Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - GP ENVIRONMENT IMPACT RPT (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approva Item to be presented PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1991 SUBJECT: General Plan - Consideration of Resolution No. 91-98 for Adoption of the General Plan and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND The City Council has been conducting a continued Public Hearing for consideration of the General Plan -since May 28, 1991, having received public testimony and arrived at a consensus on portions of the Draft General Plan. The attached draft Resolution has been prepared for City Council consideration once consensus is achieved on the entire Plan. This Resolution, if approved, would adopt the General Plan and certify the final Environmental Impact Report. RECOMMENDATION Following discussion and determination on any remaining unresolved items, it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution .No. 91-98, thereby approving the City's first General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Attachment: Draft Resolution No. 91-98 CLT:lkl:385 Adopted: Agenda Item: _ 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 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN. PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A public hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider the Draft General Plan. Once adopted, the General Plan will be the City's guide to growth and development and will serve as the foundation for future land use. decisions. Public testimony regarding the Draft General Plan will be heard by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, on the Twenty-eighth (28th) day of May 1991 at or after 6:30 p.m. The first four elements listed below are scheduled to be heard on May 28th. It is anticipated that the hearing on May 28, 1991, will be continued to future City Council meetings as needed. The Draft General Plan consists of a Land Use Map and 12 elements which are briefly summarized as follows: 1. Open Space and Conservation Element - details plans and measures for the preservation of open space for natural resources, for the managed production of resources, for outdoor -recreation, and the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, such as water, forests, soils, rivers, lakes, wildlife, and minerals. 2. Air quality Element - addresses and supports regional and local efforts to promote clean air. e 3. Noise Element - examines noise sources yielding information to be used in setting land use policies for compatible uses and for developing and enforcing a local noise ordinance. 4. Safety Element - establishes standards and plans for the protection of the community from fires, floods, geologic and seismic hazards. 5. Circulation Element - identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major roads, highways, railroad and transit routes, and other local public facilities. 6. Human Resources Element - to address local health, child care and senior needs. 7. Public Services, Facilities and Utilities Element - to project and .plan for adequate infrastructure such as water, sewer, schools, fire, police, libraries and solid waste. 8. Parks and Recreation Element - identifies ipark and recreation needs and standards for neighborhood, community and regional parks and facilities. 9. Housing Element .- identifies existing and projected housing needs and establishes goals,policies, and programs for the preservation, - improvement, and development of housing to meet the needs of all economic sectors of the community. Draft General Plan Public Hearing Page 2 10. Community Design Element - to promote the City's identification, image and enhance overall appearance. 11. Economic Development and Community Revitalization Element - provides for economic balance and prosperity for the community. 12. Land Use Element - designates. the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses. The City Council may decide to make amendments to the Draft General Plan based upon testimony and other information received at the public hearing. A draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the General Plan and will also be considered by. the City -Council. A Notice of Completion has been filed with appropriate State and local agencies. If you wish to review a copy of the Draft General Plan, or for further information on the Draft General Plan, including a tentative hearing schedule for all 12 elements, you may contact the -City of Santa Clarita, Department of Community Development, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA .91355; Telephone: (805) 255-4330. The Draft General Plan may also be reviewed at the Canyon Country Library, 18536 Soledad Canyon Rd., the Newhall Library, 22704 Y. 9th St., and the Valencia Library, 23710 Magic Mountain Pkwy. If you wish to challenge the General Plan or the Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan 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. Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall Sheriff's Department Santa Clarita Post Office MAR -.341 Published: Newhall Signal May 7, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 91-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WHEREAS, the State of California requires the preparation of a City of Santa Clarita General Plan to be in compliance with Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 65300 et. seq. of the Government Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21774, require the evaluation of the Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration for all projects, including general plans; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 90010683) was prepared; noticed and circulated for public review in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, over the last two years public participation was solicited from the City of Santa Clarita for the identification of issues, policy direction, and general comments regarding the General Plan. This was accomplished through a series of study sessions, community meetings, and over 50 meetings of a 23 -member citizen's general plan advisory committee; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a series of duly noticed public hearings on the 3rd day of January 1991, continued to January 8 and 15, February 5 and 13, March 5 and 13, March 5, 14, 19.and 28, April 2, 16 and 25, and May 2, 6, 7, 13, 20 and 21, 1991, receiving, reviewing and filing all written documents and hearing arguments for and against the draft General Plan/EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 90010683) and adopted Resolution Number P91-32 recommending adoption of the General Plan and certification of the EIR to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a series of duly noticed public hearings on the 10th, 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th, 20th and 25th days of June 1991, receiving, reviewing and filing all written documents and hearing arguments for and against the draft General Plan/EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 90010683); NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS A. The General Plan/EIR as recommended by the Planning Commission, and reviewed and revised by the City Council meets the requirements of Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 5, Sections 65300 et seq. of the Government Code and Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21774 of the State of California. B. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR and certifies the EIR prepared for the General Plan as complete and in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City Council Resolution No. 91-50, the City of Santa Clarita CEQA Resolution. C. The Housing Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on July 20, 1990, for review as required by Section 65585 of the Government Code of the State of California. HCDs comments were received on October 17, 1990 and have been duly considered and appropriate changes have been made to the Housing Element in response to said comments. D. The City Council adopts the following findings in regards to the Final Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to and in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code: 1. That the following -have been determinedtobe not significant and do not require any mitigation: Earth, Plant Life, Animal Life, Natural Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Light and Glare/Shade and Shadow, Population/Housing, Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety, Energy, Utilities, Recreation, and Aesthetics. 2. That the EIR identifies the following potential adverse impacts which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance: a. Transportation. The City of Santa Clarita is a receptor of regional traffic in addition to traffic generated within the city, most notably traffic from north and east of the city heading to or from other parts of Los Angeles County. Existing traffic and circulation flow conditions are poor along some roadways, especially during peak commute times. The lack of adequate parallel alternate routes is the primary cause for some of this traffic. Additional growth allowed under the General Plan will increase the number of cats on Santa Clarita roads. Roadway improvements recommended in the plan require funding, the acquisition of right-of-way, and lengthy construction periods. Transportation Demand Management strategies, such as vanpools, carpools, modified employment hours, and emphasizing alternative means of transportation, could make better use of the existing roadway capacity. Additional measures to reduce traffic congestion will be contained in the Circulation Element's implementation plan. Future highway improvements are expected to provide acceptable levels of service throughout the City, although there will be a time lag between the need for facility improvements and their implementation. b. Public Services. A few of the local public services do not adequately serve the existing population. For example, each of the local school districts is over capacity, several roadways are impacted, and parks and libraries are limited. New development authorized under the proposed General Plan will further impact these areas. Full implementation of the policiescontainedin the General Plan will mitigate the impacts to some degree, but there will be a time lag between the anticipated growth and the completion of facilities to mitigate adverse impacts. c.. Air Oualitv. The Santa Clarita planning area is located in a region which does not meet state and federal air quality standards for ozone and other criteria pollutants. The entire South Coast Air Basin is not in attainment for these pollutants. The growth anticipated in the General Plan will contribute more air pollutants to the basin. Several measures contained in the Air Quality Element will reduce the emissions normally expected from building and other activities, but these emissions cannot be mitigated entirely. Air pollutants from the Santa Clarita planning area will incrementally contribute to the existing non -attainment conditions in the South Coast Air Basin. d. Land Use. The residential, commercial, and industrial growth anticipated under the proposed General Plan will convert many undeveloped portions of the planning area to some form of development. Previous commitments between developers and the County of Los Angeles have reduced the city's power to contain development within some areas of the city. The policies of the Land Use Element will reduce potential conflicts between incompatible uses, but they cannot eliminate building in some sensitive areas, such as open space and wildlife habitat areas. 3. That a Mitigation Monitoring Program was prepared and is part of the General Plan. The Program requires specific action which the City of Santa Clarita must undertake to insure mitigation. D. Until the Development Code, which includes the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, grading ordinance, hillside ordinance, and sign ordinance, is brought into conformance with the General Plan, decisions on development shall conform to the General Plan. Where a conflict in direction arises, and the General Plan is the more restrictive direction it shall apply and override any zoning or subdivision regulation, except where state law requirements apply. SECTION 2. RESOLUTION A. The City Council does hereby adopt the General Plan, its accompanying maps and text, and certifies Final.EIR prepared for said General Plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of June, 1991. Carl Boyer, Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Donna M. Grindey, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote of the Council. AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSTAINED: Councilmembers: EXCUSED: Councilmembers: City Clerk SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING LAND USE MAP REQUESTS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR JUNE 25, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING _ REQUESTED GP EXISTING GP GENERAL AREA NUMBER COMMENTER NAME LOCATION DESIGNATION DESIGNATION TESTIMONY RECEIVED COUNCIL ACTION UPPER SIERRA HIGHWAY: C-1 Davis (0.5 at) 15562 Sierra Highway cc RVL Letter C-19 Betz (20 ac) 15452 Sierra Highway I, SP or CC RVL Oral and letter ' - c-24 Rossi LLi for KBET, 15500 Sierra Highway CC or BP RVL Oral and letter and Carl GoLdran (14 ac) MIDDLE SIERRA HIGHWAY: C-2 Ace Engineering & Sierra Cross Avenue RM RS OraL and letter Joseph F. Russo C-32 Joseph F. Russo West side of Sierra Cc RM Oral and letter Highway at American Beauty Drive C-33 Gail Tagashira Raquet Club RM RM Letter. CENTRAL CITY: C-34 Robert Eastman for East of Golden Valley, RM RL (HOCA) Oral and letter L.A. Kern Ventures south of Via Princessa - C-35 Samuel Schaefer III North of Via Princessa SP & RM RL 'Orel and letter east of Golden Valley CANYON COUNTRY: C-22 Monteverde Sand Canyon Road RM and RVL, RS & RVL Oral and Letter Development Co (34 ac) or all RS C-30 Joseph F. Russo Northwest corner Sand CO (SEA) RL (SEA) Oral and Letter . and Lost Canyon Roads C-36 Ed Bolden for Golub, North of Cox school RL RE Oral and letter Kauder & Sherburne (180 ac) NEWHALL. C-37 Rex Holland .. 23849 The Old Road CC or CO RVL Oral C-38 Jerry GLadback Walnut Street between RMH RM OraL 15th and 16th Streets C-39 Mrs. Grady 0. Floyd Old Newhall RM RS Letter C-40 Laurens Frimel-Weste PLaterita Canyon Road ? RL Oral and written statement at Lyons Avenue (10 at) C-41 ESCO for Pacific Placerita Canyon Road VSR, & SP VSR,-RE(MOCA) Letter Coast Homes west of SR -14 SAUGUS: C-42 Brian Baker for Southern corners of RS or RM CN oral Seco -Copper Hill Seco Canyon Road and Citizens Group (SCG) Copper HiIL Drive DWH:450 GAIL S. TAGASBIRA 18209 Sicrra Highway 121 Canyon Country, CA 91351 (805)-251-5095 June 21, 1991 The Hon. Carl Boyer City of Santa Clarita lyy! 23920.Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300 Santa Clarita,.CA 91355 Dear Mr. Mayor, I am writing to express my disappointment in your staff with regard to informing residents whose homes are directly affected by adoption of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Enclosed is a copy of the FIRST NOTIFICATION I received on the evening of June 17, 1991. Its vague and unspecific language is evidence that staff has not given proper notice to residents and property owners. Please take notice of the fact that is DOES NOT DETAIL THE PRESENT and the proposed designations of our property. On the morning of Tuesday, June 18, I spoke with a member of the planning staff who informed me that the condominium complex on which my property is located, now designated R3 by the county was, under the proposed General Plan, would be designated R -M (6-15 units per acre). I asked how I might see a copy of"the proposed changes including a copy of the Land Use Map. Being a journalist for more than 20 years, I am naturally skeptical and tend to question the word of municipal staff members dealing with "the public." I was told one was available at the counter of Community Development in City Hall. I requested a copy of the propsed modification eitherby fax and was told the document was too extensive; or by mail and was told the delay wquld»defeat,-the purpose of research. I'asked if a copy was...avaiTa`�ie='to thz" public in the library and A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER'' SAID21VO1� California State Law requires a, -copy of the General Plan draft to be placed in three sites: Planning, the city clerk's office and the library! Sinceoyour.