
0
The project site is fully developed and contains approximately 109 residents
on approximately 35 lots. No change to the existing development_ is
proposed by the project. Proposed zoning upon annexation as reauested
would not change the existing zoning on the project and would not
significantly impact the environment.
3-��
B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
The project site is fully developed and contains approximately 109 residents
on approximately 35 lots. No change to the existing development is
proposed by the project. Proposed zoning upon annexation as requested
would not change the existing zoning on the project and would not
significantly impact the environment. It has been determined that no
mitigation is required.
3 /41
9 -
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in
part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the
project may have a significant effect on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared.
YESMAYBE NO
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the.habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus-
taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? ................. [ ] [ ] [X]
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... [ ] [ ] [X]
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. [ ] [ ] [X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ] [ ] [X]
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [X]
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant
effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED ..................................... [ ]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required . ......................................... [ ]
g-1 7
4
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
V/ v1fo
Date
11
10 -
Name and Title
LOCATION MAP
PREZONE NO. 90-003
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
(Annexation No. 1990-03)
-3-19
EXHIBIT A
ANNEXATION NO. 1990-03
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, AS SAME
EXISTED ON JULY 19, 1990, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE WESTERLY LINE
OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 15 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY THROUGH ITS VARIOUS COURSES TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF
THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED EASTERLY LINE TO THE. NORTHERLY LINE
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID
LAST MENTIONED NORTHERLY LINE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 24; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED
EASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 24; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED
SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF
SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LAST
MENTIONED EASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG
SAID LAST MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF
SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID LAST
MENTIONED WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE
NORTH HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG
SAID LAST MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF
THE WEST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24; THENCE NORTHERLY
ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST
1
E
MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE TO SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SECTION 24, BEING A POINT
IN SAID CITY BOUNDARY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 128 ACRES (0.20 SQUARE MILES)
WRITTEN BY:
Thomas Counts
2
�V�I 7Tj•TTr ..., ,.
I % �771 177-Tj�-----------
Z L SLY LN S.P. R.R. R/W �i
I
A
I
cr
Q PROPOSED
J
U
ANNEXATION
Z W IYLN. SEC2�D) AT NO. 1988-02
Q 1V
ANNEXATION ELY. LN. W1/2
NO. 1990- 03 NW 1/4•SEC24
o ,
NLY. LN. SW.1/4,SEC.24 CTR
�{ SEC.24
U T.4N,Ryw—
W'
7-7-7"T/%TT1T ----
7SEC.24
/4,
PfcbP.E.1/2,2'5� E�LYW.
� �SW 114
{ SEC.24
i ANNEX:
NO.
J
W LY. LN. E.1/2, U ,
LEGEND: SW.14,SEC.24• Q
,,, ,,,ANNEXATION BDRY. v'
----EXIST CITY BDRY. �.
U
`—S'LY. LKNV2,SW%4
SEC.24 1 I
ELY. LN.W.1/2,E.$,SW /4,
SEC.24
SLY. LN N!I S�,S•W %4'
SEC.24 1
clrY of SANTA cLaRITA ANNEXATION NO. WO -03
PECKED BY; SCALE:
1"=400 TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Ac. 15 61•H 16f
s�Q -,._ Ll cl EXHIBIT B
FILED WITH THE CO. RECORDER
'1