HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - ZC DRAYTON STREET (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presentedAll
Lynn M. Harris
October 9, 1990 -
Zone change 89-008 at 23027 Drayton Street, 400 feet east of
Springbrook Avenue.
The Bock Company
Community Development
The applicant is requesting a zone change to allow the use of this property as a
contractor's equipment storage yard. Presently this use does,not conform to
existing zoning regulations. In order to bring this use of the project site
into conformance, the applicant has requested a zone change from A-2-1 (Heavy
Agricultural, 1 acre minimum lot size), to M -1 -DP (Light Manufacturing
Development Program zone). The applicant has received Planning Commission
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a contractor's equipment storage
yard,as required by the M -1 -DP zoning regulations.
The Planning Commis aion-conducted a continued public hearing for this proposal
on August 7, 1990 and has determined that the proposed change of zone is
appropriate and consistent with the surrounding uses in the immediate -vicinity.
The Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P. 90-007) for this project was approved by the
Planning Commission under Resolution P90-32. This Resolution also recommends
that City Council approve the requested Zone Change (Z.C. 89-008).
The project site is approximately, 1.1 acres in size and is located at the,
eastern terminus of Drayton Street approximately 400 feet east of Springbrook
Avenue. Less than half of the project.site area is useable due to the abrupt.
steepness of the transversing hillside through the property. Existing
improvements include a small office, a shed, and a concrete storage bunker with
an asphalt loading slab. Outdoor storage of materials, equipment, and vehicles
is also part of the use.
The applicant recently relocated this business establishment from another
location in the immediate vicinity; he was forced to vacate the previous
property due to a change in ownership. The applicant was under the assumption
that the subject property was under the same' zoning classification (•M-10)' as
the adjacent properties used for industrial uses. Without confirming the zoning
classification and allowable uses, the applicant occupied the site and proceeded
to operate a contractor's equipment yard.
The re -zoning of this property from A-2-1 to M-1 DP should have no impact on the
City's General Fund.
A0 o ve o C,?X'E'/ no �f)SS �D o2nd
�cxpLi/�
Aged Item:
October 9, 1990
Zone Change 89-008
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
1) Adopt the negative declaration prepared for this project with the finding
that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
2) Approve zone change 89-008 based on the required findings;
3) Introduce the attatched ordinance, waive further reading, and pass. to. the
second reading.
ATTATCHMENTS
Zone Change Ordinance No. 90-27
Staff Reports
Negative Declaration
•
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
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)
5. 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
0
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
FOR ZONE CHANGE 89-008 FROM A-2-1 to 14 -1 -DP
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-007 TO ALLOW
A CONTRACTOR'S STORAGE YARD AT
23027 DRAYTON ST
(APPROX. 400 FEET EAST OF SPRINGBROOK AVE.)
SAUGUS AREA, SANTA CLARITA, CA.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita for consideration of Zone Change 89-008 from A-2-1
to M -1 -DP and Conditional Use Permit 90-007 to allow a contractor's
storage yard at the location of 23027 .Drayton Street (approximately
400 feet east of Springbrook Ave.) Saugus area, Santa Clarita, Ca.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita,
the 9th day of October, 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
obtainedbycontacting 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 Planning Commission or the City Council, at, or
prior to, - the public hearing.
Dated: September 14,1990
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: September 19, 1990
0 0
ORDINANCE NO. 90-27
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
(Zone Change Case No. 89-008)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as
follows:
a. An application for a zone change was filed with the City of Santa
Clarita Department of Community Development on October 26, 1989, by
the Bock Company ("the applicant"). The purpose of the zone change
application is to facilitate the use of theproject site as a
contractor's equipment storage yard. The project site is located at
23027 Drayton Street, approximately 400 feet east of Springbrook
Avenue, and is 1.12 acres in gross area. The Assessor's Parcel
Number for the property is 2836-030-044. The requested zone change
is from A-2-1, (Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size) to
M -1 -DP (Light Manufacturing - Development Program Zone).
b. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
application on August 7, 1990, at the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. The Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. P90-32.recommending approval to
the City Council of the requested zone change.
c. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the rezoning
application on October 9, 1990.at the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at
the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning
Commission and the City Council and on their behalf, the City Council further
finds and determines as follows:
a. The subject property is a 1.12 acre parcel located at 23027 Drayton
Street, approximately 400 feet east of Springbrook Avenue.
b. The request is for a change of zone from A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural)
to M -1 -DP (Light Manufacturing -Development Program) to allow a
contractor's equipment storage yard.
c. The subject property is located adjacent to an established
industrial area; the use of the property as a contractor's storage
yard is compatible with existing uses in the area.
d. The subject property is of a size and shape which lends itself to
the proposed uses that would be established as a result of this
request.
e. The recommended change of zone from A-2-1 to M -1 -DP will not result
in a significant environmental effect.
f. The project has received a Negative Declaration pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections
21000 et seq.).
SECTION 3. In acting on the rezoning application, the City Council
has considered—certain principles and standards, and finds.and determines as
follows:
a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan as it
pertains to the subject property. The property is contiguous to
existing industrial development and is not agriculturally viable;
b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within the
area of the subject property to maintain consistency and
compatibility with adjacent land uses;
c. That the subject property is a proper location for the Light
Manufacturing -Development Program Zone, because adjacent properties
are under similar zoning classification;
d. That the placement of the proposed zone at the subject property will
be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and
in conformity with good zoning practice;
e. That rezoning the subject property will not result in a need for
greater water supply for adequate fire protection because existing
water supply and fire protection facilities are adequate to serve
the area; and,
f. That the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation
of a general plan. There is a reasonable probability that this
rezoning will be consistent with the general plan proposal which
will be studied within a reasonable time. There is little or no
probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future adopted general plan if this rezoning is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan. This rezoning complies with all other
applicable requirements of state law and local ordinance.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby
ordain that the application for a zone change is approved, and that the
official zoning map of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby amended so that the
subject property is rezoned from A-2-1 to M -1 -DP.