�lanning department staff member's answers indicated to be he was uninformed, I CALLED BACK that same afternoon and was The Honorable June 21, 1991 Page 2 Carl Boyer told there was a.hearing that night at Hart High School cafeteria! I postponed my plans for that evening to attend the hearing and was surprised and a little disappointed to hear Lynn. Harris try to justify the methods her staff have taken to ifnrom residents of the forthcoming changes in the General Plan. Public notices in the Signal, a paper with a circulation of less than 2.5% of the population of the entire Valley is hardly a responsible means of informing those residents DIRECTLY AFFECTED by the new Land Use Element. I was appalled when I realized the citizens advisory committee has NEVER MADE ANY ATTEMPT to inform residents directly affected by the proposed changes. On the morning of Wednesday, June 19, since I did not have the time to read the document in the planning department and timing was critical because the Thursday meeting was less than 36 -hours away, I PURCHASED MY OWN COPY of the Draft:of the General Plan. Although the sum of $33.00 is outrageous, I am glad to have my own copy to re -read at leisure because after studying the document, I recognize a minefield which State Housing and Community Development will have a field day exploring. There is not a single mention of neo -traditional uses of land, for one thing. Portions of the document are extremely vague and not even close to acceptable. On the evening of Thursday, June 20, because there were so many requests to address council and the hour was late, my views were not heard, thus this letter. I support the RM change from R3 but I strongly urge the council to postpone approval of the General Plan pending adequate notification of ALL residents affected by the proposed change -- and not only the change in the Land Use Element but also those directly affecting the quality of life -- housing, community design, circulation, air quality, noise. Ironically it was a county notice dated June 13 that arrived Saturday, June 22, which I am enclosing, which gives the kind of detailed, informative information that City of Santa Clarita officials SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED. Sincere,(ly, , Gail S.g Tagashira cc: Geore Caravalho, Lynn Harris, blind (2) Enclosures: (2) RE C R.E. Consultants 5915 Shoshone Avenue Encino, California 91316 Telephone (818) 776-1615 June 25, 1991 The Honorable Mayor,.Mr. Carl Boyer City Council Members City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. CITY OF SANTA CLANIT.& Re: Request for Consideration of Modified Land Use Designation. 135 Acres near Friendly Valley and Golden Triangle Industrial Communities. L.A. Kern Ventures, property owners. Dear Mayor Boyer; This letter is a follow-up to the testimony presented on behalf of L.A. Kern Ventures at the Public Hearings on the Land Use Element. L.A. Kern Ventures is the owner of 135 Acres adjacent to Golden Valley Road and Via Princessa. (See maps attached) The owners are requesting a change of the proposed Land Use Designation for the subject site from "RL", Residential Low, to "R11", Residential Moderate, for the following reasons; A. The Residential Moderate Category will provide. the density needed to more adequately fund the required construction of Golden Valley Road and Via Princessa. B. The topography in the area of the future Golden Valley alignment will create areas adjacent to the roadway which provide for a clustered development accommodated by the "RM" Category. C. The "RM" Category is a logical extension of the existing and future development proposed at Golden Valley Road and Sierra Highway and will provide a transition from the Industrial Business Park planned on the extension of Golden Valley Road north of Via Princessa. The current Proposed Designation of "RL" does not provide for the adequate funding of the required improvements. Additionally, development of residential lots athalfacre sizes will generally not be clustered and would require more grading spread over the entire site. L.A. Kern Ventures, is a limited partnershipheaded by Mr. Eldon R. Hugie, Attorney at Law and Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Hugie has thirty years of experience in real estate development in California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Texas and British Columbia. The executive vice-president of the partnership is Kenneth Payne, a Licensed General Contractor, who designed and built the Golden Oaks Plaza on Soledad Canyon Road in Santa Clarita. 6.5 i L Page 2 June 25, 1991- L.A. 991L.A. Kern Ventures, Request for Plan Designation During the past three public hearings on the Land Use Element of the General Plan I have introduced the request to designate the major portion of the property adjacent to Golden Valley Road in a Land Use Category which would more realistically provide for adequate funding for this Major Highway. In addition I have requested consideration that the Land Use Designation at the Intersection of Golden Valley Road and Via Princessa be included in the City Center Planning Area. This would provide the City the opportunity to Plan this Major Highway Intersection in conjunction with the development of the surrounding area and would allow for an appropriate Transitional Use between the Golden Valley Industrial Business Park and the residential uses. The fundamental reason for this request is based on the fact that the subject site is encumbered with a number of constraints that may make the construction of Golden Valley Road financially impossible for a development proposed at a permitted -density of 2.0 units per acre. In discussing these constraints with the City Engineer and the Director of Public Works, there was mutual agreement that this Major Highway Element would result in an alignment that meanders around electric transmission towers, requires considerable grading and bridging structures over the Los Angeles City aqueduct. The specific development proposal for the site has not been prepared however the followinggeneral statements apply to this property. The alignment of Golden Valley Road and the grading associated will naturally create graded, areas adjacent to the road which will provide buildable areas for the development. The "RM" designation will allow the development to cluster the residential units close to the road thereby maintaining a larger portion of the property in a natural, open space environment. The Implementation Programs to be adopted by the City and the Development Monitoring Program will assure the City of adequate. review of developments proposed• for this site. Developing the property under the current "RL" designation with lots which are half acre in size will result in development which spreads throughout the site adding to the grading required and creating far less natural areas to be preserved. Page 3 June 25, 1991 L.A. Kern Ventures, Request for Plan Designation By way of clarification, the scale of the Draft Land Plan makes the accurate plotting of specific properties and future Road alignments difficult. The subject site is generally located north of the proposed alignment of Golden Valley Road and thus designated as "RL". The portion of the site southerly of Golden Valley Road is designated as "RE" MOCA, however there are no longer any operating wells in this area and the abandoned wells are to be capped. Thus the entire site is requested• to be included in the "RM" Category request. A detailed map of the property boundary at a scale of 1"= 100 feet is available for the purpose of identifying the property. Respectfully; R.E. Consultants Robert J. astman cc: L.A. Kern Ventures L'�_'_I •�■■.i �. �.. n W0.. (� r-' �\r_ W ,�,n ❑� N �l lel fS'L� I ^111 Cly{ age V� U ad AS Im jz �-''.\•'. •r.i.... - 'A■y 111�•.GA;.IY tl -•'.lt �� s• �` .".d� IdEAI. o l '.•:.�. , � � ? ar �� R..gS Nu H CC — ciC /Y f41 l� Ab b,ON Fn) (Di NJ ` tt cc ` etc j I I°� (> (SER ` . L �'\ cc rVI�F CS AN CCWI X6. (� n1 PR9aCcf7 I 'AA.fCk (lit}'��' pE;�` fD� SlhB�fcT_ 1 -- y. lU tS •S I i� JJ p� ! (i'� V ) pL�RS • � IklDsal 1��'1 --j WocA) ��`.• AC tpp• QQCA)r FLACE.R:tA Ca 'y' t�~_ au■c�u �pv\ IJL Y �� Qh f� TC �� �� j WS C nDnD U RL ANCF,LE�%ATIONA.L FOP.EST, `\RLµ (; — , r■eY ..r r-�— �_ vs � 1 . • �� ,_,� Plncm•lto Conyon Stale Pork I •. L n� (LACCA) r' �7 ~Rt (MCA) ic RE YL SAX CA 1C ous L J2 5 Hsn [ its �••• •••�''� 10 HE 1 • e • a r 8P Irak I�P� .';' � L•A.KEPN VENTURES (SPI �j11BN �'�TIED 6r Z 5� R 1 At Imo• IfhST� .•• ',. . +s �.� •�•� ���•��=` \.................................................... 1 ANGELES ;NATIONAL FOREST i I v^ct 6,S ell ., `� •. •� \ � ^��6; •: I sic`:. `;� '� jr 1 .:• .FFA t' I, rkOP.H 2.3 AC 951 8 AC L. A • v ITS Act s& ' '1lr'E cl 2.5 AC. ., `� •. •� \ � ^��6; •: I sic`:. `;� '� jr 1 .:• .FFA t' I, rkOP.H 2.3 AC 951 8 AC L. A • v ITS Act s& ' '1lr'E June 24, 1991 Santa Clarita City Council c/o Lynn M. Harris Director of Community Development 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Councilmembers: I have a request regarding a change in the Land Use Designation of the proposed General Plan before it is complete and the General Plan is adopted. The area in question is.where Via Princessa extends southwesterly from Rainbow Glen as it heads toward its intersection with Gblden Valley. To be specific, the borders are the Los Angeles DWP power lines to the east, the current Business Park designation to the north and west, and Golden Valley's route to the south (Please see enclosed map). There are two major reasons why I believe the land use map should be altered in this area. VIA PRINCESSA CONSTRUCTION COSTS - I am a general partner in a partnership which owns 13.25 acres within the aforementioned area on which about 1200' of Via Princessa has to be built. Under this 13.25 acres and to the north, west and south lie large.underground ancient landslides up to 120 feet deep or more which have to be mitigated in order for Via Princessa to be constructed. The current zoning of RL, coupled with hillside slope requirements does not allow enough density to offset the costs of putting in Via Princessa - especially if it is to be done without city or other public funds. The cost of Via Princessa through this area could go as high as $1,000 per linear foot of highway. TRANSITION OF ZONING - Right now on the map there is RL zoning in between power lines, BP zoning, and a major highway - Via Princessa. Also, any direct access onto Via Princessa from the BP zone would have to come through residential creating noise and safety concerns. . SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS - Re -designate the triangular RL area between the power lines and the BP zone north of Via Princessa.to BP. This ould allow uniformity of zoning and give the BP area a direct access to Via Princessa and out to the 14 fwy. This would decrease the truck and auto traffic on Soledad trying to get to the 14 fwy and the 5 fwy along with using Via Princessa to buffer the residential to the south. Also, this zoning creates a greater: economic base to spread around the cost of Via Princessa. South of Via Princessa down to Golden Valley, the zoning should be increased Prom RL to RS or RM to allow the clustering of homes to save ridge areas and again to afford the repair of the landslides and the construction of Via Princessa and Golden Valley. The owners in this area would like to build these parkways without using public funds, and zoning transitions which beautify the city. Please allow them the means to do so. Thank you very much. j erely, General Partner Santa Clarita Development.Partners yid`";� ��• - �� L_ ...i � Z 'nt� ce i T •.err ° A. . u JES. (�l !bl LR ` �4 ^— ,... 1 u 'r •• .. Vii• :'. ' / / ' •y" D If . • . 1AKEt.. — f Rk Tar ct PRGESS <FI HE sco At 4 � "r,\ `• ��„��_ . —.--vim:.,,___ j A[ •� I1\ "c � cc �; �!•� rd', �_ `ANGELES VATIONAL FOREST _— tt - - .�E' :d' PL CS �~ C., •1 ;Jf j_ NOW Plocxi:o Canyon St -t- Park i AlIC a? LI tCX (�1 f ; SAN GA ' ANGELES NATroNAL FOREST r, 00* go Ul! '.lOf •' �... •:1 �� • `I� '....j 10 L.. MURRAY OOLUB 42844 NORTH 19T STREET WEST . LANCASTER. CALIFORNIA 93534 June 24, 1991 City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Assessors Parcel Nos: 2802-002-003,004.005 2812-010-009 Honorable Council Members, The owners of approximately 180 acres described above, shown on the enclosed location map as the "Subject Property", have asked Mr. Edward Bolden of Andel Engineering Co.' to put into the record of these proceedings and to present our request that our property be classified to allow up to 3.3 dwelling units per acre on the General Plan currently being considered. Our property is currently within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County and is zoned A-10,000 and A-1. We are contiguous to the existing boundary of the City of Santa Clarita. The City has concluded that our property is within its sphere of influence and has therefore included it within its General Plan. Our parcels are bounded on the west by existing development and the Western Development Corporation and American Landmark projects. on our northern property line is the easterly portion of the Shapell, Plum Canyon Development. We understand most of the property to east of -our property is optioned by the Pardee Development Company. The current owners of our properties began their acquisition in 1973. In 1965 a Tentative Tract Map (Tract Map No. 26575) had been prepared by Andel Engineering Company indicating 7,500 square foot lots. This was proposed as an extension of the North Oaks project, which was. then under development. Unfortunately the market turned downward and the filing was never completed. When the market returned, development moved westerly into the Valencia area and canyons. We feel it is reasonable to assume that, as the demand to meet growing housing needs increases, and in order to comply with the State mandated requirements for affordable housing in the future, the area between North Oaks, the Weston - American Development, Shapell and Sierra Highway will develop. L�6 MURRAY GOLUB 42944 NORTH 19TH STREET WEST . LANCASTER. CALIFORNIA 93.534 Honorable Council Members Page 2 The ultimate development of this area can include a highway that can and will funnel considerable traffic from Bouquet Canyon, Plum Canyon and the subject area directly to Sierra Highway and the freeway. This would bring some relief to the pending gridlock at the necks of the canyons. With the proper zoning,_ a unique opportunity exists to master plan this significant area, since most of the property involved is owned by relatively few property owners. Together with the City, we have an opportunity to master plan this area so that orderly and meaningful development will take place when the need arises. It should be mentioned that the General Plan Advisory Committee did in fact recommend that the property be designated . for 1 to '3.3 units as we had requested. However we understand that the Planing Commission had recommended that this area be designated for 2 acre or larger parcels. Parcels of this size are not economically feasible, nor could they provide affordable housing. We understand that portions of our property are currently shown on the County General Plan designated hillside management. It is also our understanding that this is a temporary designation, since hillside management properties that ultimately are within 1/4 mile of existing urban development have a development potential of up to 6.6 units per acre. We hope that you will find that our request is consistent with good planing and carries out the prime State Legislative mandates relative to General Plans, that. of preventing Urban Sprawl and providing for affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. Your Very Truly, FOR THE OWNERS MURR t MURRAY GOLUB 42844 NORTH 19TH STREET WEST . LANCASTER. ,CALIFORNIA 93534 Location Map >K, 1. ♦�Kchy oR SFUdder, ♦ .Boys Camps: Scott � .� � '- • - �Y \ C' v .--�•. '/ . ': .-) � .. ,.; � a' � :. , Cam.: .••�::..: -` • .. �:. �� �� 9 .••gni'. rtjn.`�'�-r`I .•.: I;•' � 1 .( ,1' �.ti�', I�%'.'• � / "�I. � . —'•— — �.i. �; .s. ..!-r—`''''�•` ' fes•..,•' : �L»..__f�.,1 v�' • ' J� � �• �a . .. JEEP 31 1 .-•.CY ••.f �'• ._� •fir. �/% �:t S Pt ^..• •!Iii 'tR >� ��;: ``' `" /r ohstP w$LYR'•` -l'^ i , G ✓ ; y': •iii ••/ q /..-�} nt � ;V "�N. ' r"9 .ra" — „` ; r . • ,yam ." r' i um .••-�\ .��'j:b I'�'�ii" � •to '� 1�'i e'. ;':-' :� E .:tC'SVy t"3'9•;x;:• ,:'� �"•� _� .f' j'_ •••-� !I � �J' ��4.,.�A-Q .t p� � /� ))) /is�`7 'e I(�a.:' 1' "' f�,' .,+^�,• 1 eM 1'357 rpt'—".`..'�:..- �I �'� r ,r.