HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - PREZONE 90 011 ORD 91 2 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
•r
Item to be presented by:
Lynn M. Harris
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: - March 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Prezone No. 90-011
Ordinance 91-2
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND:
Prezone No. 90-011 is a request to prezone approximately 18.9 acres located in
the community of.Canyon Country, south of Sierra Highway, Vista Del Canon, and
Via Princessa from County of Los Angeles RPD -5000-19.8U to City RPD -5000-19.8U
for the purpose of annexation to the City of Santa Clarita. The City of
Santa Clarita is the applicant for this prezone and annexation. The area that
comprises this prezone and annexation represent a potential "County island"
that would occur asa result of the approval of the Price Club prezone and
annexation (Prezone 90-010 and Annexation No. 1990-10).
The developer of the site,. The Anden Group, has agreed to not oppose the
annexation of their project if the City will honor the development approvals
already granted by the County of Los Angeles. The Anden Group has assisted in
efforts to gather resident support and has requested an annexation agreement
to ensure that the existing entitlements and permits approved by the County of
Los Angeles will be honored by the City upon annexation.
On December 18, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P90-58
recommending to the City Council that it approve the request- for a prezone
from Los Angeles County zoning classification RPD -5000-19.8U to City of
Santa Clarita zoning classification RPD -5000-19.8U and certify the Negative
Declaration prepared for Prezone No. 90-011.
Ordinance 91-2 constitutes an amendment.to the Official Zoning Map of the City
of Santa Clarita and would provide the zoning designation of RPD -5000-19.8U
for the purpose of annexation of this site to the City of Santa Clarita. The
proposed ordinance identifies applicable Government Code sections, sets forth
reasons for the prezone, and includes exhibits identifying the site and other
required information.
Al
Agenda Iteinux.-I— -
RECOMMENDATION
Certify the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the
proposed prezoning will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Approve Prezone 90-011, and introduce the attached. ordinance, Ordinance
91-2, waive further reading, and pass to second reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance 91-2
Resolution No, P90-58
PC Staff Report
Negative Declaration
Exhibit A - Legal Description
Exhibit B - Map
DWH:238
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 CUR TA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PREZONE NO. 90-011
A PREZONE OF 18.9 ACRES FROM'LOS ANGELES COUNTY
RPD -5,000-19.8U TO CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RPD -5,000-19.8U GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTHEAST OF SIERRA HIGHWAY, SOUTH OF
VISTA DEL CANON,.SOUTHWEST OF VIA PRINCESSA
AND NORTH OF THE.CITY LIMITS IN CANYON COUNTRY
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita regarding Prezone No. 90-011, a prezone of 18.9
acres from Los Angeles County RPD-5,000-19.SU to City of Santa
Clarita RPD -5,000-19.8U, generally located_ southeast of Sierra
Highway, south of Vista Del Canon, southwest of Via Princessa and
north of the city limits in Canyon Country.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, .Santa Clarita,
the 13th day of March, 1991, at or after 6:30 p.m.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be
heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be
obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office, Santa ,Clarita City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita.
If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Dated: February 15, 1991
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: February 20, 1991
ORDINANCE NO. 91-2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL 20NING MAP
(Prezone No. 90-011)
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated
prezoning of certain properties located in the Canyon Country area prior to
their annexation to the City of -Santa Clarita (Annexation No. 1990-11); and
WHEREAS, such zoning would become effective upon annexation, of the
territory described in Exhibit A and mapped in Exhibit B and designated upon
the Zoning Map incorporated within and made part of Section 22.60.190 of the
City's Planning and Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita City Council did set March 13,
1991, at the hour of 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, as the time and place for
a public hearing before said City Council, and notice of said public hearing
was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, there was no testimony given for or
• against the proposed prezone; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said Prezone was duly heard and
considered.
THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City.* Council of the City of
Santa Clarita as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as
follows:
a. The prezone is a change to City RPD -5000-19.8U zoning
classifications on the properties identified. in Exhibits A and B
prior to their annexation to the City.
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by
affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments
received have been considered. The public review period was
from November 28, 1990, to December 18, 1990.
C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to
Sections 65090 and 65351 of the Government Code of the State of
California were duly followed.
0
Ordinance No. 91-2
Page 2
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any,
received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by
the Planning Commission and the City Council and on their behalf, the City
Council further finds and determines as follows:
a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion with
the preparation of a General Plan. There is a reasonable
probability that this project will be consistent with the
General Plan currently being considered or studied, that there
is little or no probable detriment to, or interference with, the
future adopted General Plan if the proposed resolution is
ultimately inconsistent with that Plan, and that the proposed
project complies with.all other applicable requirements of state
law and local ordinance.
SECTION 3. In acting on the prezoning application, the City Council
.has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as
follows:
a. That a need for the zoning classification of RPD -5000-19.8U does
exist within the area of the subject property; and
b. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning
practice do justify the zoning classification to RPD -5000-19.8U;
and
C. The proposed prezone classsification of RPD -5000-19.8U is
consistent with existing land use in the area and would not
change the existing zoning of the subject site; and
d. The Annexation No. 1990-11 prezoning area consists of
18.91 acres of land in. the Canyon Country area, located east and
north of the existing city limits, and south of Sierra Highway,
Vista Del Canon, Via Princessa, and proposed Annexation of
1990-10, and west of proposed Annexation 1990-10.