SECTION 5. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and
considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, which
was considered by the Planning Commission, and determines that it is in
compliance with CEQA and the proposed project will not have a significant
impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this
project. Based upon the findings stated above, the City Council hereby adopts
this Negative Declaration.
i
•
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.
40 PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1990.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-27 was 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:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
11
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
ZONE CHANGE 89-008 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-007
DATE: August 7, 1990
TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
APPLICANT: Bock Company
CASE PLANNER: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner
LOCATION: 23027 Drayton Street, 400 feet east of Springbrook Avenue,
Saugus.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting.the rezoning of the subject
property from "A-2-1" (Heavy Agricultural, 1 acre minimum lot
size) to "M -1 -DP" (Light Manufacturing Development Program
Zone). This application also includes a request for a
• conditional use permit to allow a contractor's equipment yard.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: .
The applicant is requesting a zone change and conditional use permit to allow
the continued use of this property as a contractor's equipment storage yard.
Presently this use does not conform to existing zoning regulations. In order
to bring this use of the project site into conformance, the applicant has
requested a zone change from A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural, 1 acre minimum lot
size), to M -1 -DP (Light Manufacturing Development Program zone), and a
conditional use permit to allow this use on the property.
The applicant had recently relocated this business establishment from another
location in the immediate vicinity; he had been forced to vacate the previous
property due to a change in ownership. The applicant was under the assumption
that the subject property was under the same zoning classification ("M-1") as
the adjacent properties used for industrial purposes. Without confirming the
zoning classification and allowable uses, the applicant occupied the site and
proceeded to operate a contractor's equipment yard.
The project site is approximately 1.1 acres in size and is located at the
eastern terminus of Drayton Street approximately 400 feet east of Springbrook
Avenue. Less than half of the project site area is useable due to the abrupt
steepness of the transversing hillside through the property. The useable
portions of the property have been enclosed by a six-foot high chain-link
fen,e. Existing improvements include a small office, a shed, a concrete
• storage bunker with an asphalt loading slab. Outdoor storage of materials,
equ_pment, and vehicles are also part of the use.
0
•
General Plan Designation Existing Zoning and Land Use:
The 1984 Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan
designations for the project site are "M" (Industrial) and "HM" (Hillside
Management). Though the City has not adopted the County's General Plan, staff
is using it as a reference until the City adopts its own General Plan. It is
expected that this proposed zone change and conditional use permit will be in
conformity with the City's future General Plan. The applicant is currently
operating a contractor's equipment yard on the property, and is attempting to
bring this activity into conformance through this application.
The Santa Clarita Areawide General Plan, existing zoning and land use of the
project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to
evaluate the impacts of this proposal. It was determined that this proposed
project shall have no adverse environmental impacts. Subsequently, a Negative
Declaration was prepared for this project.
Project review also included soliciting comments and recommendations from
departments and agencies which would be affected by this project. There were
no recommendations for denial, nor were there any recommended conditions. As
of the date that this staff report was prepared, no comments were received
from the public.
ANALYSIS:
The existing zoning of the project site is "A-2-1" (Heavy Agricultural, 1 acre
minimum lot size). Under this zoning classification, a contractor's equipment
yard would not be allowed. Changing the zone to "M -1 -DP" (Light Manufacturing
Development Program) would allow the applicant to utilize the property as a
contractor's equipment yard subject to obtaining a conditional use permit.
The "M -1 -DP" zone regulations also require that any uses conducted on the
property shall obtain a conditional use permit. This would afford the City
additional discretionary control over the expansion of existing approved uses,
or any change of use.
General Pian
Zoniny
Land Use
Project Site
M, HM
A-2-1
Contractor's yard
North
M, HM
M-1 & M-1.5
Vacant, auto repair,
electric motors
East
HM
A-2-1
Vacant, Metropolitan Water
Dist. easement, future
City Hall site
South
M. HM
A-2-1
Vacant, Water tank
West
M
M-1 & M-1.5
sheet metal, auto repair
welding, electric
autobody, machine shop
pumps, woodworking,.
refuse disposal, window
sales, cabinet makers,
metal casting, molding
products
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to
evaluate the impacts of this proposal. It was determined that this proposed
project shall have no adverse environmental impacts. Subsequently, a Negative
Declaration was prepared for this project.
Project review also included soliciting comments and recommendations from
departments and agencies which would be affected by this project. There were
no recommendations for denial, nor were there any recommended conditions. As
of the date that this staff report was prepared, no comments were received
from the public.
ANALYSIS:
The existing zoning of the project site is "A-2-1" (Heavy Agricultural, 1 acre
minimum lot size). Under this zoning classification, a contractor's equipment
yard would not be allowed. Changing the zone to "M -1 -DP" (Light Manufacturing
Development Program) would allow the applicant to utilize the property as a
contractor's equipment yard subject to obtaining a conditional use permit.
The "M -1 -DP" zone regulations also require that any uses conducted on the
property shall obtain a conditional use permit. This would afford the City
additional discretionary control over the expansion of existing approved uses,
or any change of use.
• The proposed zone change is reasonable and appropriate for this site. The
immediate vicinity of the project site consists of vacant land and industrial
uses. This area has historically been used for industrial and manufacturing
uses. The applicant had previously operated this contractor's equipment
storage yard on an adjacent property in the immediate vicinity since 1973.
Because this project will result in the relocation of an existing use
established in the immediate vicinity, an increase in water use will not
result. The relocation of this use to this site should not have any net
effect on the immediate area.
As described by the applicant, the establishment of the contractor's equipment
storage yard should have a very low impact on the neighborhood and the City.