•t t ?'1 �o SA(CtJIIRt i�9��c; i . 'SO EDAD CANY A""„I Fl T4N9 }R15W, SBM 27L cSau-us, Calif. "1350 June 20, 1991 Lynn M. Harris Director of Community Development 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300' bantta oSlarita, CA. 91355 Dear Ms. Harris: First, the evasive letters. Second, a phone call with Chris, "I'm not sure'. Third, the public meeting with a map that was un- readable. My .request is that you provide me with the listed information for each of my properties. I expect: A. current L.A. county zoning for each parcel B. zone as indicated by the new Santa Clarita General Plan C. the specifics of what is designated as allowable under the new plan. The properties are: (1) 22739 -8th Street Newhall, CA. (2) 24043-24049 1/2 ARCH 9t. Newhall, CA. (3) 27269 Garza Drive Saugus,CA. (4) 28124 Robin Saugus,.CA. (5) 25037 Everett Newhall, CA. It is most urgent that I receive this information immediately. I am involved in legal efforts since there has been a death in the family. WHAT DO I TELL PROSPECTIVE BUYERS IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN ZONING? AA4.w �� �39 MRS. GRADY O. FLOYD ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION esco CONSULTANTS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING & SURVEYING June 19,1991 JUy24l9,I. Mrs. Lynn M. Harris Director of Community Development CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Re: Placenta Canyon Project Our Project No. 9099-1 Dear Mrs. Harris: Our client Pacific Coast Homes owns approximately 160 t acres of land east of Highway 14 and south of Placenta Canyon Road. The property is not within the City of Santa Clarita's boundary, but it is within the areas proposed for future annexation to the City. The subject property is currently designated as R under the Los Angeles County General Plan and HM and W under the Santa Clarita Areawide General Plan. Under the proposed City Draft General Plan the property would have designation of RE (SP) Residential Estate (Specific Plan); VSR (Visitor Serving/Resort) and MOCA (Mineral/Oil Conservation Area). At this time we are preparing a land use analysis of the site and its compatibility with the existing surrounding land uses. The site is an abandon oil exploration site in the upper hills, and a landfill for the construction of Highway 14 in the lower area Because of these conditions and our preliminary investigations, we feel that the site would be most suitable for a mixed use of commercial in the lower areas and industrial in the higher part of the site. Since the property is currently in the County, we will be processing a tentative map with that jurisdiction. But, because the property is within the City's future limits as shown on your land use map we respectfully request that the above mixed use be considered in your planning work to avoid a future Plan Amendment and expedite annexation if our client chooses to pursue future plans with the City. 6017 BRISTOL PARKWAY . FOX HILLS BUSINESS PARK . CULVER CITY, CA 90230 . [213] 417-7999 . FAX: [213] 410-1082 C -qt Mrs. Lynn M. Harris CITY OF SANTA CLARITA June 19,1991 Page 2 It should be noted that we have met with the City's Staff to discuss development strategies.. We thank you and staff for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION /bert e /,-, -R ' Sims, P.E. Executive Vice President RRS:esm JRA -17 E cc Bob Brooks/Pacific Coast Homes Richard Loyd/Pacific Coast Homes Don Whatley/ESCO Jeffrey Armstrong/ESCO M Michael Brandman Associates Environmental Research ■ Planning and Processing ■ Resources Management It�i161i�(177\�sl�iJ zl TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Barry K Hogan, General Plan Consultant Plan SUBJECT- Adoption of the General and Cert' ation of the EIR DATE: June 25, 1991 ABSTRACT: On June 24, 1991, we distributed a revised general plan text on blue paper. In that revised text the Council revisions, as of June 20, 1991, were indicated using the double underling format. The r dl MO;' M still indicate the Planning Commission recommendations. Contained herein are the following: 1. Revisions which received consensus by the Council on June 24, 1991; 2. Two letters of comment, received after the close of the comment period and our letters of response; 3. Discussion regarding the general plan EIR; 4. A resolution of the City Council adopting the general plan and .certifying the EIR. It is recommended that the City Council review and concur with the revisions shown on the blue copy edition of the general plan text and the revisions contained herein; take any additional testimony on the general plan and/or general plan EIR; close the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution approving the general plan and certifying the EIR. DISCUSSION: On June 24, 1991, the City Council considered and reached consensus on the following 15 items. The specific language is shown herein in the same manner as in the blue copy text, i.e. Council revisions are double underlined. Public Education Category: Add to Table L-3, a PE designation for the designation of private colleges and designate Masters College and California Institute of the Arts with the PE designation. Add to the Land Use Designations the following explanation: Private Education 606 S. Olive Street, Suite 600, Los Angeles, CA 90014 (213) 622-4443 Fax: (213) 895-0959 Santa Ana • Los Aneeles • San Dieeo • Honolulu Memorandum City Council June 25, 1991 Page 2 2. New Land Use Goal 1 on Growth Management and accompanyin licies. Add Councilmember Heidt's comments as indicated below: Growth Management Goal I: To preserve the c aracter of the communities and the integrity of the Santa Clarita Valley by orderly growth through the synchronization of development with the availability of public facilities such as roads, sewers, water service and schools needed to support it. Policies: 1.1 Develop and implement a Public Facilities - Ordinance that requires adequate infrastructure exist or be programmed for construction within a defined period of time as a condition of development approval. 1.2 Develop and implement a program of Development Impact Fees to provide adequate public facilities and services in a.timely manner. 1.3 Prepare an annual growth monitoring report to the community that includes the status of all projects, the status of capital improvements for roads, sewers, water, schools and libraries, and a status report on the development trends in the Valley. 1.4 Study the feasibility linc dine. but notlimited tohousine and land usel of an Annual Growth Policy that provides guidelines for the determination of the adequacy of Public Facilities and allows the City to set annronriate 1.5 Utilize computer modeling to assess cumulative impacts of development on public facilities. 1.6 Incorporate into the annual Capital Improvement Program a timetable for eliminating the infrastructure deficit and provide for an annual goal for such reduction. 1.7 Pursue an annexation policy that brings tangible benefits to City infrastructure and provides a self supporting tax base. 1.8 Encourage the concept of traffic mitigation agreements that provide a variety of transportation options including but not limited to automobiles, transit, commuter trains, light rail and bicycle pathways. Memorandum City Council June 25, 1991 Page 3 1.9 Continue to pursue a policy of cooperation with Los Angeles Countyand 1.10 Consider the establishment of additional SEXs where unique environmental or geological conditions exist or may be created by future land uses. 1.11 Establish an open space district with funding capability to acquire parcels that may not be suitable for development. 3. Addition to the note on Land Use Policy 1.3: 1.3 Establish a hierarchy of commercial centers, including neighborhood, community, and regional serving centers, together with appropriate and compatible levels of use to serve the population. The centers should be located on arterial thoroughfares and be nonintrusive and sensitive to residential land uses so as to provide both convenience and 4. Addition to Land Use Policy 3.4: 3.4 Focus revitalization efforts on eliminating blight along the railroad right-of-way adjacent to San Fernando Road, substitute landscaping for existing business, tetath>radrtraligfif-nlm' xvayfor fgYttYt €lranstt tiss including the consideration of narking structures and investigate possible trail uses within the railroad right-of-way along San Fernando Road and elsewhere. 5. Addition to Land Use Policy 4.7: ?r. ,.., cYturage<.th preseivaYtori.3�f i te.,Ariga wx—wto ai ar st and Los Padres National 6. Add to the Land Use Categories the following: AGRICULTURE AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS Memorandum City Council June 25, 1991 Page 4 Agriculture Residential Estate Residential Estate (RE) is a category created to ensure the continuation of existing agricultural farming and ranching activities and to ensure the rural and country character of certain portions of the planning area are maintained. The density of any development within the existing sensitive to topographic and acres. The use of transfer of development rights should be employed to preserve steep slope areas and areas of significant flora and fauna. Development should occur in areas non-encumberanced by sensitive environmental factors. 7. Add to the Residential Very Low description the minimum lot size of 1 gross acre. Memorandum City Council June 25, 1991 Page 5 8. Add the following language to the Residential High land use category: Residential Hiph Residential High (RH) is a category characterized by group housing similar to the Residential Medium High but at higher densities. Development at the average density of 30 dwellings per gross acre are likely to occur in buildings comprised of six, eight, ten and twelve units. Building may be two or three stories in height. Private recreation will be provided as well as common and private open space. The density range, of this category isfrom25.1 to 30.0 dwellings per gross acre; ivtth a:mrrl.rangeslerisatyto£280<dweilmgs;:per groosss<aCre. In special circumstances, when housing is proposed for senior citizens and/or low and moderate income persons:w�itctvanl densities of un to 53 dwellines Der Bross acre 9. Add the following preamble to the Commercial and Industrial land use categories: COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATIONS Memorandum City Council June 25, 1991 Page 6 permit or other special consideration, with the flndinH that the onsite and offsite circulation has been examined and found to be adequately mitieated. 10. Add the following language as a fourth paragraph to the Valley Center Concept before "Methodology. Opportunities and Constraints": 11. Add as an additional component of the Valley Center the following bullet: vehicular and nedestrian access to and from the transit stations. 12. Add to the Open Space/Conservation Element, Table OS -3, the list of historical sites and buildings contained within the Santa Clarita• Historical Society letter (attached), and the expanded description of the Melody Ranch to page OS -14. 13. Add to page OS -6, under the first bullet the following: Land within the Angeles National Forest, irieludmg Elsmere Cannyonl and wildlife corridors between the Santa Susanna Mountains and the San Gabriel Mountains. Memorandum City Council June 25, 1991 Page 7 14. Add to Open Space/Conservation policy 3.3 the following: 3.3 Identify and protect areas of significant ecological value, including, but not limited to, 15. Add to Open Space/Conservation policies under goal 3 the following additional policy: 3_10 Development shall consider. to the extent feasible, preservation of wildlife corridors and provide adequate setbacks. 16. Add to the Land Use Element under "COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA" after the "Ne whall"community the following paragraph: Pico Canyon LETTERS OF COMMENT: The City received two letters of comment after the close of the comment period on the EIR. While no response is legally required by law, we feel that some of the comments contained within the letters are appropriate and should have a response. We have prepared and mailed a response letter to CALTRANS and to the Los Angeles County of Public Works. They are contained herein for City Council information and the record. We recommend that the City Council incorporate the responses into the EIR and general plan as indicated in the letters. DISCUSSION OF EIR: The Environmental Impact Report for the general plan was prepared in conjunction with the general plan as is provided by state law. When the EIR is prepared in this manner the documentation of the EIR for existing conditions relies upon the Background Report of the General Plan and the General Plan itself. Included as part of the EIR is a subsection on Mitigation Monitoring, as required by state law. It should be pointed out that EIRs for general plans are "program" in nature, and therefore, are not as specific as a project based EIR. Mitigation measures proposed in the EIR are implementation of policies of the general plan. When these policies are implemented the level of significance of identified impacts are then reduced to a level of insignificance. TheEIRfound there to be four areas of impact which are unavoidable. They are transportation, land use, public services, and air quality. In the case of the general plan, all but these four area can be mitigated fully. The detailed explanations of the unavoidable significant adverse impacts are contained within the EIR chapter of the general plan. Specific findings must be made within the resolution of approval when certifying the EIR. Contained within the suggested resolution, which has been reviewed by the City Memorandum City Council June 25, 1991 Page 8 Attorney, are the necessary findings. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council take consensus action on the items indicated herein as changes to the text, incorporate the comments of the consultants response letters, take testimony regarding the general plan EIR, and adopt the attached resolution certifying the EIR and adopting the general plan. Attachments BKH0720NN02 claritailtrsmemladoptgp.cc June 19, 1991 Barry Hogan Michael Brandman Associates 7676 Hazard Center Drive Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92108 Dear Barry, The Santa ClaritaValley Historical Society isproviding additional information for .the Open Spaces portion of the Santa Clarita General Plan as per your request. Physical Boundaries of "Old Downtown Newhall": North: 13th Street East: Race Street (both sides) South: Pine Street (both sides) West: Newhall Avenue (both sides), continuing after it changes into San Fernando Road until it reaches Pine Street. The current group working on "Old Downtown Newhall" consists of local historians, business owners, architects and interested citizens. It is administered by the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, who facilitate the open communication leading tothe restoration and revitalization of this area, also providing design review when requested by City Council or staff. Our ultimate goal is to have developed Old Newhall into an area similar to Old Sacramento or Old Pasadena, providing a unique educational and commercialopportunity for visitors tothe downtown Newhall area. Information on sites/structures contained within: (Note: I#sites/structures were already contained in General Plan text, I have noL repeated that. We would like this information added to what's already there.) 22621 13TH STREET: Single family dwelling: Built in February 1873 for Adam Malinszewski at Lyon's Station; moved by J.O. Newhall to San Fernando Road in the community of Newhall about 1879. At the tarn of tho ce-nWry. It wan acgui.red by the Frew Sawily, who were pioneer blacksmiths, then Mr. Ed Jauregui, who moved it to its Present location. Headquarters — Saugus Train Station P.O. box 875 • Newholl . C44rni.A • 91322 Founded MCMLXXV Coneral Plan additiona/SCV Historical Society June 19, 1991 page two 24148.PINE STREET. Single family dwelling: Constructed in 1878 by California Star Oil' Company as a guest house for visiting executives and politicians. Standard Oil sold it to Josh Woodridge, who live there until his death in 1950. 24522 SPRUCE STREET: Commercial structure (Commonly known as "The Hoosegow") Bids for a jail house were opened February 20, 1906, the result being this building of concrete in the Spanish Mission style. It retains to this day the original cell doors and barred windows. It served as a jail/constable's office until 1926, when a sheriff's substation was opened. 