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and
considered the Initial Study prepared for the 'project and finds and determines
as follows:
a. Said Initial Study found that no adverse impact to the existing
and future environment of the area would result from the.
proposal; and,
b. The proposed prezone would not have a significant adverse effect
on the environment and the proposed Negative Declaration was
advertised for the City Council on February: 20, 1991, in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
and,
0
Ordinance No. 91-2
Page 3
0
C . The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above,
hereby finds the Negative Declaration is in compliance with CEQA
and it does certify the Negative Declaration prepared for
Prezone No. 90-011 (and Annexation No. 1990-11.)
SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby
ordain that the application for a prezoning is approved, and that the official
zoning map of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby amended so that the subject
property is prezoned RPD-5000-19.BU.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on
the thirty-first day after adoption, or upon the effective date of the
annexation (Annexation No. 1990-11) of the subject property to the City of
Santa Clarita, whichever occurs last.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this
Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law:
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS _ DAY OF 1991.
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
0
MAYOR
Ordinance No. 91-2
Page 4
•
I, ICity Clerk of the City of
Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91-2 was
regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of
the City Council on the day of 1991. That thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
on the day of 1991, by the.following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
DVH:237
0
CITY CLERIC
Exhibit A
PREZONE 90-011
• TO THE CITY OF SANTA CL.ARTTA
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA AS SAME
EXISTED ON AUGUST 9, 1990, SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT
4, TRACT NO. 44328, FILED IN BOOK 1129, PAGES 81 TO 86 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 4, 3, 2.
AND 1 AND THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 TO THE
CENTERLINE OF VIA PRINCESSA; THENCE NORTH 46 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 30 SECONDS
WEST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 139.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 30
SECONDS WEST AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID CENTERLINE 50 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID VIA PRINCESSA; THENCE NORTH 47 DEGREES 42
MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF VIA PRINCESSA TO
THE MOST NORTHERLY POINT OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE IN A SOUTHWESTERLY,
WESTERLY, AND NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY,
NORTHERLY, AND NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, AND 11 OF SAID TRACT
NO. 44328 TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SIERRA HIGHWAY AND SAID
CITY BOUNDARY; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, SOUTHERLY, AND EASTERLY ALONG SAID
CITY BOUNDARY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 18.91 ACRES (0.03 SQUARE MILES)
WRITTEN BY:
Thomas Counts
. DATE PREPARED: AUGUST 9. 1990
0
•
CITY OF SANTA
1"•200,
WI774TW CO. RECORDER
Exhibit B
PREZONE 90-011
-6yZZ'-4lLZANNEXATI0N BDRY.
-- EXIST. CITY BDRY.
PREZONE
90-011
RESOLUTION NO. P90-58
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PREZONE NO. 90-011
WHEREAS, the City of Santa-Clarita has proposed and initiated
prezoning of certain properties located in the Canyon Country area prior
to their annexation to the City of Santa Clarita (Annexation No.
1990-11); and
WHEREAS, such zoning would become effective upon annexation,
described in Exhibit A and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated
within and made.part of Section 22.60.190 of the City's Planning and
Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission did set
December 18, 1990, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the City .Council
Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California,.as the
time and place for a public hearing before said Planning Commission, and
notice of said public hearing was given in the manner required by the
Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, there was no testimony given
for or against the proposed prezone; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said Prezone was duly heard and
considered.
THEREFORE, be it.resolved by the Planning Commission of the City
of Santa Clarita as follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as
follows:
a. The purpose of the prezone is to request the RPD -5000-19.8U
prezoning of the properties identified in Exhibit A prior
to their annexation to the City.
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and
comment by affected governmental agencies and the public,
and all comments received have been considered. The public
review period was from November 28, 1990, to December 18,
1990.
C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant
to Sections 65090 and 65351 of the Government Code of the
State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any,
received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made
by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further
finds and determines as follows:
RESO P90-58
DWH:236
a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of a General Plan. There is
reasonable probability that this project will be generally
consistent with the General Plan currently being
considered, that there is little or no probable detriment
to, or interference with,the future adopted General Plan if
the proposed resolution is ultimately inconsistent with
that Plan, and that the proposed project complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law andlocal
ordinance.
SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained in this resolution,
the Planning Commission has considered certain principles and standards,
and finds and determines as follows:
a. That a need for the prezone to RPD-5000-19.8U.does exist
within the area of the subject property; and
b. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
planning practice justify the prezone classifications of
RPD -5000-19.8U; and
C. That the annexation and prezoning area consists of 18.9
acres of land contiguous to boundary of the City of Santa
Clarita.