The applicant is a utility contractor primarily involved in the installation
and maintenance of gas, electrical, and telephone lines. Six trucks and
compressors, along with other equipment and materials, are stored at the
site. Approximately 15 employees assemble at the site in the morning, gather
their materials, and take the trucks out to the job site to work. In the
evening they return the vehicles and equipment to the yard where they are kept
overnight under lock and key. No sales are to be conducted at the site; the
only traffic generated is by employees. The site is not visible from San
Fernando .Road or the City property (formerly Wes Lind's property). Future
access to this City property may pass by the project site, but at this time a
final road alignment has not been established.
The property is currently zoned "A-2-1" (Heavy Agricultural). However, due to
its steep topography and proximity to other industrial uses, this site is not
suitable for agricultural uses. Half of the site (approximately 25,000 square
feet) is flat enough to accommodate the proposed use. Staff is recommending
that the zone be changed to "M -1 -DP" (Light Manufacturing Development Program
zone).' The regulations of this zone require a conditional use permit to
establish or expand any use on the property. A change of use also requires a
conditional use permit. This would allow the City discretion to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the request for any use on the property. This
project site is adjacent to what may someday be City Hall; the City is
concerned with the aesthetic impact which may result.
Presently, Beazley Drive is the existing right of way which links Drayton
Street to the City property. Beazley Drive intersects only the north gide of
Drayton Street, approximately 50 feet west of the project site. This right of
way has not yet been developed, but it could provide a western entrance to the
238 acre City property. If developed as a civic center, this entrance would
become a "gateway" entrance to City Hall. As such, the area may have
redevelopment potential. This area has long been established as an industrial
area. Most of thebuildingsare quite old; and landscaping is sparse to
non-existent. A few of the roads are unpaved, and there is little
architectural consistency from lot to lot. Many of the uses established
within this area were either approved administratively or without any review
at all. The existing zoning of this area is quite permissive in this respect.
0 0
Newly proposed projects in this entire area, such as this one, should be
reviewed in terms of their potential visual impacts. This project site may be
visible from the future Rio Vista Road alignment, as well as San Fernando Road
and Beazley Drive. To alleviate these potential visual impacts, staff
recommends landscaping and decorative masonry walls to screen the site from'
public view. —
The land use designation on the.preliminary draft of the City General Plan is
Industrial -Commercial Mixed Use. This designation is intended to allow
various compatible commercial and industrial uses in this area. The use
proposed for this site may be inconsistent with the long term objectives of
the preliminary draft General Plan. Applying the "M -1 -DP' zone to this
property will afford the City discretionary control over the uses conducted
upon it; a conditional use permit is required for any uses proposed within the
"M -1 -DP" zone. Staff is recommending.that this grant expire and the applicant
reapply in two years. This will allow the City to evaluate the use; and
renew, modify, or deny the request for the continued use of the site as a
contractor's storage yard.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff conducted an initial environmental study on the proposal. Comments were
.also received from several other reviewing agencies. Based on the
comprehensive review of this project, staff feels that environmental issues
concerning this project have been satisfactorily addressed thorough project
mitigation conditions. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward
this application to the City Council recommending the following action:
1) Approve the negative declaration prepared for this project with the
finding that this project will not have a significant effect on the:
environment;
2) Approve Zone Change 89-008 and Conditional Use Permit 90-007, based
on the required findings and subject to the attached conditions of
approval; and
3) Adopt the attached resolution.
0
0
• RESOLUTION NO. P90-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING
ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 89 -008 -AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 90-007
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as
a. Applications for a Zone Change and a Conditional Use Permit were
filed on October 26, 1989, by the Bock Company ("the
applicant"). The property for which these entitlements have been
filed is located at 23027 Drayton Street, approximately 400 feet
east of Springbrook Avenue, Saugus. The project site is
1.12 acres in.gross area. The Assessor's Parcel Number for this
site is 2836-030-044. The requested Zone Change is from A-2-1,
(Heavy -Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size) to M -1 -DP
(Light -Manufacturing, Development Program Zone). Within the
M -1 -DP zone, a conditional use permit is required to establish
and maintain the use of the project site as a contractor's
storage yard. Any change or expansion of use shall require a
Conditional Use Permit.
• b. The application was reviewed by the Community Development
Department and discussed at a Development Review Committee
meeting on December 14, 1989. The Development Review Committee
process involves other City departments and County agencies with
jurisdictional interests in this matter.
C. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on August 7, 1989 at the City Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California at 6:30 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at
the public hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the Planning
Commission and on its behalf, the Commission 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 a reasonable
probability that this project will be consistent with the general
plan proposal currently being considered or studied, that there
is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed
resolution is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, and that the
proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements
of state law and local ordinances.
b. The development of the property in the manner set forth in the
• subject application will not unreasonably interfere with the free
and complete exercise of any public entity and/or public utility,
right-of-way and/or easements. Neither the design of the
project, nor the type of improvements, will conflict with public
easements for access through the use of the property, since the
design and development as set forth in the Conditions of Approval
provides adequate protection for easements.
RESO P90-32
• c. Rezoning the subject property to M -1 -DP (Light -Manufacturing,
Development Program) is more appropriate than allowing the A-2-1
(Heavy -Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size) designation to
remain; the M -1 -DP (Light -Manufacturing, Development Program)
would legalize the existing use as a contractor's storage yard,
and requires a Conditional Use Permit for all uses, present and
future, on the property.
d. The applicant has submitted a site plan (Exhibit "A") which
depicts the area proposed for the rezoning to the M -1 -DP
(Light -Industrial, Development Program) zone, to be used as a
contractor's storage yard.
e. The proposed Zone Change and contractor's storage yard will not
cause serious public health problems. Necessary improvements are
existing and the site shall be used to store materials and
equipment appurtenant to utility contractor's activities.
f. Based upon a review of the submitted plan, the subject property
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the development
features prescribed in the City's Municipal Code and otherwise
required in order to integrate the proposed use of the subject
property with the uses in the surrounding area.