24427 CHESTNUT: Single family residence: Built circa 1908 as a dwelling for the Biseailuz family. Eugene Biscailuz later became Los Angeles County Sheriff. Cowboy star and rodeo rider Bob Anderson was the second owner,followed by son-in-law Pablo Arujo, reknowned teamster -mule skinner. 24311-24313 SAN FERNANDOROAD: Commercial structure: ThomasM. Frew arrived in Newhall in 1891, opening a blacksmith shop on Railroad Avenue. The businessmoved to this location in 1910,when Mr. Frew build a shopin the Mission Revival style. This shop was expanded in 1924. His son, Thomas Frew, Jr. changed over to welding and a machine shop. 22502-22510 FIFTH STREET: Commercial structure: Newhall Ice Company. This structure was built in 1922 by Fred Lamkin as a warehouse and storage yard. Lamkin came to Newhall in 1917, opening a garage facing San Fernando Road. Shortly after construction, the warehouse was converted intoan ice house, which Is still in operation. 24244 WALNUT S MET: Church: Church of Christ. The First Baptist Church of Newhall wasereeted in 1940 under the direction of Leroy flux, pastor. It was later acquired by the Seventh Day Adventists and finally, the Church of Christ. 22616 NINTH STREET: Single family dwelling: This building was originally built about 1908• as a residence for Ray Osborne, Superintendent of the Sterline Borax Worksin Tick Canyon. It was located in the smallmining town of Lang in Canyon Country. It was moved to this location in 1928. 24287 NEWHALL AVENUE: Single family dwelling: California Bungalow . ty3e hrnase built inearl.y 1910's. Commonly known as Erwin House. Unusual in design,one of the last Bungalows leftin Santa Clarita. 22506 STH STREET: Commercial building: Structure was erected by Albert Swall in 1902 facing San Fernando Road as a rental. In 1925, it was moved to the present location and a year later taken General Plan additions/SCV Historial Society June 19, 1991 page three over by the Los Angeles County Sheriff as the first substation in the Santa Clarita Valley. Swall developed San Fernando Road as.a business district. It becamethe circulation Office in forthe Newhall Signal during the 1960's, until theyvacated 6. 24238 SAN FERNANDO ROAD: Commercial building: Sheriff's deputies replaced the old constabulary (and jail) in 1926, building Substation #6 and staffing it with 8 men commanded by Captain Jeb Stewart. This was the second jail in what is now known as Santa took ata. The Newhall a "back shop" andthease r the building in 1968,using itasphoto labs, until they moved in 1986. 24307 RAILROAD AVENUE: Commercial building: Commonly known as "Ye Olde Courthouse% The Newhall Masonic Building.Company, Ltd. was incorporated in 1931 and completed this two-story County project in 1932. The Courthouse.occuped the ground floor and the Masonic Lodge the second story. Lumberfrom the older Mayhue building was used, including the flodr of the Hap-A-Landdance hall_ The Court moved to Valencia in 1968 and the courtroom became offices. 24247 through 24251 SAN FERNANDO ROAD: Commercial structures (7): Commonly known as the Tom Mix Cottages. The small building at 24247 was built by Halsey W_ Russell in 1919. In 1922, the six other cottages were added, forming a motor court catering to drivers on the old Ridge Route. These structures were also used by motion picture people as housing during the filming of stories intbis area near "Mixville". Tom Mix used one as a dressing room on several occasions. Also, here is some additional information on Melody Ranch. The list of films and television shows completed there is quite extensive and not included here; it contains many more than just "Gunsmoke". MrLODY RANCII: Rancboplacer].tOS was developed by ErnieHickson and Trem Carr or Mongram Pictures in 1930 consisting of authentic Western buildings. Four years later,Hichson moved the collection fro the present day golden Oak Ranch to the location at Placerita Canyon and Oak Creek Canyon Roads. It was also known as the Monogram Ranch as so many of the company's westerns were filmed there. From 1949 to 1951, it was the scene of Newhall's Old West 4th of July Celebration, when it became "slippery Purchased by Gene Autryin 1952, the name changed to Melody Ranch, with many early television programs using its sets, including the long-running "Gunsmoke". Most of the structures burned down in October of 1962. The trademark Spanish -style arches and parts of the main street and Mexican village are still intact. Current owners have extensive plans for rehabilitation and restoration to General flan additions/SCV Historical Society Jane 19, 1991 page four a working film location. As HERITAGE JUNCTION HISTORIC PARK would be the anchor of this proposed project, here is the information on the buildings contained in the Park (currently listed only as "Saugus Depot") NEWHALL RANCH HOUSE: Built in 1861 (and subsequently enlarged in 1891) as the headquarters of Rancho San Francisco, the original land grant comprising:all of Valencia and some of Castaic. This ranch was owned by Henry Mayo Newhall and was administered by his son, George. Originally located in sight of Assistencia de San Francisco (on what is now SixFlags Magic Mountain property), this structure was moved into Heritage Junction in August 1990. MITCHELL ADOBE SCHOOLHOUSE: Colonel Thomas Findley Mitchell,i an officer of the Mexican-American War, homesteaded Sulpher Springs in the 1860's,bailding an adobe that served as his family's-home. One room of the adobe was used as a schoolhouse for the local children, the first in the area and the home of the second oldest school district in Los Angeles County. In 1986, the adobe was rescued from destruction and moved brick by brick to Heritage Junction, where'it has been rebuilt. KINGSBURRY HOUSE: Thishouse was built in the 18901sas a residence in the downtown Newhall area, and was originally on Walnut Street near Market. It is a one-story Colonial Revival cottage with a porch supported by four turned columns. The house is largely intact with original features, including double-hung windows. It was moved to Heritage Junction in 1987. CALLAHAN'S SCHOOLHOUSE: This structure originated at Callahan's Old West, a Westerntown/amusement area that operated inthe 1920's as the Mission Village in Santa Monica, but was relocated to Mint Canyon when the freeway was built in the 1960's. It was built to house six antique school desks, which came from a mining camp in Vallejo. It also contains a podium andblackboard to complete its function as a one-room schoolhouse. It was moved to Heritage Junction in 1987. RAMONA CHAPEL: Designed by Carrie Jacobs Bond, noted composer, this clhapa), was based on the one at Rancho Camulos made famous in Helen Hunt Jackson's novel "Ramona". Itwas built in 1926 as part of the Mission Village in Santa Monica, which later became Callahan's Old West when it was moved in the 1960's to accomodate the freeway. Wall paintings are by Frank Tinney Johnson. The altar is said to be over 200 years old. and the wooden pews date back to 1858. The chapel was moved to Heritage Junction in 1987. General Flan additions/SCV Historical Society June. 19, 1991 page five EDISON HOUSE: This Bavarian -style structure was built in 1925 as a part of a group of houses provided for Edison workers assigned to the Saugus Substation. In 1928,when the St. Francis Dam broke and flooded the area, killing 450 people, thesestructures escaped damage. After years as residences for a succession of Edison employees, the cottages became property of the Newhall Land and Farming Company, who demolished the other six cottages. This house, thebest of the lot, was movedto Heritage Junction in 1989. That should give you some information to work with. I will be in La Habra most of the afternoon, but will be at the Saugus Station tonight for.theSociety's general meeting at 7:30 PM. If you need to reach me, the number at the Station is(805) 254-1275. My home number is (805) 251-9457. Thanks for your guidance and advice. You've done a pretty good job! S'ncerely Carol Rock Director, Preservation Chair, Old Newhall Committee kT£ Of CALIFORNIA-IVSIMSS AND !tkN5PORTATION AGENCY "TI,WIISD`I, C M~ EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ;TRICT 7, 120 $0. SP1I14O ST. F� •. S ANGELES, CA 900'.2 3 (2131 6M3550 May 20, 1991 Lynn Harris City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Ms. Harris: ICR/CEQA DEIR; City Of Santa Clarita Draft General Plan Vic. LA -5/14/126 Attached you will find a copy of Caltrans comments relating to the City of Santa Clarita's Draft General Plan. If you have any questions relating to these comments, please contact ma at (213) 620-3163. st•lt' brand fax T: ^s:n:nat -:rc; ' �• o+pwec . > i .,_�....� � �I. .Prom �✓ru ... Sincerely, r , WILFd9D MELTON FGR/CERA Coordinator Transportation Planning and Analysis Branch 31b of California 1em'or-andum Mr. Tom Loftus r State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 Wilford Melton - District 7 :m DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Project Review Comments SCF# 90010603 8 ns, Transportation and Mousing Agency Dole 'May 20, 1991 File No.. IGR/CEQA DEIR; City of Santa Clarita Draft General Plan Vic. L.A-5/14/126 Caltrans has reviewed the above -referenced document. Based on the information received, we have the following comments: The existing traffic volumes/volume-to-capacity ratios/le•:el-of- service analysis indicates major A.M. peak hour congestion on southbound I-5, Golden State Freeway, and SR -14, Antelope :alley Freewav ramps. Apparently, the high volume of cor-muter trips originate from the Santa Clarita area then travel south on the local freeways. Several transportation issues need to be fully addressed. These include Air Quality Plan, Regional Mobility -� Plan, and Job -Housing Balance, Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management, and a Congestion Management ?fan. The '_atter program is to be coordinated with the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission which identifies projects for funding through Flexible Concesti0n Relief and Traffic System Management funds. The funding for traffic signal synchronization from the Feel Efficient Traffic Signal Management Grant Program operated by the Caltrans Division of Transportation. Operaticns (page AQ -22? :ill help to improve both the traffic flow on local streets a well as reduce the emission of mobile source air pollutants. Since existing residential and noise sensitive developments have been identified adjacent to the Golden State and Antelope Valley Freeways. and are exposed to noise levels exceeding the acceptable noise standards for residential areas, (Para 2.3, Page N-16) all recommended noise mitigation measures should be implemented to assure compliance with established noise standards and guidelines. Present Caltrans policy does not legally entitle homeowners of property built adjacent to existing freeways to any noise mitigation program funded by the State. Future residential developments built adjacent to freeways should include all recommended noise mitigation measures in the architectural design and the construction of these units r Mr. Tont Loftus Page Two May 20, 1991 A request for proposal for Study from the Los Angeles currently being prepared by Transportation Commission. Clarita area. Local agency extremely important in this a High -Speed or a limited -stop Rail International Airport to Palmdale is the Los Angeles County Two stops are proposed for the Santa and citizen participation would be planning study. A future expressway/freeway (SR -126) is planned to connect the I-5 Golden State Freeway and the SR -14 Antelope Valley Freeway in the City of Santa Clarita. The General Plan should contain information regarding this proposed route. Corridor preservation considerations in relation to land use implications could be discussed in the General Plan. In its General Plan goals, The City of Santa Clarita should include locating park-and-ride lots adjacent to the I-5, Golden State Freeway. If you have any questions regarding this.response, please call me at (ATSS) $-640-3163 or (213) 620-3163. r� 1 ,'! t ' x jay or, jz,., WILFORD HELTON IGR/CEQA Coordinator Transportation Planning and Analysis Branch cc: Lynn Harris, City of Santa Clarita Michael Brandman Associates June 24, 1991 Environmental Compliance ■ Planning ■ Resources Management Wilford Melton IGR(CEQA Coordinator State of California Department of Transportation District 7 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Dear Mr. Melton: Thank you for your letter commenting on the City of Santa Clarita Draft General Plan DEER, dated May 20, 1991. It was received after the public comment period which closed on May 13, 1991. While the Response to Comments on the DEIR has been. completed, we feel your letter needs review and response. Compliance with the Air Quality Management Plan, Regional Mobility Plan, and job -housing balance goals are addressed in the Air Quality Element of the General Plan. Transportation demand management and transportation system management goals are addressed in the Circulation Element, as is the Congestion Management Plan that will be implemented by Los Angeles County. Coordination with the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission will be established when the provisions of the plan are completed. The Air Quality and Circulation elements address the other transportation issues noted in the your letter, including traffic signal synchronization and the future SR -126 connection to SR -14. The noise section of the DEIR incorporates the policies and programs of the Noise Element into the mitigation measures to assure compliance with. noise standards and guidelines. Your comment regarding Caltrans policy of compensation to homeowners of property built adjacent to existing freeways has been noted. The city will require appropriate noise mitigation measures in the design and construction of these units. Thank you for your comments. Tis, Director of Community Development ti e3017, Iinft�jaQminia 90014 (213) 622-4443 Far: (213) 895-0959 �:ron A.na [ �•� Arrrlrc <oo Pi,w, H,•ro.l•,an THOMAS A. TTOCMANSnN, qr1c,,, . June 17, 1991 COUNTY DEP Ms. Lynn Harris Director of Community Development City of Santa Ciari 23920 Val cia Boulevar , Suite. 31 Santa C rata, CA 91355 l Attention Chris Trinklex/ Dear Ms. Harris: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA GENE, Thank you for providing the inform April 29, 1991. Subsequent to its have the following comments: Waste Management GENERALCOMMENT: GENERAL. -PLAN The Los Angeles County Hazardou September 1988w85 approved by February 14, 1989. The General of land uses adjacent to or wit. Pian as potentially suitable.fa facilities. SPECIFIC COMMENTS:' EIR I. Section C, item 3. Water, The first paragraph should pipeline as a potential ru LOS ANGELES OF PUBLIC WORxS WROXTAn-NUE ADDRESS ALLCORRESPO.YDENCE T6 P.o.eox "W ALHAKSRA. CALIFORNIA 91&01-1464 P-6 A NEKr PEASE WIN TO DILE: PLAN tion requested in our letter dated receipt, we reviewed the information and Waste Management Plan dated Ie City Of Santa Clarita on Ilan should address the compatibility In the general areas designated in the off-site hazardous waste management ronmental Setting (page 13) the City Of Los Angeles, Owens Valley e and flooding source. 2. Section C, Item 3, Water, Dr inage and Flooding e 14 The Report should recognize the existence Of aStoarmwater/Urban Drainage 'Water duality Permi issued by the State and the EPA. runoff with regard to lan This Permit will impact development, drainage controls and off-site d se. 3. ThetReport Should,alsoespeak OfathenStormwater(pernit. and 16) . Ms. Lynn Harris June 17, 1991 Page 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS: GENERAL_ PLAN I. Public Services, Facilities, Storm Drainage Section (page The Plan should also include and its impact on drainage cj W Utilities PF -50) discussion of nsiderations. Element, the Stormwater Permit 2. Safety Element, Hazardous Maerlals (page S-10) The PIan should also include the following sites in the Safety Element as potential ha2ardous sites. These sites are not in the EPA's National Priorities Li¢t: however, significant potential exists. a. Whittaker Corp. (Bermitell owder), 22116 Soledad Canyon Road: Former explosives and fl re manufacturing site now undergoing Closure. Known groundwa;er contamination on-site. Areas were used for disposal of flare manufacturing wastes. b. Newhall Refining Companyl, 22674 N. Clampitt Road: Former oil refinery recently shut down. Now undergoing closure. Residual hydrocarbon waspe may exist on-site. c. JMT Oil Company, Placeriia Oilfield: Formerly operated a C1as 5 inJecttan well for disposal of refinery wastewater. WeRl was suspected to have accepted hazardous waste. Yell (Thompson #5) now capped but still exists. d. HR Textron Inc., 25733 Groundwater Contaminatl e. Glass Seal Corporation, Groundwater contaminati Canyon Road: from former solvent tank leak. 1516 Golden Triangle Road: from.former solvent tank leak. f. Natural Technical System, 20988 West Golden Triangle Road: Testing Of equipment and explosive devices. Soil contamination and damage from illegaldischarge tO watercourses. Undergoing cleanup. 