• g. This project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. As indicated by the Initial Study prepared by
staff, the project, as conditioned, would not create any
significant impact. The project has received a Negative
Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section No. 21000 et. seq.)
h. Implementation of this proposal will cause no adverse effects on
the environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the
application of available controls. The design of the project and
the proposed improvements will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish
or wildlife or their habitat, since the project site is not
located in a significant ecological area.
i. The requested uses at the subject property will not:
1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of
persons residing or working in the surrounding area because
the surrounding area is used for industrial activities as
well;
2. be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation
of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the
subject property because the required improvements will
enhance aesthetic qualities of the project site and
surrounding area; or
3. jeopardize; endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the
public health, safety or general welfare because the project
shall comply with all regulations of applicable City and
County codes.
RESO P90-32
E
•
• j. Approval of the project will expire 24 months from the date of
approval.
SECTLON 3. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission -has
reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial
Study, and determines that it is in compliance with CEgA and that the proposed
project will not have a significant impact on the environment. A Negative
Declaration was prepared for this project.
SECTION 4. Based upon the previous findings, the Planning Commission
hereby adopts the Negative Declaration filed for this project. Pursuant to
this, the Planning Commission grants approval to the requested Site Plan
(Exhibit "A") subject to the attached conditions (Exhibit "B").
SECTION 5. 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 modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan as
it pertains to the subject property because the project site is
contiguous to industrial zoned properties and is not
agriculturally viable;
b. that a need for the proposed zone classification exists within
the area of the subject property to maintain consistency of uses
within the vicinity;
C. that the subject property is a proper location for the M -1 -DP
(Light -Manufacturing, Development Program) zone classification
due to the topography of the project site and adjacent industrial
development;
d. In addition to the principles and standards enumerated in Section
22.16.150, the Commission, in determining its recommendation for
a change of zone, shall consider whether or not the change of
zone under consideration, if adopted, will result in a need for a
greater water supply for adequate fire protection and, if so,
what are the existing and proposed sources of such an adequate
water supply. This project will result in the'relocation of an
existing use established in the vicinity; an increase in water
use will not result; and
e. that placement of the proposed zone at the subject.property will
be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare.
and in conformity with good zoning practice by encouraging
industrial uses in an existing area developed for such uses.
SECTION 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for
this project, and approve the Zone Change request to rezone the property from
• A-2-1 (Light -Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size) to M -1 -DP
(Light-Manufacturing,.Development Program), and grant the conditional use
permit to allow the operation of a contractor's storage yard.
PESO P90-32
E
•
E
SECTION 7. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to
the adoption of this resolution, and shall give notice of this recommendation
in the manner prescribed by Section No. 22.60.190 of the City's Planning and
Zoning Code. —
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1990.
Rita Garasi, Chairwoman
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 7th day of August, 1990, by the following vote.of the
commission:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RESO P90-32
Lynn M. Harris, Director
Community Development
0 •
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ZONE CHANGE 89-008 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-007
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall
include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity
making use of this grant.
2. This grant shall not be effective. for any purpose until the permittee and
the owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have
filed with the Director of Community Development their affidavit stating
that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this
grant.
3. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa
Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
preceding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to
attach, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of this subdivision by the
City, which action is brought within the applicable time period in
Government Code 65907. In the event the City becomes aware of any such
claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant
M and shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly
notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition
prohibits the City from participating in .the defense of any claim, action,
or'proceeding, if both of the following occur: (1) the City bears its own
attorneys� fees and costs; and (2) the City defends the action in good
faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any
settlement unless the entitlement is approved by the applicant.
4. It is hereby declared to be the intent that if any provision of this
permit is held or declared to be invalid, the permit shall. be void and the
privileges granted hereunder shall lapse.
5. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any
condition hereof is violated,' or if any law, statute, or ordinance is
violated, the permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted shall
lapse; provided that the permittee has been given written notice to cease
and correct such violation and has failed to do so for a period of 30 days.
6. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the specific zoning of
subject property must be complied with unless set forth on the approved
permit.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
. 7. The. applicant shall submit a landscaping and lighting plan subject to the
review and approval of the Director of Community Development. All
landscaping materials shall be installed within six (6) months of the date
of approval of this application, and shall not be located within any
right-of-way.
RESOP90-32
0 0
. 8. Stored equipment shall be limited to the following: nine (9) trucks, six
(6) compressors, five (5) backhoes and five (5) trailers.
9. All construction materials shall be stored so that they are not visible
from any pablic or private street; construction materials shall not be
stacked higher than the height of any wall approved for this project.
10. A parking layout shall be submitted subject to the review and approval of
the Director of Community Development. All approved parking spaces shall
be made accessible at all times.. All vehicle and equipment parking and
storage areas shall be paved and striped.
11. Areas designated for the parking of contractor's vehicles and employees
vehicles shall be kept clear and available for parking at all times.
Materials and equipment shall not be stored in designated parking spaces.
12. No inoperative vehicles shall be stored on the site.
13. All employee parking shall be on-site.
14. No vehicle washing or maintenance shall be allowed on site.
15. Any expansion of the approved use, or any change of use shall require a
new conditional use permit subject to City approval.
16.. No sales or advertising shall be conducted on-site.
17. An informational sign identifying the occupant and the site address shall
be allowed subject to the requirements of the City's sign ordinance and
the approval of the Director of Community Development.
18. A solid opaque fence or wall, six feet in height, shall be installed to
provide screening of the property. Design, color and location shall be
subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.
19. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval
agrees to develop the property in accordance with City Codes and other
appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code,- Plumbing Code, Grading
Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance,_
Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste
Ordinance, Electrical Code and Fire Code, and Health and Safety Code.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of
Community Development in writing of any change in ownership, designation
of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the permittee, within 30
days of said change.