9• Boskovich Farms, 27700. Former settling ponds tests show pesticide ci Scott: !table washing Operation. Recent tion in soils. If you have any questions regardingIthese comments, please contact Mr. Michael J. Schlander of our Wase Management Division at (818) 458-3562. Ms. Lynn Harris June 17, 1991 Page 3 Transportation Plannin CIRCULATION ELEMENT The City's proposed Master Pian of most part, to be similar to the Boa Santa Ciarita Valley Area -Wide Circ with the County's Plan and -to ensur protection in the future, particula limits of the City and its planning recammend.that the following be add irterial Highways (Figure 3) appears, for the 'd of Supervisors' approved Los Angeles County elation Plan. To achieve further consistency the proper coordination of right-of-way 'ly in the areas between the.,jurisdictional area Jboundary (sphere of influence), we Highway Classifications which are inconsistent between the Cit and the Count Highway Limits CI ty County Bouquet Cyn Rd Horth City Limit / Limited Secondary Major Vasquez Cyn Rd� Bouquet Cyn Rd Vasquez Cyn Rd/ Angeles Nation 1 Forest Limited Secondary Secondary Copperh111 Vrive MCBean Parkway/ Major Secondary Bouquet Cyn Rd MCBean Parkway SR-126/Copperhil Drive Secondary Major Pico Cyn Rd Valencia Blvd/Th Old Road Secondary Major Placerita Cyn Rd Sierra Hwy/Sand Fyn Rd Limited Secondary Secondary No description of these Highways a in the City's proposed Master Plan Circulation Element. Hilt hwal Golden Valley Rd Jakes May Avenue Tibbets rovided in the text, but they -are shown Arterial Highways, Figure 3 of the Limits SR-14/Piacerita Cyn Rd Sierra Highway/Lost Cyn Rd Rye Cyn Rd/McBean Parkway Ms. Lynn Harris June 17; 1991 Page 4 s approved PVan. but rfet Rheum nn rtia rtr.,l Hi_ ghway Limits Classification "A" Street Poe Parkway/v lends Blvd _ Secondary Backer Road The Old Rd/Ca taic Road Major Biscailu2 Road Interstate 5/gastaic Road Secondary Camino Del Valle (Sloan Cyn Rd) Parker Rd/ I- Secondary Canyon Park Blvd • Sierra Hvy/Lot Cyn Rd Secondary Castaic Road Backer Road/R¢ute 126 Secondary Davenport Road Easterly of 5jlerra Hwy Secondary Henry Mayo or Magic Mountain Pkwy/The Old Road Limited Secondary Lake Hughes Road I-5/Angeles NIt. Forest Bdry Major Lake Hughes Road Angeles Nat. orest/Planning Area Bdry Limited Secondary Poe Parkway Valencia Blvd McBean Pkwy Secondary Ridge Route Road Lake Hughes Rp/Castaic Care Area Bdry Secondary Ridge Route Road Castaic Core Area 8dry/Templin Hwy Limited Secondary Sand Cyn Rd (Little Tujunga Rd) Placerita CynlRd/Southerly Planning Aria to Bdry Limited -Secondary The Old Road Backer Rd/Cas is Core Area Bdry Secondary The Old Road SR-126/Backer Road Major The Old Road McBean Pkwy/PJc0 Cyn Rd Major The Old Road Calgrove Bivd�southerly to Major Planning Aria Bdry via Prince ssa SR-14/Lost Cy� Rd Major Via Princessa Lost Cyn Rd/Pjacerita Cyn Rd Limited Secondary Irt addition to the above, the County's approved Plan recognizes the following name change: Ridge Route Road, south of Parker Road, is referred to as Castaic Road. Ms. Lynn Harris June 17, 1991 Page 5 If you have any questions rep Mr. Bruce E. Whitehead of our Traffic/Circulation We recommend the following as it Ing 'hese comments, please contact anspprtatlon Planning Section at (818) 458-4352. Ins to County roadways: ° Provide a Level of Service (LOS) analysis fon the proposed Master Plan of Arterial Highways to insure the circulation system will have adequate capacity at buildout. Provide LOS analyses for the buildout and define a thresh ratio (v/e) beyond which mit intersections. ° Define mitigation measures for buildout which will satisfy th ° Include a Master Plan of standards and an impleme intersections in Tables V and VI at OS designation or volume to capacity on will be required at impacted impacted key intersections at ve designation. 's, which meets Goal 3, including design plan. In addition. we disagree with the pioposed lane widths for the Secondary Highway classification. We recommend a 14' 12'-14'-12'-14' tconfiguration far the Urban Secondary classification, andia 14'-13'-14'-13'an-1ge, lane configuration for the Suburban Secondary classification, If you have any questions regardinglthese comments, please contact the Traffic Studies Unit of our Traffic and Lighting Division at (818) 458-5909. If you have any questions regarding this Department, please contact Ms. or (818) 458-4334. Very truly yours, T. A. TIDEMANSON ,ZRrector of Public Works L L.BL Assistant puty Director Planning Division CRN:aa 3/116-115.1 the environmental reviewing process of Clarice Nash at the.letterhead address Michael Brandmans1c fates June 25, 1991 n Pironrlu Planning Carl L. Blum Assistant Deputy Director Planning Division County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works P.O. Box 1460 Alhambra, California 91502-1460 Dear Mr. Blum: Thank you for your comments on the City of Santa Clarita Draft General Plan and.DEIR. It was received after the public comment period which closed on May 13, 1991. While the Response to Comments on the DEIR has been completed, we feel your letter requires review and response. Waste Management: General Plan The Safety Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan discusses the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CoHWMP). The CoHWMP identifies industrially zoned areas within the City of Santa Clarita that could potentially serve as hazardous waste disposal sites if safety and design criteria are met. The CoHWMP does not identify specific sites for disposal. The City of Santa Clarita, as stated in Policy 5.1 of the Safety Element, will work with responsible. agencies to determine compliance with siting criteria, including land use compatibility, when a specific site is proposed. Specific Comments: EIR 1. The reference to the Owens Valley pipeline has been added to page 14 of the Final EIR. 2. The Stormwater/Urban Drainage Water Quality Permit reference has been added to page 15 of the Final EIR. 3. T'he fifth mitigation measure "Policies 7.1 through 7.3 to cooperate with federal, state. and regional water resource planning programs and regulations..." covers the Stormwater Permit. No specific programs or regulations are listed in the General Plan or mitigation measures. However, the policies and mitigation measures include all programs, regulations, and permits required by law. cv: _ ail „ „ ..3 b, h So::;.. h.nr `-�c.. .:e 6i,�. 1_os Ar..::,>. C:. �+:rue d.-::� 1 _1 i 16_ -4�,. + ` Mr. Carl L Blum June 25, 1991 Page Two Specific Comments: General Plan 1. A description of the Stormwater/Urban Drainage permit has been added to page PF -6 of the General Plan's Public Service, Facilities, and Utilities Element. 2. The potential hazardous materials sites noted in the letter have been included in the General Plan description of hazardous sites within the planning area on page S-12. With respect to your comments on the Circulation Element and the inconsistencies between the City and the County classification we do not concur with the implied suggestion that the City change the classifications to meet the Countys. Descriptions of the highways which you indicate are not necessary since the general description of their classification is already given. Your letter also mentions comments with respect to Traffic/Circulation as they pertain to County roadways. We concur with the additional comments and will add them to the Circulation Element in the appropriate location. With respect to your comments regarding the proposed lane widths for Secondary Highways, we do not concur, nor do we concur with your comments for Suburban Secondary classification. Thank you for your responses. If your comments had been more timely, we would have been able to discuss our responses with you in person. Should you have any questions, please call me at (213) 622-4443. JN0720NNO2 ices cc: Ms. Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development INSERT FOR GENERAL PLAN PER LACO LEITER Page S-12, before heading "Hazardous Waste": In addition, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works has identified seven other potential hazardous sites. These sites do not appear on the EPA National Priorities List; however, significant potential for hazards exists. Whittaker Corporation, a manufacturer of Bermite powder, is located at 22116 Soledad Canyon Road. The site of a former explosives and flare manufacturer, the Whittaker Corp. is now undergoing closure. There is known groundwater contamination on site and some areas were used for disposal of flare manufacturing wastes. Newhall Refining Company, located at 22674 North Clampitt Road, is a former oil refinery which is now undergoing closure. Residual hydrocarbon waste may exist on site. JMT Oil Company, at the Placenta Oilfield, formerly operated a Class 5 injection well for disposal of refinery wastewater. The well (Thompson #5) was suspected to have accepted hazardous waste. It is now capped, but still exists. HR Textron, Inc., located at 25733 Rye Canyon Road, has groundwater contamination from a former solvent tank leak. Glass Seal Corporation, located at 21516 Golden Triangle Road, has groundwater contamination from a former solvent tank leak. Natural Technical Systems tests equipment and explosive devices at 20988 West Golden Triangle Road. There is evidence of soil contamination and damage from illegal discharge to watercourses. The site is currently undergoing cleanup. Boskovich Farms is the location of former settling ponds from a vegetable washing operation at 27700 Avenue Scott. Recent tests show pesticide contamination in the soils. Insert: page PF -6. Add to 2nd full paragraph at s In addition, Stormwater/Urban Drainage Water Quality Permits, issued by the State and the EPA, may be required, which could impact development, drainage controls, and off-site runoff. claritAltrsmeMlacoin • NOISE ELEMENT State law„Government Code Section 65302(f), requires that the general plan shall include a Noise Element which identifies and appraises. noise problems in the community. It must recognize the guidelines adopted by the State Office of Noise Control. Finally, it must analyze and quantify the current and projected noise levels for all of the following: • Highways and freeways. • Primary arterials and major local streets. • Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems. • Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport operations, aircraft overflight, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation. • Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards. • • Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. Santa Clarita residents are exposed to a wide range of noises that are common in urbanized environments. Major noise sources in the City include automobiles, trucks, and trains. Much of the traffic noise comes from the major roads in the City and the adjacent freeways. Train noise along areas parallel and next to railroad tracks also are affected. Stationary noise sources within the City may also generate noises that affect nearby uses. Stationary noise sources can include a wide range of recreational, commercial, and business activities. ' is •Jl!- : Y � � 1 There is a basic, yet important, distinction between sound and noise. Sound is anything that is or can be heard. Noise is unpleasant or unwanted sound. • Sound is produced when an action (e.g., a clap of the hands, a running engine) causes air pressure to vibrate in all directions around the source. When people hear sounds, they are actually City of Santa Clarita N-1 6/15/91 Noise Element detecting the changes in air pressure on their eardrums. This action is similar to throwing a stone • into a pond. The stone produces waves, or vibrations, which are carried to the edge of the pond. Each person's interpretation or perception of sound may differ, depending on the person's sensitivity and the time of day. Most people are more sensitive to sound late at night. Often, sounds that would not bother people during the day will bother them later at night. Before the existing noise environment can be described, a number of terms need to be explained. The most common terms used in defining noise are discussed in the following paragraphs. DECIBEL (dB) Loudness is the most common measure of sound. The decibel (dB) is the standard unit used for measuring the intensity and level of sound and noise. The decibel measures the one-time occurrence of a particular sound. A decibel is the unit measuring sound pressure level. Decibels are measured logarithmically in a similar manner to the Richter scale which measures the magnitude of earthquakes. A -WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (dBA) An A -weighted sound level is the sound pressure level in decibels, as measured on a sound level meter using the A -weighting filter. network. The A -weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear, and provides good correlation with subjective reactions to noise. The decibel scale commonly ranges form 0 to 180 dBA, where 0 dBA is the threshold of hearing, while physical discomfort begins at 110 dBA. At 130 dBA, the threshold of pain begins, and at 140 dBA permanent injury to the eardrums is possible. The decibel scale is designed so that an increase on the scale represents a tenfold (logarithmic) increase in sound energy and an approximate doubling of perceived loudness. For example, a kitchen dishwasher in the next room may produce a sound level of 50 dB (relatively quiet), and a garbage disposal may produce sounds approaching 80 dBA (fairly loud). Exhibit N-1 describes and compares the relative loudness of various noise sources as measured in dBA. City of Santa Clarita N-2 6/25/91 Noire Element EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVEL (Leq) The Leq is the average of the sound energy level for a 1 -hour period, whereas the CNEL and Ldn measure sound over a 24-hour time period. Both the CNEL and the Ldn are based on twenty- four 1 -hour Leq measurements which are weighted to account for more sensitive time periods. COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL) A CNEL is average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24-hour day. CNEL measurements are broken down into three weighted time periods. In the daytime, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., no dB are added. In the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.), the sound level is obtained after the addition of 5 dB, and at night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), the sound level is obtained after the addition of 10 dB. The 5 and 10 decibel penalties are.applied to account for increased noise sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours. The CNEL represents the daily energy noise exposure averaged on an annual basis. It is not measured, but computed. The State of California uses the dB CNEL noise index to relate community noise exposure to compatibility criteria. Typically, minor roadways do not generate sufficient noise to create a 65 dB CNEL value off the roadway, while arterials and freeways can create 65 dB CNEL values extending hundreds of feet into adjacent properties. CNEL is the noise metric currently specified in state aeronautics code for evaluation of the noise impact of airplanes. Additionally, CNEL is specified by the state noise insulation standards for new multiple -family dwellings. Local compliance with these standards requires that community noise be specified in terms of CNEL. DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE LEVEL (Ldn) Ldn is the average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring during the nighttime from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The • 10 decibel penalty is applied to account for increased noise sensitivity during the nighttime hours. The Ldn represents the daily energy noise exposure averaged on an annual basis. Where evening City of Santa Clarita N-3 6/25/91 Noise Element sound levels are -not substantial, an Ldn value is generally within 2 dB of a CNEL value. • However, where