21. This conditional use permit shall expire two years from the date of
approval. Sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date the applicant may
apply for a renewal.
• 22. The applicant must sign the attached Acceptance Form, have it verified by
a public notary and return it to the Community Development Department
prior to issuance of the approval.
PESO P90-32
0
0
•
0 0
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
CERTIFICATION DATE: August 7, 1990
APPLICANT: Bock Company
TYPE OF PERMIT: Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit
FILE NO.: 2C 89-008 and CUP 90-007
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 23027 Drayton Street; 400 feet east of Springbrook
Avenue, Saugus area, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Rezoning from A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural, 1
acre minimum) to M -1 -DP (Light Manufacturing; Development Program Zone);
Conditional Use Permit to allow a contractor's yard, including vehicle,
equipment and materials storage.
[X] City Council
It is the determination of the [X] Planning Commission
[X] Director of Community Development
upon review that the project will not have a significant
effect upon the environment.
Mitigation measures [ ] are attached
[X] are not attached
Form completed by:
(Signature)
Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner
(Name and Title)
Date of Public Notice: July 17, 1990
[X] Legal advertisement.
( ] Posting of properties.
[ ) Written notice.
0
0
0 •
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CASE No. ZC 89-008• CUP 90-007 Prepared by: Jeff Chaffin
Project Location: 23027 Drayton Street, Saugus CA 91350
(approximately 400 feet east of Springbrook Avenue)
Project Description and Setting: Rezoning of a 1.12 acre parcel from A-2-1
(Heavy Agricultural, 1 acre minimum to M -1 -DP (Light Manufacturing -
Development Program Zone)• Conditional Use Permit to allow a contractor's
General Plan Designation Industrial and Hillside Management
Zoning: A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural. 1 Acre Minimum lot size)
Applicant: Bock Company
Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside Development: Aesthetics: Man-made
Hazards
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a: Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? [ ]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [ J
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [ ]
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ 1
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ j
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... [ 1 1X1 [ 1
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. ( 1 [ 1 (X]
h. other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ 1 ( 1 [X]
0 0
- 2 -
YES MAYBE
NO
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... [ ] [ J
[X]
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [ J [ ]
[X]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ ]
[X]
1.
Other? [ 1 I ]
IX]
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] ( j
[X]
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ] ( ]
[X]
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ] ( 1
IX1
d.
Development within a high wind hazard
area? ...................................... [ 1 f ]
IX]
[ ]
e.
Other? [ ] [ ]
3. Water.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ I 1 [ 1
IX1
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. [ 1 I 1
1X1
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... [ 1 I 1
IX1
d.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] ( ]
[Xj
e.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ..................... [ J [ ]
IX1
f.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
by ( ] [ J
(Xj
aquifer cuts or excavations? ............
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................ [ ] I J
IX]
i 0
•
YES MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ......,...
[ ] [ J [XJ
i.
Other?
[ ] [ ] [ ]
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)? ....
[ ] [ J [XJ
b.
Reduction of the numbers of.any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
[ ] [ J [XJ
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ...........
[ ] [ J [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ ] [ J [XJ
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)? ....................
( ] [ J [XJ
b:
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals7 .....
[ j [ ] [XJ
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement -of animals? ......
[ ] [ ] [XJ
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? ........
( J [XJ [ j
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? .................
( ] ( J (XJ
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations?
[ J ( j [X)
7. Light and.Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? .................
( J [ ] [XJ
in:
S. Land
Use. Will the proposal result
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]
- 4 -
YES MAYBE NO
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoninglaws? ................................ [ ] [ ] [X]
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X]
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. [ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources7 ......................... [
] [ ] [XI
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? .......................... (
] [X] ( ]
b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ [
] [ ] [X]
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [
1 [ ] [X]
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [
1 [ ] [X]
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a.
Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [
] [ ] [X]
b.
Other? [
] [ ] [ 1
12. Housing.
Will the proposal:
a.
Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [
] [ ] [X]
b.
Other? [
1 [ ] [ ]
13. Transportation/Circulation.
Will the proposal
result
in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [
] [ ] [X]
5 _
•
YES
MAYBE NO
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ................. [ ]
[ ] (X]
C.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................ ( ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. [ 1
I ]' 1X1
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ]
[ ] [X]
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .............................. [ 1
I ] IX1
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 ] [X]
b.
Police protection? ......................... [ ]
( ] [X]
Schools? 1
I 1 IX1
C.
................................... [
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ]
[ ] (X]
e.I
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ ]
[ ] (X]
f.
Other governmental services? ............... [ ]
( ] (X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
_
energy . .................................... ( ]
[ 1 [Xl
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? ...................... ( ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Communications systems? .................... [ ]
[ ] (X]
C.
Water systems? ............................. ( 1
I 1 [X)
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? .................... ( ]
( ] [X]
e.
Storm drainage systems? .................... [ 1
( 1 (X]
0 0
- 6 -
.
YES
MAYBE NO
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ )
[ ] [Xj
g. Will She proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ )
[ j [X)
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? [ J
[ ) [X]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ................................... [ ]
[ j [XI
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ ]
( ] [Xj
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ....................... [ j
[X] [ j
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ J
[Xj [ j
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? .....................
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ j
[Xj [ ]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
_.
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ]
[ j [Xj
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ j
[ j [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses.within the
potential impact area?..................... [ )
[ ] [X]
0
0 0
Discussion of Impacts.
Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact
l.a,b,c,e,f,g,h,i,j, and k
This project will not require or result in any drilling or alteration to
subterranean features at the project site. The site will be used for the
storage of vehicles and equipment (trucks and air compressors) for a
utilities contractor involved primarily in the installation of underground
utility lines; materials storage includes pipe and cable. The usable
portion of the property is relatively flat (71 to 11I) and grading is not
proposed as part of the development. As proposed, this project should not
increase erosion; proposed structures shall not alter water drainage or wind
patterns. No unusual geological hazards have been identified at this site;
landsliding has not been mapped and liquefaction potential appears to be
low. Earthquake safety measures shall be implemented through the Uniform
Building Code. Because no grading is involved, vegetation shall not be
removed. Therefore, erosion, deposition and siltation rates should not be
altered. This project shall not encroach into any significant drainage way,
nor shall it result in an increase of the quantity or velocity of surface
water runoff. This project site is located approximately 2600 feet from the
San Gabriel fault and zone (a potentially active earthquake fault).
2.a,b,c and d.
Manufacturing shall not occur at the project site. However, vehicle and
equipment operation and maintenance could contribute to low level emissions
expelled into the air by these mobile sources. No malodorous by-products
shall bb generated by on-site activities. To the east, the project site is
shielded by steep hillsides; to the west, the project site is screened by
existing buildings and various trees. These features, combined with the
proposed use, should not alter the local or regional climate --air movement,
temperature, and,air moisture should remain the same. The project site has
not been identified as a high wind hazard area.
3.a,b,c,d.e,g, and h.
Because buildings and parking pads are existing drainage, absorption and
runoff rates should remain unchanged. The project site is not located
within a floodway or 100 year floodplain. This project will not result in
additional surface water discharge, nor create additional drainage flow.
Wells are not proposed for this development; this project is not a water
intensive use.
4.b and
5.a and b
The immediate vicinity of.the project site has been impacted due.to the
long-time establishment of existing industrial uses. Based upon this, the
implementation of this project should not result in any additional habitat
loss. Rare or endangered plant and animal species have not been observed
occupying or using the site. The project site is not located within a
Significant Ecological Area (per the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley
Areawide General Plan).
9
0 6.a,b, and c
-7a-
F
Increases in noise levels may occur on an intermittent basis. This could
result from the operation of vehicles and air compressors. This equipment
would be maintained at the project sit and operated for only short
durations. (The primary use of this equipment will be off-site.) The
project site is not adjacent to a residential area, so any people in the
vicinity would likely be employed in the area. The movement of construction
vehicles -(stored at the project site) should not result in sever vibrations
in that construction work shall not occur at the project site.
7.
All exterior lighting shall be designed to control off-site glare and
illuminate the intended area only. Lighting plans shall be subject to City
review and approval.
8.a,b, and d
This proposed use is consistent and compatible with the existing industrial
uses to the west. The hillside property to the east is vacant; the steep
hillsides serve as a buffer to this project site. The development standards
established in the Zoning Ordinance shall be implemented through conditions
of approval.
9.b
This project shall not result in the removal of any oak trees since none are
on the site. The use of the site as a contractor's storage yard will not
result in any increase in the consumption of any natural resource.
lO.b and d
The use and storage of hazardous materials is not proposed as part of the
project. However, it is expected that certain petroleum products may be
kept at the site for routine vehicle and equipment maintenance. If so,
these materials shall be stored and used in accordance with the requirements
of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, as well as Cal
OSHA. All other materials to be stored include vehicles, air compressors,
cable and pipe. The movement of vehicles presents a potential safety
hazard, and is addressed through the motor vehicle code.
11.a
The project will provide jobs for up to 15 people.
12.a
This will not have a significant effect on population growth or increase
housing demand.
0 13.a and b
Because the operation of this storage yard is being relocated from an
adjacent site in the immediate vicinity, there should be no net increase in
traffic. only six trucks shall be stored at the site. Off-street parking
shall be provided for all vehicles and equipment.
-7b-
• 14.c and e
The proposed use is not a residential type of use, therefore the number of
children in the vicinity should remain the same and local schools should not
be impacted by this project. The size and scope of the project should not
increase the need for, or maintenance of, public facilities. Customers
shall not visit this site to conduct business transactions.
16.a
All existing utilities are adequate to serve the project; no expansions or
alterations are needed.
20.a
At this time the project site has not be identified as an archaeologically
sensitive area. However, it is not known if any cultural or prehistoric
resources exist at the site. Artifacts have been found in the vicinity
adjacent to this site. This project does not involve any grading, so if any
artifacts exist at the site they should remain undisturbed. Any future
grading at this site shall require a grading permit from the City. At that
time, an archaeological survey may be required prior to issuance of grading
or building permits.
1]
0
_ 6
B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
The possible elivironmental effects identified shall be mitigated through
project design and conditions of approval. The use of the project site as a
contractor's storage yard is expected to have little or no impact on the
site or surrounding area. This proposed use should have no effect on
existing geological conditions at the site. Seismic safety concerns are
addressed through the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
Noise generated by the project would be noise associated with the operation
of motor vehicles during routine activities of departing from and returning
to the site during the course of the day, between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Loading.and unloading of vehicles and equipment would be of relatively short
duration. All vehicles and motorized equipment shall be equipped with
mufflers or other noise controlling devices as required by State law.
The man-made hazards associated with this project include the storage of
toxic materials and vehicle operation. The only toxic materials to be
stored on-site shall be petroleum products for the operation and maintenance
of vehicles and machinery. These materials shall be in small amounts and be
stored according to Los Angeles County Department of Health Services and Cal
OSHA requirements.
The storage of trucks, back hoes, air compressors, pipe, cable, sand,
gravel, cement mixers, etc. will create visual impacts from all sides of the
property. The usable area of the proposed storage yard is approximately
half of the 1.12 acre lot. This usable area varies from 6X to 11% grade;
and is situated at the foot of an abruptly up-sloping (90%) hill on the
eastern' portion of the site. This hillside serves as a screen to conceal
and buffer the visual impacts to eastern properties. A fencing plan shall
also be required as a condition of.approval, along with landscaping and
lighting. Fencing, landscaping, and lighting shall be designed to screen
the site from all visible areas, soften the visual impact by providing hardy
landscape materials, and lighting the area such that off-site glare is fully
controlled and only the project site is illuminated.
Grading shall not be allowed without a City approved grading plan and _.
permit. If grading is proposed in the future, an archaeological survey may
be required. This site has not been identified as culturally or
historically significant. However, archaeological and historical finds have
been made upon adjacent sites. At this time the City has not adopted a
General Plan; as such, there is -no formal City policy regarding cultural
resources. Until such policy(ies) can be adopted, the City will consider
every proposal on a case -by -case -basis.
9 -
• C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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.
YES MAYBE 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 chose impacts on the environment is significant.)
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ]
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
isrequired . ......................................... [ ]
9 0
21-90 PC
1167
Commissioners had concern for the density of the
project. It was requested by the Commissioners to
—return this item back to the Council with no
further recommendations; advising that the
Commission was split on density for this project.
Public hearing to be continued at the September 11,
1990, City Council meeting.
ITEM 3
This item was continued from the August 7, 1990,
TENTATIVE TRACT
public hearing due to the lateness of the hour.
MAP 48892,
Staff presentation of this request for subdivision
CONDITIONAL USE
of 38 acres into 118 lots was made by Mr. Chaffin.
PERMIT 90-009
Chairman Brathwaite opened the public hearing at
OAK TREE PERMIT
8:25 p.m. Hank Heeber, applicant, 21803 Devonshire,
90-0090
Chatsworth, advised the Commission that this
project is the last of the five developers that
will be funding the Golden Valley Road to Highway
14. The applicant addressed the size of the lots,
park and crib wall to the Commission. Ray Price,
17840 Skypark, Irvine advised the Commission that
the park will be developed to the Parks Commission
standards. Steve Krueger, 14482 Beach Boulevard,
#W; Westminster, spokesperson for the Golden Valley
Road Assessment District Developers, spoke in favor
of the project. Hearing no other comments favoring
or opposing the item, Chairman Brathwaite declared
the public hearing closed at 8:47 p.m.
Garasi voiced concerns on the wording of the
homeowners association in Condition 15. City
Attorney Holland advised that the wording must be
approved by the City Attorney before
implementation. Mr. Henderson advised the
Commission that the applicant has agreed to the
transit fee of $200.00 per unit; this was
acknowledged by Mr. Heeber.
Garasi motioned, Cherrington seconded and was
unanimously carried to adopt the Negative
Declaration; approve Tentative Tract Map 48892,
Conditional Use Permit 90-009, and Oak Tree -Permit
90-023; and adopt Resolution P90-33.
COMMISSION Chairman Brathwaite declared a recess at 8:55 p.m.
RECESS
COMMISSION Chairman Brathwaite called the meeting back to
RECONVENES order at 9:12 p.m.
TEM 4 This item was continued from the August 7, 1990,
ONE CHANGE public hearing due to the lateness of the hour.
89-008 AND This is a request to rezone from A-2-1 (Heavy
CONDITIONAL Agricultural, 1 acre) to M -1 -DP (Light
USE PERMIT Manufacturing Development Program Zone) and a
90-007 conditional use permit to allow a contractor's
equipment yard. Staff presentation by Mr.
Chaffin. Chairman Brathwaite opened the public
0
8-21-90 PC
•
hearing at 9:35 p.m. In favor of this item, Mr. Ed
Bolden, Jr., applicant, P. 0. Box 428, Newhall.
— The applicant advised.that the paving for all
vehicles and the expiration time frame of two years
for the CUP were concerns for him, conditions 10
and 21.
Hearing no other comments favoring or opposing the
item, Chairman Brathwaite declared the public .
hearing closed at 9:45 p.m. Modugno stated that
requesting the applicant to pave and wall for a 2
year timeline was not equitable. Garasi would like
the opportunity to review this item in 2 years and
conditions that there be interior parking.
Cherrington suggested a wooden opaque fence.
Cherrington motioned, Garasi seconded and
unanimously carried to adopt the Negative
Declaration, recommend approval to the City Council
of Zone Change 90=008 and Conditional Use Permit
90-007 with the amended conditions and to adopt
Resolution P90-29.
ITEM 5 The Oak Tree Guidelines were continued from the
OAK TREE July 17, 1990 meeting. Staff presentation from Mr.
GUIDELINES Rubin. Mark Hammons, Valencia Company spoke to the
Commission requesting that the Oak Tree Ordinance
be bolded to differentiate from the guidelines.
Allan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore Avenue, supports the
adoption of the guidelines. No one spoke in
opposition. Garasi supports the bolding of the
ordinance. Cherrington motioned by minute action
to refer the guidelines to the City Council,
Modugno seconded and unanimously carried.
ITEM 6 The applicant is requesting approval of a
CONDITIONAL USE conditional use permit to locate a 4,680 square
PERMIT 90-010 foot gymnasium in the C-3 Unlimited Commercial
Zone. Staff presentation by Mr. Powers. Chairman
Brathwaite opened the public hearing at 10:15 p.m.
Mary Germek, applicant, 23117 Kenmore, addressed
the Commission. Cherrington expressed concerns
with noise abatement measures. Noise abatement
will be addressed by Building and Safety and be
tenant-approvements.
Hearing no other comments favoring or opposing the
item, Chairman Brathwaite closed the public hearing
at 10:22 p.m. Modugno motioned,.Cherrington
• seconded and it was unanimously carried to adopt
the Negative Declaration, approve Conditional Use
Permit 90-010 and adopt Resolution P90-34.