loud events occur between 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., such as a go-cart or outdoor concert facility, an Ldn value could be well below a CNEL value that applies a 5 dB penalty to that time period. Ldn is measured only during two weighted time periods. Daytime is defined as 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. with no additions of dB. Nighttime is defined as 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and the Ldn sound level is obtained after the addition of 10 dB. Using Ldn rather than CNEL should not result in any significant loss of accuracy. INTERMITTENT NOISE Intermittent.or occasional noise, such as that associated with a stationary noise source (e.g., a generator), sometimes is not loud enough to exceed the CNEL or Leq community noise standards. To account for such intermittent noise, acoustical engineers characterize noise in terms of percent noise level (L percent). The percent noise level is the level exceeded "x"percent of the time during the measurement period. For example, in an area where noise levels exceed 65 dB 90 • percent of the time, the L90 is 65 dB. EFFECTS OF NOISE The noise level in this society has continually increased, due in part to the use of larger and noisier transportation vehicles and to the increase in the number of vehicles. Additionally, the increasing demand of the growing population for better, more convenient transportation facilities, coupled with inadequate noise control measures to buffer residential and other noise sensitive areas from the noise generated by these facilities, has increased noise impacts. Studies have been performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other public and private organizations to determine the relationship between particular noise levels and human health. The human response to noise has been varied and complex. Noise has been found to have effects in the following areas: (1) physiological, (2) psychological, (3) behavioral, and (4) subjective. • City of Santa Clat*a N-4 6/25/91 Noise Element • PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS Physiological effects may be temporary or more enduring and permanent. A loud, sudden noise may cause only a startled reaction (increased heart rate) or a momentary hearing loss, while louder and longer sound can be more harmful. Exposure to sufficient levels of noise for long periods of time can produce temporary or permanent hearing loss. However, sound levels normally must exceed 80 dBA for sustained periods before hearing loss occurs. The greater or longer the exposure, the greater the potential for hearing loss. Additional physical effects beyond increased heart beat and temporary or permanent hearing loss include blood vessel constriction, dilation of the pupils, paling of the skin, headaches, muscle tension, nausea, insomnia, and fatigue. PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS As with physiological effects, psychological effects may be temporary or more enduring and ,permanent. Prolonged physiological effects can cause, contribute, or translate into psychological effects. For instance, if a physiological effect of fatigue or insomnia is present, it could quite easily 40. translate into anger, anxiety, and even hallucinations. • The psychological effects, of noise include interference with sleep. Excessive exposure may also cause symptoms of anxiety, anger, vertigo, and hallucinations. BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS Behavioral effects involve interference with everyday activities, such as conversation, watching television, or studying. Loud noise may interrupt the activities or prevent the activities from continuing. Exhibit N-1 indicates that normal conversational speech is in the range of 65 to 70 dBA, and noise above that level can interfere with speech, depending on the distance between speakers. A report published by the EPA states that "continuous exposure to noise levels above 90 dBA appear to have potentially detrimental effects on human performance; especially for tasks requiring intense concentration. City of Santa Clarita N-5 625/91 Noise Element SUBJECTIVE EFFECTS • Subjective effects represent a combination of physiologicaland behavioral impacts. By nature, subjective effects are most difficult to describe because different people react differently to particular noises. For example, a jet airplane flying overhead may disrupt a conversation between two people and cause. momentary hearing loss. One person might term this occurrence as extremely annoying, whereas another person may find it only a mild nuisance. Community reaction surveys have found that prolonged noise levels approaching or above 65 dBA generally disturb a community to the point of vigorous community action directed toward reducing or eliminating the noise source. NOISE AND i.aNn USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Community decision -makers should use available community noise information to ensure that a minimum number of people are exposed to potentially harmful noise sources. To aid decision - makers, several federal and state agencies have established noise/land use compatibility guidelines. • These guidelines, described in the following paragraphs and tables, are all based upon cumulative noise criteria, such as Leq, CNEL, or Ldn. These land uses and compatibility guidelines are illustrated in Exhibit N-2. EN IRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) In March 1954, the EPA published a document entitled Information of Levels of Environmental Force Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Saferi, (EPA 550.9-74-004), which identifies noise level thresholds requisite for protecting human health in both indoor and outdoor environments. According to this publication, 55 Ldn is described as the threshold level with an adequate margin of safety for outdoor activities associated with residential development and recreational. The document and the thresholds are advisory only and not considered standards, specifications, or regulations. City of Santa Clarita N-6 6/25/91 Source: Caltrans Noise Manual, Calif= State Department of Transportation March 1980, Pg. 1-14. Exhibit N-1 Common Noise Levels and Public Reactions %F6..,yl990 U Santa Clarita General Plan NN® City of Santa Clarita PUBLIC REACTION NOISE LEVEL COMMON INDOOR COMMON OUTDOOR • (dBA) NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVELS Rock Band 110 Jet Flyover at 1,000 ft. LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITH 100 Inside Subway Train INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION Gas Lawn Mower at 3 ft. LETTERS OF PROTEST 90 Food Blender at 3 ft. Diesel Truck at 50 ft. COMPLAINTS LIKELY 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 ft. Noisy Urban Daytime Shouting at 3 ft. COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE Vacuum Cleaner at 10 ft. Gas Lawn Mower at 100 ft. 70 Normal Speech at 3 ft. Commercial Area COMPLAINTS RARE 80 Heavy Traffic at 300 ft. Large Business Office 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Daytime • ACCEPTANCE Nighttime 40 Small Theater Conference Quiet Urban Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime Library 30 Bedroom at Night Concert Hall (Background) Quiet Rural Nighttime 20 Broadcast and Recording Studio 10 0 Threshold of Hearing Source: Caltrans Noise Manual, Calif= State Department of Transportation March 1980, Pg. 1-14. Exhibit N-1 Common Noise Levels and Public Reactions %F6..,yl990 U Santa Clarita General Plan NN® City of Santa Clarita • LJ LEGEND NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal ' conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be under. taken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conven- tional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. ME NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design, CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINATION OF NOISE -COMPATIBLE LAND USE A. NORMALIZED NOISE EXPOSURE INFORMATION DESIRED Where Sufficient data exists, evaluate land use suitability with respect to a 'normalized" value of CNEL or L,,. Normalized values are obtained by adding or subtracting the constants described In Table 1 to the measured or calculated value of CNEL or L,,. B. NOISE SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS The land use -noise compatibility recommendations should be viewed in relation to the specific source of the noise. For example, aircraft and railroad noise Is normally made up of higher single noise events than auto traffic but occurs less frequently. Therefore, different sources yielding the same composite noise exposure do not necessarily create the same noise environment. The State Aeronautics Act uses 65 dB CNEL as the critenon which airports most eventually meet to protect existing residential communities from unacceptable exposure to aircraft noise. In order to facilitate the purposes of Ne ACL one of which is to encourage land uses compatible with the 65 dS CNEL criterion wherever Possible. and in order to facilitate the ability of airports to comply with the Act, residential uses located In Community Noise Exposure Areas greater than 65 dB should be discouraged and considered located within normally unacceptable areas. C. SUITABLE INTERIOR ENVIRONMENTS One objective of locating residential units relative to a known noise source is to maintain a suitable interior noise environment at no greater than 45 dB CNEL of L,; This requirement, coupled with the measured or calculated noise reduction performance of the type of structure underconsideration, should govern the mini. mum acceptable distance to a noise source. D. ACCEPTABLE OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS Another consideration, which in some communities is an overriding factor, is the desire for an acceptable outdoor noise environment. When this is the case, more MStriamestandardsforland usecompalibility, typically below the maximumcon. sidered "normally acceptable" for that land use category, maybe appropriate. SOUr : C8lilmnia DepaeneW W NeaM. Guidelires brine Pmpmalun"CMIem W NWse Elemems W The General Plan, Febuary.lgn Exhibit N-2 Noise and Land Use Compatability Guidelines AO �x,MT.x <<'i Fe6mary 1990 - Santa Clarita General Plan NNN - Ci o Santa Clarita COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE Lap OR CNEL, dB LAND USE CATEGORY 55 60 65 70 75 80 RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, MOBILE HOMES ».L.... RESIDENTIAL -MULTIFAMILY I I TRANSIENTLODGING- _ MOTELS, HOTELS SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES AUDITORIUMS, CONCERT HALLS, AMPHITHEATRES r SPORTS ARENA, OUTDOOR I SPECTATOR SPORTS PLAYGROUNDS. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS GOLF COURSES,RIDING STABLES, WATER RECREATION, CEMETERIES OFFICE BUILDINGS, BUSINESS COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL i T INDUSTRIAL, S RAL, MANUFACTURING '',>r,>... UTILITIES, AGRICULTURE � LEGEND NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal ' conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be under. taken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conven- tional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. ME NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design, CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINATION OF NOISE -COMPATIBLE LAND USE A. NORMALIZED NOISE EXPOSURE INFORMATION DESIRED Where Sufficient data exists, evaluate land use suitability with respect to a 'normalized" value of CNEL or L,,. Normalized values are obtained by adding or subtracting the constants described In Table 1 to the measured or calculated value of CNEL or L,,. B. NOISE SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS The land use -noise compatibility recommendations should be viewed in relation to the specific source of the noise. For example, aircraft and railroad noise Is normally made up of higher single noise events than auto traffic but occurs less frequently. Therefore, different sources yielding the same composite noise exposure do not necessarily create the same noise environment. The State Aeronautics Act uses 65 dB CNEL as the critenon which airports most eventually meet to protect existing residential communities from unacceptable exposure to aircraft noise. In order to facilitate the purposes of Ne ACL one of which is to encourage land uses compatible with the 65 dS CNEL criterion wherever Possible. and in order to facilitate the ability of airports to comply with the Act, residential uses located In Community Noise Exposure Areas greater than 65 dB should be discouraged and considered located within normally unacceptable areas. C. SUITABLE INTERIOR ENVIRONMENTS One objective of locating residential units relative to a known noise source is to maintain a suitable interior noise environment at no greater than 45 dB CNEL of L,; This requirement, coupled with the measured or calculated noise reduction performance of the type of structure underconsideration, should govern the mini. mum acceptable distance to a noise source. D. ACCEPTABLE OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS Another consideration, which in some communities is an overriding factor, is the desire for an acceptable outdoor noise environment. When this is the case, more MStriamestandardsforland usecompalibility, typically below the maximumcon. sidered "normally acceptable" for that land use category, maybe appropriate. SOUr : C8lilmnia DepaeneW W NeaM. Guidelires brine Pmpmalun"CMIem W NWse Elemems W The General Plan, Febuary.lgn Exhibit N-2 Noise and Land Use Compatability Guidelines AO �x,MT.x <<'i Fe6mary 1990 - Santa Clarita General Plan NNN - Ci o Santa Clarita Noise Element • FEDERAL HIGIIIVAY ADMINISTRATION (FIIWA) The FHWA has adopted and published noise abatement criteria for highway construction projects. The FHWA noise abatement criteria establishes an exterior noise goal for residential land uses of 67 Leq. The interior goal for residences is 52 Leq. The criteria apply to private yard areas and assume that typical wood frame houses with open windows provide a 10 dB noise reduction (outdoor to indoor) and a 20 dB noise reduction with the windows closed. STATE OF CALIFORNIA The State of California has adopted noise standards in areas not preempted by the federal regulations. The California Sound Transmission Control Standards are found in California Administrative Code, Title 25, Building Standards, Chapter 2.5, as adopted March 1, 1986. The purpose of the standards is to establish minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single- family dwellings. The standards specify that interior noise levels, with windows closed, which are • attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed an annual noise level of 45 dB CNEL in any habitable room. Residential buildings or structures within a 60 dB CNEL exterior noise environment, where noise levels are caused by airport, vehicular, or industrial noise sources, are required to have acoustical analyses prepared indicating that the proposed buildings have been designed to limit background interior noise to the allowable 45 dB CNEL level. In 1976, the State Office of Noise Control (Department of Health) published a recommended noise/land use compatibility matrix. This matrix (Exhibit N-2), indicates that residential land uses and other noise sensitive receptors generally should locate in areas where outdoor ambient noise levels do not exceed 65 to 70 dBA (CNEL or Ldn). This. compatibility matrix is not mandatory; however, the State Department of Housing and Community Development has established mandatory noise guidelines for multiple -family residential construction. New multiple -family units cannot be exposed to outdoor ambient noise levels in excess of 65 dBA (CNEL or Ldn), and sufficient insulation must be provided to reduce interior ambient levels to 45 dBA. Office buildings and business and professional land uses are acceptable • in areas of 65 dB Ldn or less and are normally acceptable in areas exposed to 65-75 dB Ldn. In City of Santa Clarita N-7 625/91 Noise Element industrial areas, noise level of up to 75 dB are normally acceptable. Conditionally acceptable noise • levels range from 70 to 80 dB. �.�1��IM1►IeZtlM�Li]�y;�t1:L_alA.