M
CITY OF SANTA C RIT DEPARTMENT 'F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST
• AFFTDAVTT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I M crri s , hereby certify that the
attached list contains the NAMES and COMPLETE ADDRESSES and ZIP
CODES of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they
appear on the LATEST AVAILABLE ASSESSMENT ROLL OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY ASSESSOR', within the area described and for a distance
of five hundred (500) feet from the exterior boundaries of property
legally described as:
THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT
THE NE CORNER OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 15 OF TRACT 1801 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 21,
. PAGES 158 AND 159 OF MAPS; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT
N 8° 47' 30" W, 238.43 FEET; THENCE N 81° 12' 30" E, 204.34 FEET; THENCE
PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT S 80 47' 30" E, 238.43 FEET;
THENCE S 810 12' 30" W, 204.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Signed 1 Levu Date
Su(bs(c/ri ed and sworn to before me this �/ day of
1989 . -
UFPICIAL SEAL
DIANE SAYRE
NOTARY "M PAL IFT,`a` P
Pg1NCIML (WFICF 1k A
kA
�yy�t/ \ a:• •m My Gunm'san E,o P.e. 5 1S;t?
Notary Public-
• • Ownership rolls from other sources are NOT ACCEPTABLE
ZONE CHANGE
�DENT
5 DRAYTON STREET
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25824 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
0
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25820 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
9 SPRINGBROOK91350 AVE.
CA
U5, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25839 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25829 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
0
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25812 SPRINGSROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONECHANGE
RESIDENT
23108 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25803 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25823 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25848 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25786 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
23051 DRAYTON STREET
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25838 1/2 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT'
25813 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25828 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENT
25842 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
-i
1 ZONE CHANGE
2 ZONE CHANGE
3 ZONE CHANGE
WELBY C. & MARJORIE E. NEVILL
LLOYD R. & JOYCE P. NEHEN
ofCOMPANY
BOX 885
23109 DRAYTON STREET
25663 ESTROIL STREET
BURBANK, CA 91503
SAUGUS, CA 91350
VALENCIA, CA 91355
4 ZONE CHANGE
5 ZONE CHANGE
6 ZONE CHANGE
NORMA L. MINNA
WILLIAM R. & JOHANNA L. ETTER
JAN C. & FREDA A. KINDY
JOHN J. & TERESA MINNA
43511 SIERRA VISTA DRIVE
25339 AVENIDA RONADA
12200 CALIFA STREET
LANCASTER, CA 93534
VALENCIA, CA 91355
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91607
7 ZONE CHANGE
8 ZONE CHANGE
9 ZONE CHANGE
NORMA L. MINNA
TONY & VIRGINIA LOPEZ
SANTA CLARITA WATER COMPANY
JOHN J. & TERESA MINNA
13565 NORRIS AVE.
P.O. B
12200 CALIFA STREET
SYLMAR, CA 91345
SAUGUS, CA 91350
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91607
10 ZONE CHANGE
11 ZONE CHANGE
12 ZONE CHANGE
KEYSOR CENTURY CORPORATION
WESLEY R. & LORETTA E. LIND
NORMA L. MINNA
26000 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
44 S. CHESTER
14150ENADIA WAY
SAUGUS, CA 91350
PASADENA, CA 91106
VAN NUYS, CA 91405
13 ZONE CHANGE
14 ZONE CHANGE
15 ZONE CHANGE - '
NORBERT H. & LESLIE M. GRIMM
RICHARD J. & CANDICE T. KOCH
LORRAINE E.' DEKAY
25768 MIGUEL CT.
19009 NEARBROOK STREET
RONALD & NOREEN DEKAY
0NCIA, CA 91355
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
25066 DE WOLFE ROAD
NEWHALL, CA 91321
16 ZONE CHANGE
17 ZONE CHANGE
19 ZONE CHANGE
LOUIS L. & GLORIA M. PETERSON
JOHN A. & GEORGE J. VION
WESLEY R. & LORETTA E. LIND
25824 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
25812 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
44 S. CHESTER AVE.
SAUGUS, CA 91350
SAUGUS, CA 91350
PASADENA, CA 91106
20 ZONE CHANGE
21 ZONE CHANGE
22 ZONE CHANGE
CONTINENTAL VALENCIA
SCV REFUSE REMOVAL COMPANY, INC.
C.I. EQUIPMENT LEASING CORPORATION
44 S. CHESTER AVE.
24777 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
P.O. BOX 647
PASADENA, CA 91106
SAUGUS, CA 91350
SIMI, CA 93062
23 ZONE CHANGE
24 ZONE CHANGE
25 ZONE CHANGE
BOSKOVICH TRUST
DOMINIK & NEVENKA SUGANOZIK
NELLY 0. HOLLATZ
4312 EMPRESS AVE.
1423 ARDMORE AVE.
24059 VIA CANDELLA
ENCINO, CA 91436
GLENDALE, CA 91202
VALENCIA, CA 91355
26 ZONE CHANGE
27 ZONE CHANGE
28 ZONE CHANGE
NATHANIEL L. OLSEN
LORRAINE DEKAY
ROMAINE A. & GRETCHEN HENRY
24599 WAYMAN
DOROTHY FURNEY
11665 BA88ETT
NEWHALL, CA 91321
25066 DEWOLFE ROAD
GRANADA HILLS, CA 91344
0
NEWHALL, CA 91321
29 ZONE CHANGE
9999 ZONE CHANGE
ZONE CHANGE
THATCHER GLASS CORPORATION -
ANDEL ENGINEERING COMPANY
RESIDENT
90 BROAD STREET
P.O. 428
24781 SPRINGBROOK AVE.
NEW YORK, NY 10005
NEWHALL, CA 91322
SAUGUS, CA 91350
--
N811230'E�Nk
I
IF
I
/ I
IN
by
1 ���✓ /
'/ ' '� fir �/
_ -.
a\ - X591129 )�:,' J✓ / —�
.vz./
S ro ar zae
y3�^SR
Moo�Mm
zIm
-71
i��
^> r n . m gs$ to y z
D
x I o ' li xq
iz d F $
,m Can Aav
o _ m
R = s L g \Rho
a m o
myn