�f`►C�Ify��1►►'tt313`►luiot►Y1 Vehicular traffic is one of the dominant noise sources in the City of Santa Clarita and the planning area. Existing traffic noise along the major roadways was calculated using the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). This model was modified to generate CNEL values. Model input data was derived from the traffic consultant; and from field observations which included average daily traffic levels, day/night percentages of autos, medium and heavy trucks, vehicle speeds, ground attenuation factors, and roadway widths. EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVEL (Leq) The Leq is the average of the sound energy level for a 1 -hour period, whereas the CNEL and Ldn measure sound over a 24-hour time period. Both the CNEL and the Ldn are based on twenty- • four 1 -hour Leq measurements which are weighted to account for more sensitive time periods. INTERMITTENT NOISE Intermittent or occasional noise, such as that associated with a stationary noise source (e.g., a generator), sometimes is not loud enough to exceed the CNEL or Leq community noise standards. To account for such intermittent noise, acoustical engineers characterize noise in terms of percent noise level (L percent). The percent noise level is the level exceeded "x" percent of the time during the measurement period: For example, in an area where noise levels exceed 65 dB 90 percent of the time, the L90 is 65 dB. RESULTS OF NOISE SURVEY A noise study was conducted by Michael Brandman-Associates, Inc. (MBA) in July 1989, to document the existing noise environment in the City. This analysis consisted of three primary tasks: (1) identification of noise sensitive land uses, such as schools, hospitals, etc...; (2) measuring City of Santa Clarita N-8 6/25/91 Noise Element • noise levels at selected locations in the City; (3) computerized modeling of ambient traffic noise levels along major roadways in the City; and (4) mapping of noise contours along existing major roadways and rail lines. Results of the survey are shown in Table N-1. For example, Lmax is the maximum level of noise in the time period. L90 is the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time, L50 is the level exceeded 50 percent of the time, L33 is the level exceeded 33 percent of the time, and L10 is the level exceeded 10 percent of the time. L90 represents the background or minimum noise level, L50 represents .the average noise level, and L10 represents the peak or intrusive noise levels. When the noise levels are consistent, L50 is equivalent to the Leq. The locations surveyed contained predominantly noise -sensitive land uses, such as schools, a library, a hospital, a church, and residences, including single-family units, condominiums, and apartments. U • City of Santa Clarita N-9 6/25/91 Noise Element TABLE N-1 NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY RESULTS Noise Location Number Locatio jz= JJD U3 1.10 Im 1 24709 Hazelcrest (residence) west of Interstate 5 and Lyons Avenue 67.5 785 71.0 66.0 64.5 61.5 2 Wiley Canyon School- southwest comer Wiley Canyon Road and La Glorita 58.0 67.0 60.5 58.5 57.0 54.0 3 Peachland Elementary - southwest comer Peachland Avenue and Happy Valley Street 525 64.5 55.5 515 50.0 47.0 4 St. Stephens Church -Orchard Village Road, north of Lyons • Avenue 59.0 75.0 62.0 58.0 56.0 50.5 5 William S. Hart High School -- northwest comer Newhall Avenue and Oak Street 575 70.0 61.0 56.5 54.5 495 6 Southwest Comer Wiley Canyon Road and Orchard Village Road (condominiums) 61.0 71.5 64.0 60.5 59.0 545 7 Henry Mayo Hospital -- northwest comer Orchard Valley Road and McBean Parkway 56.0 66.0 59.5 56.0 54.5 52.0 8 Masters College --southwest comer Placenta Canyon Road and Meadview Avenue 59.0 71.5 63.0 57.5 55.0 48.5 is City of Santa Clarita N-10 625/91 • Noise Element TABLE N-1 (continued) City of Santa Clarita N-11 625191 Noise Location umbe Locatio jsq nm LID 7.13 L54 9 22900 Circle J Ranch (apartments) --east of San Fernando Road 66.0 79.0 68.5 66.0 64.5 61.5 10 Southeast corner of Bouquet Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road (commercial center) 64.0 79.5 66.0 63.5 62.0 58.0 I` 11 Goldcrest Drive -south of Valencia Boulevard . (residences) 62.0 70.5 65.0 62.5 61.0 57.5 12 Magic Mountain Gift Shop -- southwest comer Magic Mountain Parkway and The Old Road 68.5 84.5 70.5 67.5 66.0 63.0 13 Santa Clarita Elementary School --northwest Comer Seco Canyon Road and Decoro Drive 64.0 73.5 67.5 65.0 63.5 57.5 14 Saugus High School north of Bouquet Canyon Road 53.5 64.0 54.5 53.5 53.0 51.0 15 Sierra Vista Junior High -- northwest comer Whites Canyon Road and Stillmore Street 57.5 82.5 56.0 54.0 52.5 48.5 16 Canyon Country Public Library 18536 Soledad Canyon Road 68.5 79.0 71.0 69.0 67.5 62.5 17 Mitchell Community Elementary School -northwest comer Winterdale Drive and Goodvale Road 47.0 60.5 49.5 46.5 45.5 43.0 18 Valley View Elementary School -northwest comer Sierra Estates Drive and • Friendly Valley Parkway 47.5 60.5 50.5 48.0 46.5 43.0 City of Santa Clarita N-11 625191 Noise Element TABLE N-1 (continued) Noise Location Number Location J LMM LO 7.33 19 Polynesian Mobilehome Park -- northwest comer San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway 1 65.5 76.0 69.0 65.5 Exhibit N-2 indicates that 60 dB is the maximum noise level normally acceptable for low density single-family homes and mobilehome parks. All of the residential areas surveyed are above the 60 dB level. However, all are at or below the FHWA standard of 67 dB. The first residential area in Table N-1 is exposed to noise from I-5. In late 1989, the homes had not reached total occupancy. Therefore, additional traffic in the neighborhood may occur and cause the current background noise level. of 67 dB to rise above the acceptable standard. While the other two residential areas fall below the 67 dB standard, the residents of those areas are also exposed to . noise levels which exceed the recommended standard of 60 dB. Residential areas which are multiple -family residential land uses are subject to a standard of 65 dB. The residents of the condominiums are exposed to levelsbelow 65 dB,"while the residents of the apartments are exposed to a level of 66 dB. In addition, the apartments are located close to the Southern Pacific rail lines, which subjects them to even higher noise levels at times. The noise levels at all the elementary, junior, and senior high schools surveyed fall below the acceptable level of 65 dB. However; students and teachers of Santa Clarita Elementary School are exposed to a noise level of 64.0 dB, which is only slightly below the acceptable level. The one land use which is clearly above acceptable levels is the Canyon Country Public Library on Soledad Canyon Road. The noise level at the library is 68.5 dB, and reaches a maximum Leq of 79.0 dB, which is considered clearly unacceptable. Noise levels at the hospital, church, and commercial areas are all within acceptable levels for those land uses. • City of Santa Claritp N-12 6/25/91 Noise Element • ROADWAY NOISE STUDY The dominant noise source in Santa Clarita is roadway traffic from I-5 and SR -14, which border the City to the west and east, respectively, as shown in Table N-2. Additional roadway traffic noise occurs from several streets, including Valencia Boulevard (east/west), San Fernando Road (north/south), Bouquet Canyon Road (northeast/southwest), Seco Canyon Road (north/south), Soledad Canyon Road (east/west), and Sierra Highway (northeast/southwest). The Southern Pacific rail lines, which run through the City represent an added noise source in the area. Noise levels along the City roadways are affected by several traffic characteristics. These factors include the average daily traffic (ADT), the percentage of trucks, vehicle speed, the time distribution of traffic, and the gradient of the road. As previously discussed, the noise level of 65 dB for residential and other noise -sensitive land uses is generally the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable noise environments. CNEL levels along all these roadways are above 65 dB, with some exceeding 70 dB. Very few residential • land uses exist along these roadways. However, along Seco Canyon Road, north of Bouquet Canyon Road, there are homes exposed to a CNEL of 70.60 dB, which exceeds the standard. There are also homes directly behind commercial areas. Along San Fernando Road, northwest of Sierra Highway, and Bouquet Canyon Road, east of Seco Road, the homes must be beyond 202.9 and 317.0 feet (respectively) from the centerline of the road to achieve the acceptable noise Noise levels along Sierra Highway, I-5 and SR -14 reach noise levels between 73.88 and 78.51 dB. This level is only acceptable for land uses which contain industrial, manufacturing, and agricultural uses or contain golf courses, riding stables, water recreation sites, and cemeteries. The land uses along these roadways are compatible with these noise levels. City of Santa Clarita N-13 6/25/91 Noise Element City of Santa Clarita N-14 6/25/91 • • • TABLE N-2 EXISTING ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS DISTANCE (IN FEET) TO CNEL FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINES Roadway Segment 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNE 55 CNE L 50 FEET Interstate 5 south of Lyons Ave. 607.4 1,9153 6,054.4 19,143.4 7851 Lyons Avenue east of Interstate 5 0.0 144.9 453.3 1,432.0 68.20 east of Valley St. 57.1 168.2 527.7 1,667.1 68.86 McBean Parkway east of Interstate 5 52.3 161.9 511.0 1,615.4 69.30 Valencia Boulevard east of Interstate 5 75.3 235.8 744.7 2,354.6 70.94 west of San Fernando Rd. 112.3 348.8 1,100.9 3,480.4 72.06 Orchard Village Road south of McBean Parkway 0.0 138.1 431.7 1,3633 67.99 San Fernando Road northwest of Sierra Highway 65.0 202.9 640.8 2,026.0 70.29 northwest of Newhall Road 93.9 295.0 932.3 2,947.7 71.29 Bouquet Canyon Road north of Soledad Canyon Road 149.9 463A 1,461.9 4,621.4 72.83 east. of Seco Canyon Road 102.4 317.0 1,000.1 3,1615 71.64 Seco Canyon Road north of Bouquet Canyon Road 81.7 249.7 786.9 2,487.3 70.60 Soledad Canyon Road west of Whites Canyon Road 88.7 272.4 858.9 2,715.1 70.98 west of Sierra Highway 168.7 524.2 1,654.6 5,230.9 73.37 east of Sand Canyon Road 74.7 233.9 738.9 2,336.3 70.91 State Route 14 east of Sand Canyon Road 378.6 1,194.9 3,777.6 11,944.4 77.32 north of Placenta Canyon Road 516.9 1,631.0 5,156.0 16,303.0 78.20 City of Santa Clarita N-14 6/25/91 • • • Noise Element The goals and policies of the Noise Element are a direct result of the findings of noise survey which was conducted and the requirements of state law. The four goals and accompanying policies will be used to guide the City in implementing appropriate ordinances, adjusting land uses, designing future roadways, and other related items which have a direct or indirect affect upon the noise environment. Noise Level Control Standards GOAL 1: To protect the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Santa Clarita and the planning area by the elimination, mitigation, and prevention of significant existing and future noise levels. Policle 1.1 nttnue tt _rntpleiaent a noise ordinance for the City of Santa Clarita compatible with state and federal standards, which establishes noise impact thresholds for noise abatement and attenuation in order to reduce potential health hazards associated with high noise levels. • 1.2 Include noise impact considerations in land use planning decisions. 13 Control noise sources adjacent to residential, recreational, and community facilities, and those land uses classified as noise sensitive land uses. 1.4 Monitor and update data and information regarding current and projected noise levels, in the planning area. Reduction of Noise From Traffic GOAL 2: To prevent and mitigate adverse impacts of traffic generated noise on the residents of the City and the planning area. Policie.: 2.1 Implement standards and programs designed to reduce noise impacts from transportation noise sources within the planning area. 2.2 Encourage existing and requi future noise sensitive land uses to construct sound barriers to protect against significant noise levels, where appropriate and feasible. 23 Where appropriate, work with Caltrans so that sound walls are constructed along Interstate 5 and State Route 14 in the immediate vicinity of residential and other noise sensitive developments where setbacks and other sound • alleviation devices do not exist. City of Santa Clarita N•15 6/25/91 Noise Element 2.4 Reduce significant noise levels related to through -traffic in residential areas by promoting subdivision circulation designs to contain a hierarchy of streets which efficiently direct traffic to highways. 2.5 Encourage employers to develop vanpool and other demand management programs to reduce trip -generated noise in the planning area. 2.6 Work with local transit agencies to improve and expand current public transit services and routes to reduce trip -generated noise. 2.7 Require public transit.agencies to properly maintain their equipment to avoid generating excessive noise levels. 2.8 Enforce the California Vehicle Code standards for control of noise due to mufflers and modified exhaust systems. Noise Reduction in Residential Neighborhoods GOAL 3: To prevent and mitigate significant noise levels in residential neighborhoods above 60- 65 dBA. Policies: 3.1 Require that developers of new single-family and multi -family residential neighborhoods in areas where the ambient noise level exceeds 60-65 dBA t provide mitigation measures for the new residences to reduce interior noise levels. 3.2 Ensure that special noise sources, such as construction activities, leaf blowers, motorized lawn mowers, garbage collection, truck deliveries, and any other activities which produce significant discernible noise, do not create undue disturbances in residential neighborhoods. 33 Require that those responsible for construction. activities develop techniques to mitigate or minimize the noise impacts on residences, and adopt standards which regulate noise construction activities which may occur in or near residential neighborhoods. Noise Reduction From Commercial and Industrial Activities GOAL 4: To prevent, mitigate, and minimize noise spillover from commercial/industrial uses into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Policle 4.1 Develop, adopt, and enforce a standard for all commercial uses which cause adverse levels of significant discernible ,noise on adjacent residential neighborhoods. 4.2 Require appropriate noise buffering between commercial/industrial and i residential land uses. City of Santa Clarita N-16 625/91 Noise Element • 4.3 Establish standards for the control of noise from commercial and entertainment establishments when adjacent to residential land uses. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOISE ELEMENT The City believes in and is committed to the implementation of this plan. Whereas the goals and policies of the plan establish the general framework for future growth and development, actual realization of the plan can only be accomplished through the specific implementing actions that the City subsequently undertakes. The primary tools with which the City should undertake to implement the.Noise Element of the plan include: • A noise ordinance, including provisions to control noise through use of insulation, berms and walls, building design/orientation; buffer yards, and other techniques. • • Code enforcement, including citations to require cessation of excessive noise generating activities. • Detailed noise studies in connection with proposals for habitable buildings in identified high noise areas. • Noise attenuation guidelines for areas adjacent to high noise corridors which incorporate functional and aesthetic features to mitigate roadway noise and enhance the streetscape. • Compliance with the State's noise insulation standards. In addition to the above actions, the City intends to pursue a more exacting implementation program which will be set forth in a separate document and will not be a part of the General Plan. The implementation program will set forth projects, programs, proposed ordinances, and guidelines for development and will include priorities and schedules for the consideration and adoption of these subsequent actions. The implementation program will be a dynamic document containing specific implementations which will be periodically reviewed and updated to reflect changing conditions, needs, and priorities. • City of Santa Clarita N-17 625/91 SaHta elarda Morlgage corporatioN 25375 orchard Vulage FWSte 104 P.O. Box 551visanta oama, CA 91355 (eo5) 253-02m REX HOLLAND President June 24, 1991 Ms. Lynn M Harris. Director Caaamity Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 W Valencia Blvd HAND DESS M D Santa.Clarita, Ca 91355 Dear Ms. Harris: I would first like to thank you and your staff for letting me speak at your meeting last evening at Hart High School regarding my 12 Acres caamrcially zoned parcel located at 23849 The Old Road in NaAaall. I an aware that this parcel is in the county but it does lay within your sphere of influence and will no doubt be annexed into the city when the large parcel directly behind my property (currently owned by Chevron) is acquired by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservency for. the Woodlands State Park. My parcel is the last unused parcel zoned C3 as the state has acquired the parcel sorth of mine and the Church of the Nazarene is on the north The State has identified their parcel on the south and mine as the staging area for the entrance to the park and are eager for supporting caarercial development. A new Post Office facility on 5 acres is just 3 parcels north and will be built in 1992. Additionally serveral large churches and medical hospital users have considered this site for development. The purpose of ary address last evening and the writing of this letter is to state my disapproval of your residential (RVL) designation on the new general plan. I an suggesting you reconsider and place Camunity Caanercial (CC) as it will attract people from beyond the imaediate neighborhood and attracts high%my orienteduses found along high traffic corridors. Thank you again for your consideration. Si/n r lynW , Ric Ho la 24529 Peachland Ave. Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Encl. Map of parcel, vicinity map X39'2. 9.a2s`F 3 co - O R'6G O� w 1 i 0.45ZfAs<<ST> �3 P i 9.�5+,4�8)�t Ac.2w 1 y �Q W vi p 039 95 0 i 0� ' a P 6a9 O POR NE 1/4, N W I/4 SEC IS i 1 2/. 551 Ac. 172 v 13 to ;I jofl 1''r6 f M. 12401- / '1S Feov6 � 3 N1 G7.09 s�.z'af. Ra66 3 38.6/ ! i\ S 1004'58' W. I 6 9.55 T. 3.N., R 116 W. FRWY. N. 89'40'W 4/7.42 STATE co E ' /04 -7SO C- 1 N /. 991 Ac POR.NW 144, NE 1/4SEC 15 M 1 S. f. co, t ��` 0 i 0� ' a P 6a9 O POR NE 1/4, N W I/4 SEC IS i 1 2/. 551 Ac. 172 v 13 to ;I jofl 1''r6 f M. 12401- / '1S Feov6 � 3 N1 G7.09 s�.z'af. Ra66 3 38.6/ ! i\ S 1004'58' W. I 6 9.55 T. 3.N., R 116 W. FRWY. N. 89'40'W 4/7.42 STATE co E ' /04 -7SO C- 1 N /. 991 Ac POR.NW 144, NE 1/4SEC 15 M 1 S. f. co, r � aa•�r aAmlaCa+• r`d` I �iry� �- •Ref QSy : 126 Q R�Proo•' �'0It 9gq.p CsNf }) . salsrna•m Ce a hla(da Valley, 9 scan I. a { i 1M$ �•.• Vii r•� r. S s. ..www i r ..,t..erow ♦ t s Y 'Y Y+aRG.. 3 i wro Sw CYsa Aaa � - P � 1 31 1 1 3 s I t rua$a-: a u®a•'�:-._a a a wy _ 1 a oau�.a :: a uw•\a ._ a um i rm� ' 1 a wwwta:. a tRw.eoar �. i r..a a na•'ra • �; 1 a ar.roR ' a w.qq �-_ a aq i aw.. � r a.•MSR.��•. a Y6aa - i a i N1Y. - I r 1FW i a 4WOR - R • Y.V.. G it •ueuaR .ta.ww w a rwww Ir wur•r - wlavm wm a rua.r. 4 VYa.R a o5R - i • gy.ry. ` Imw d Vpp fs Waal. •:- ,- y bw0 _ _R- • r says" . ♦ noe. O . _ 1 © p f S - MAnirar F' - � • y n. uc.lu'v -9 p 6 ♦ \'eYi wi 01YO11 � / \I L 4 �4 J J �d 1 \ Pa' 6RILpa4 aIenci �I s � ♦ �F ._. - - •Illy, S x — p GGG {k YjS £ i�� IaER LiIO .•t � al.Y fy j6 a e� .;. r ♦i ! g �p � — R► yv- .s 1[ u 'p 4i•u YdGss �.j1 � �' F... �4 un.a• 4 hla(da Valley, 9 scan I. a { i 1M$ �•.• Vii r•� r. S s. ..www i r ..,t..erow ♦ t s Y 'Y Y+aRG.. 3 i wro Sw CYsa Aaa � - P � 1 31 1 1 3 s I t rua$a-: a u®a•'�:-._a a a wy _ 1 a oau�.a :: a uw•\a ._ a um i rm� ' 1 a wwwta:. a tRw.eoar �. i r..a a na•'ra • �; 1 a ar.roR ' a w.qq �-_ a aq i aw.. � r a.•MSR.��•. a Y6aa - i a i N1Y. - I r 1FW i a 4WOR - R • Y.V.. G it •ueuaR .ta.ww w a rwww Ir wur•r - wlavm wm a rua.r. 4 VYa.R a o5R - i • gy.ry. ` Imw d Vpp fs Waal. •:- ,- y bw0 _ _R- • r says" . ♦ noe. O . _ 1 © p f S - MAnirar F' - � • y n. uc.lu'v -9 p 6 ♦ \'eYi wi 01YO11 � / \I L 4 �4 J J �d 1 \ Santa Clarita City Council Santa Clarita City Hall 23920 West Valencia Boulevard Valencia, California 91355 Re: General Plan Amendment Tax Parcel No. 2836-015-004 Owner: James A. Longwell Our Ref. No.: 1-LNGWL-7049-3I Dear Sir: TELEPHONE 18051 948-1618 FAX 15051948-4989 This office represents Jim and Ingeborg Longwell, the owners of Tax Parcel No. 2836-015-004. That property is informally known as the former Glass Seal Property on Golden Triangle Road just east of Golden Oak Road. Mr. and Mrs. Longwell have been residents of Colorado for the last five years and just found out about the pro- posed General Plan amendment yesterday, -June 24, 1991, which is the reason for the last minute nature of this request. Mr. and Mrs. Longwell understand that the General Plan overlay proposes to classify this property as "IC -BP". Mr. and Mrs. Longwell believe that this is not the appropriate designation for this property, and request that the overlay for this DroDerty be changed torr The reason for this is that this property is small (approximately 10 acres) but only about 4 acres is usable in its current state. Therefore, it is unlikely that it could be used for "IC -BD" uses because of lack of parking area and lack of sufficient space to build "IC -BP" compatible struc- tures. In addition, at least on one side, there is an existing "I" use, the American Cyanamid facility, which might by its existence in an "IC -BP" area, discourage any "IC -BP" use for my client's property. If this, in fact is the case, my client's property will be severely devalued as a result. LAW OFFICES OF KESTLER 8 WALSH WILLIAM WALSH IV THOMAS P. KESTLER LANCASTER OFFICE CENTRE ROBERT DILLON 4377015- STREET .WEST SUITE 200 ROBERT T. LEPORE P. O. BOX 4379 MARTIN C. BEESON LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA 93539-4379 TERENCE A. BAIRD PATRICK M. DELANEY BRIAN C. YEP TERRY R. MENEFEE June 25, 1991 Santa Clarita City Council Santa Clarita City Hall 23920 West Valencia Boulevard Valencia, California 91355 Re: General Plan Amendment Tax Parcel No. 2836-015-004 Owner: James A. Longwell Our Ref. No.: 1-LNGWL-7049-3I Dear Sir: TELEPHONE 18051 948-1618 FAX 15051948-4989 This office represents Jim and Ingeborg Longwell, the owners of Tax Parcel No. 2836-015-004. That property is informally known as the former Glass Seal Property on Golden Triangle Road just east of Golden Oak Road. Mr. and Mrs. Longwell have been residents of Colorado for the last five years and just found out about the pro- posed General Plan amendment yesterday, -June 24, 1991, which is the reason for the last minute nature of this request. Mr. and Mrs. Longwell understand that the General Plan overlay proposes to classify this property as "IC -BP". Mr. and Mrs. Longwell believe that this is not the appropriate designation for this property, and request that the overlay for this DroDerty be changed torr The reason for this is that this property is small (approximately 10 acres) but only about 4 acres is usable in its current state. Therefore, it is unlikely that it could be used for "IC -BD" uses because of lack of parking area and lack of sufficient space to build "IC -BP" compatible struc- tures. In addition, at least on one side, there is an existing "I" use, the American Cyanamid facility, which might by its existence in an "IC -BP" area, discourage any "IC -BP" use for my client's property. If this, in fact is the case, my client's property will be severely devalued as a result. Santa Clarita June 25, 1991 Page Two City Council Further, my client has an existing facility which probably would be of little value in an "IC -BP" area, thus causing additional loss. Finally, as you are aware, Golden Triangle Road in this area is geographically isolated between the railroad tracks and the hills behind. Therefore, having an "I" overlay for this area would not be intrusive to the remainder of the community. With these considerations in mind, my clients again request that the City Council grant this property an "I" overlay, rather than an "IC -BP". Thank you for your courtesy in the review and consid- eration of this matter. Very truly yours, RESTLER & WALSH RG:bj cc: James and Ingeborg Longwell JU IN "'. wo I'lu Miliv RG:bj cc: James and Ingeborg Longwell Intormatton-Services l ' I ' it .'' 1.12''' I' 1 a' I' I all Imo' 1.800.527:9663 2836 =15 - SCALE 1 400' SM• . •{ .. ! O .•• 7�71y C>N rs' +'y , b/ , ,,. •'-' yd'IA7 ' tSy w�.fiYlt o/LAG%y,0y+rdrrf i�rOot sSS7 /7Q .2 8BK. 4 77 .8 DETA9L Te X L,+ NO SG\LE epi ")-g.fA✓Ac �� F' _ (OVA !•" ✓ J. yC +iv��Yl 1 �QQQ4pa ,7Ti��_y\�\> j1[F, •1 t .,�L„ .`�r 9 rLf i�1� <Rf� �o Irl\ �.bo • A'�} :I�F-✓1+Zi ~ �a, �. "1� o�� T r 11a.4- 5p s\ It a'� r 7. br'K•' -1 yrr•rt \ 3 l7 , ��: ,y •6 i !>rN =H�•_ 74L 3 1 \ v ��i,,�f , - J ' a *" v.,.�' ; !]t+i. �•- \t i 2 is •." ' .�lJ� ��' •R- � ��?p,"�r� `I'.'S.Ok �,,•� � re ra ✓ f SS,� .sit -so !ir'i�e. Won) n e � ♦✓ ' j1 / m .� ✓� •as3Y1/'Y h-� It3,• 2 h• / O kr \\ �» 3 ll6JJ S �� \~Ic Et' FO uo 1/ A . 12 ,..�Y. ► �® S,pf t'g § rNa•' � F„ 2 S s 7 _ ar 1 U0 Xq • - \\ Y y IL+ \ • J k IZ 3 M � 23 LQOxAr �• 1 m \ 1 N PI cooE 326"-708 326 RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO TRACT NO„38936 708 758 P. 1-521-522 12 M. 8. 1023 — 1 — 2 EOR EEEY As7M7 S[tt , �,., - ,PARCEL• MAP i •/9%N. I toaro. ,971tios'! M, COUNIT OF LOS ANOELE I Stevenson Ranch Master Home Owners Association 23236 Lyons Avenue Suite 204 City of Santa Clarita, CA 91321 City of Santa Clarita June 25, 1991 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 \ City of Santa Clarita, California 91355 f1 RE: Proposed General Plan Dear Councilmembers: A majority of the Board of Directors of the Stevenson Ranch Master Home Owners Association opposes the General Plan in its present state because the General Plan and the environmental document fail to address major concerns of the residents within the Santa Clarita Valley as well as within the city's boundaries. The weaknesses of the plan and the environmental document include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Although the plan provides for a regional shopping center, increased major commercial and industry, and.increased residential development,. the plan and document do not adequately address the broad scale traffic impact caused inside & outside the city boundaries. 2. The plan and environmental document do not adequately address shortages of water and sewer capacity, or growth inducing impacts that will be caused by construction of needed increased capacity. 3. The plan fails to adequately address the state mandate to the city -to provide its fair share of low cost housing. 4. The plan does not acknowledge proposed and existing fire station and school sites or existing agreements provided for such. 5. The plan has inadequate implementation programs to mitigate the affects of air quality, traffic, noise, schools, fire, and sheriff — —services. 6. The plan fails to set forth funding mechanisms to fund essential infrastructure, public services and to assure environmental impact mitigation. 7. The plan and environmental document fail to address the affects development will cause to waters of the United States. 6Ve5y truly yours,�. Vice President WATT INDUSTRIES, INC. P.O. BOX 2114. 2716 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD .SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90406.2114 (2131450-0779. FAX0131452-9134 June 20, 1991 Honorable Members of the City Council City of Santa Clarita City,Hall 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Members: Regarding our properties which are located on Sierra Highway in the Mint Canyon area of Los Angeles County, (Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 2853-006-004, 2813-024-007, 2813-018-002, 28130018- 003,2813-024-004), approximately 1.25 miles beyond the City of Santa Clarita's boundaries, and which total approximately 600 acres; it is our understanding you are currently considering a Land Use policy for this area which would negatively affect the value of our property. We strongly oppose'any proposed change in land use, or change in land use zoning that is inconsistent with the existing zoning implemented by Los Angeles County. We believe that we will suffer great economic loss if the proposed land use policy is adopted and our land annexed into the City. Your proposed zoning for our property appears to be in the interest of only a few by its exclusive nature of one unit per five acres. In a time when new families are finding it more and more difficult toafford their first home; this economic mis-use of land is further denying their ability to do so. We respectfully request that our property be excluded from your Land Use Map so that it may be available for the use of many as opposed to a few. We feel that this area is not similar to, nor a part of the City of Santa Clarita and should remain solely under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles. Respectfully submitted, � n s1'r t.N'rI:RPlzlsl ,rcrnu�\�:� SO& elarita ,Mortgage eorpvratm 25375 Orchard Village Rdarr 1041P.O. Box 5512716anta clarda, CA 913S5!(805) 253 -020D REX HOLLAND President Jane 24, 1991 Ms. Lynn M Harris. Director Co mulity Development City of Sanaa Clarita 23920 W Valencia Blvd HAM DELIVEIED Santa Clarita, Ca 91355 Dear Ms. Rams: I would first like to thank you and your staff for letting me speak at your nreting last evening at Hart High School regarding my 12 Acres ccxrzrercially zoned parcel located at 23849 The Old Road in Nevrtnall. I an aware that this parcel is in the county but it does lay within your sphere of influence and will no doubt be annexed into the city when the large parcel directly behind my property (currently owned by Chevron) is acquired by the Santa Monica Ibuuntains Conservency for the Woodlands State Park. My parcel is the last unused parcel zoned C3 as the state has acquired the parcel scntth of mine and the Cnurch of the Nazarene is on the north. The State has identified their parcel on the south and mine as the staging area for the entrance to the park and are eager for supporting caarercial development. A new Post Office facility on 5 acres is just 3 parcels north and will be built in 1992. Additionally serveral large churches and medical -hospital users have considered this site for develop=. t. The purpose of my address last evening and the writing of this letter is to state my disapproval of your residential Wvi) designation on the new general plan. I am suggesting you reconsider and place Ca,mu7ity Camercial (CC) as it will attract people from beyond the inTmdiate neighborhood and attracts higimay oriented uses found along high traffic corridors. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Rax Ho land 7'y 24529 Peachiannd Ave. Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Encl. Map of parcel, vicinity map ODE -313 I; g0' !' O O '4:66 �O+ Ac. `" V 0.452*As<sr> •33.0 Rr 9S 88:!Ac• I i, /ci 50e39,351 /, i c �h)�h JI689/699 s o\ ° p0 a 6 a0 •- y t 'I 6•a,r��g6.5 � µ i POR NE 1/41 N W 1/4 SEC 15 ii 21 551AC. E ti R F M• /240/_ � c,? "` a.ro� ` >0 y9 R`r> N1l S G/.09 a R r.. IA i2 iso a 338._6/ SV04•S8 W.. J � d cox p T. 3.N.) R'16W. FRWY. /v 88040'w' POR.NW 1/4;�'NE 1/4 SEC 15 Nt m E 4/7.42 STATE O E'/04 -/SOC ry /. 98:t Ac 4/7.42 • ` JNS yrl`� 'Q a 7 Y b 5 i p � �P �� . � �. •ve��Y �'4 q �8e�� 4...y i/ woo j P `04 °�+�, snscPn P Grk.+rM P. W d i G 4 Y i -"'�,„;,,___ •;+mom -. .,s°' SsaW e+a ._ � �. 19 126' 4 -- �a ✓a'HCY Gu•C3Z � gY � ,,1 Sr:I Cn R� l /gyp - 1 o n PY e F 1. w�un n mu.o0a ..a .u.a a PwegO y-`�,p�p S t . vvvv- .' a wnrae a as a as,sv 6AV ftri V r �` - n F F a 1 YWwa.- a noteQ a C a L1.P ID•R4 L YnY,P S " C ,�TA�° ? n i� w.muna n wivm s n.sv s rm P C 6 OA alenclae 77 Y '�'. ^� t F �' '�Wom' • .`: it ' a4 � P F w a z g5:51 It �P 4ary QlOva ♦ _ , P ynaV1 9a - t'„ •� _ t F ma. f a�axi� a"'? • Y mv.,n cs,. ''"F. X;' :e.� Gdsnelo Cao'Al S ••� R.�. •� 9 13 4. j�er[y%4 a vua eM1�, font_, 2 PI CY 4 aM� .4 9 $ Qp O J © _ .. U ��+4' ��•• � ��a �-'L� .F.,,.+naa. i '"'u � •':.-s w, oa•w j I�i. Y p --�. w.weP °" one s. � ' fso-�.'r�✓� sl' Newha l Clarita Valley, "+ x meq , `gyp . ' ur a `' er r .�' 6' ce P sP •f 4v ar d t 153 Crown Valley Rd. •� �- Acton, 0 , , (606)264m166l66, 6 r " '"�- E ' ad and operated • - 1 °"" •• '4 4 y I � l s scan b i J Grade 79 47 Ada i M. Personnel :ITY OF SANTA JiWTA Cannun Itv Building Official' irarTlc anglnner- nnciple Planner rans Econ, Develop, Coord.' Field Mal Engineer Solid N Senior Planner Street Gen Sr Assoc, n�ineer Adam. Asst.• Asst. Traffic Eng.' id No msi EXHIBIT 1 a Parks 3 Park Supervisor/Arborist' Park Supervisor' Park Planning Supervisor' R. Analyst 38 13,531 Coaputer Prog, 1 P.N. Inspector Cade Enforc. Off. Buildlno Insoect. 37 113.447 vehicle Naint. Mechanic Trails Coord. 16 IM53 dale, Aide AW. 1111fiflor 34 13.283 Revenue Collector Rec. Coordinator 33 13,127 Crew Leader Crew Leader 32 83,152 Personnel Tech. Engineer. Aid Exec. Secretary Exec. Secretary Exec. Secretuy Exec, Secretary Buyer Caaouter Oaerator 1391ricitlon9