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed
and considered the Initial Study prepared for the project and finds and
determines as follows:
a. Said study found that no adverse impact to the existing and
future environment of the area would result from the
proposal.
b. The proposed prezone would not have a significant adverse
effect on the environment and a proposed Negative
Declaration was posted and advertised on November 28, 1990,
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
C. The Planning Commission, based upon the findings set forth
above, hereby finds the Negative Declaration is in
compliance with CEQA and recommends to the City Council
that it certify the Negative Declaration prepared for
Prezone No. 90-011 and Annexation No. 1990-11.
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends to the City
Council that it approve the request for a prezone to the RPD -5000-19.8U
contained in the original proposal.
RESO P90-58
DWH:236
SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution
to the Departments of Public Works, Fire, and .Parks and Recreation, and
shall give notice of this recommendation in the manner prescribed by
Section 22.60.190 of the City's Planning and Zoning Code.
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall expire and approval shall be null and
void if the City Council fails to act on said Prezone and Annexation
within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED thi 18th f December, 1990.
erry Cherrington, Vice Chairman
Planning Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of December, 1990, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners: Modugno, Garasi, Woodrow, Cherrington
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: None
ABSENT: Brathwaite
GJrls.cA-�
LyOA. Harris,/Director
RESO P90-58
DWH:236
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Prezone No. 90-011
DATE: December 18, 1990
TO: Chairman Braithwaite and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
CASE PLANNER: David V. Hogan 6�
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: Located east and north of the existing City limits,
south of Sierra Highway, Vista Del Canon and Via
Princessa.
REQUEST: Prezone from existing Los Angeles County Zoning
(RPD -5000-19.8U) to City Zoning (RPD -5000-19.8U)
for the purpose of annexation of 18.9 acres to the
City of Santa Clarita.
BACKGROUND:
On April 18, 1988, the County of Los Angeles approved LPA (Local Plan
Amendment) 85-016, ZC 85-045,.TTM 44328, CUP 85-132, and OTP 86-129. As a
result of -these approvals, the Anden Group began the development that is
presently occurring on the project site. The approved project consisted
of 362 attached condominium units on eleven lots and two commercial
parcels. The commercial parcels are included as part of Prezone 90-010
and Annexation 1990-10. They are not a part of this prezone.
As of 12/1/90, approximately 125 of 362 units have been completed and an
additional 83 units are under construction. Approximately 40 units are
occupied and there are approximately 80 residents living within the
project. This prezoning would not change the scale, density, or nature of
the approved development.
The City of Santa Clarita is the applicant on this prezone (and
annexation) because Prezone 90-011 (and Annexation 1990-11) represent a
potential "county island" that would occur as a result of the approval of
the Price Club annexation, Annexation No. 1990-10. The owner of the
project site, The Anden Group, has agreed to not oppose the annexation of
their project if the City will agree to honor project development
approvals already granted by the County of Los Angeles.
Staff Report -2 December 18, 1990
Prezone No. 90-011
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposal is to prezone approximately 18.9 acres of developed and
developing residential land from existing Los Angeles County Zoning
(RPD -5000-19.8U) to City of Santa Clarita Zoning (RPD -5000-19.8U) for the
purpose of annexation to the City of Santa Clarita.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The proposed General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita designates this
area as Residential -Moderate (RM). The density range for the RM
designation is 6.7 to 15.0 du/ac. The prezoning as proposed is generally
consistent with designation of the proposed City General Plan.
ZONING AND LAND USE:
The existing zoning and land use on and adjacent to the project site are
as follows.
Direction Land Use Zoning
Project Site Multiple Family Residential RPD -5000-19.8U
North Vacant C-3
East Vacant C-3
South Single Family Residential R-1-9000
West Single Family Residential R-1-9000
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of the State of California
requires environmental evaluation of all annexation prezoning requests.
An Initial Study was prepared and no areas of significant environmental
impact were identified. It has been determined that the proposed
prezoning will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
In accordance with CEQA, a Negative Declaration has been proposed for the
project and was posted and advertised on November 28, 1990.
INTER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW:
Review of the project by City departments and outside agencies did not
result in any significant comments.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed City zoning would not change the allowable use, density, or
the existing development on this site. It has been determined that the
proposed prezone would be consistent with existing and future development
on the site.
MIS
Staff Report -3- December 18, 1990
Prezone No. 90-011
Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the
proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
Recommend approval to the City Council of Prezone No. 90-011 and the
Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect.
Adopt Resolution P90-58 recommending approval of Prezone No. 90-011 to the
City Council and recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Effect prepared for this project.
DYH:235
a �3
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
PERMIT/PROJECT: Prezone 90-011 and Annexation 1990-11
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita MASTER CASE NO: 90-199
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Southeast of Sierra Highway, south of Vista Del
Canon, southwest of Via Princessa in Canyon country, and north of the City
Limits in Canyon Country
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Prezone 18.9 acres from Los Angeles County
RPD -5,000-19.8U to City of Santa Clarita RPD -5,000-19.8U for purposes of
annexation to the City of Santa Clarita
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council
[ ] Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant
effect upon the environment, and recommends that a Negative Declaration be
adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] are not required. [ ] are attached. [ ] are not attached.
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by: David W. Hogan, Assistant Planner
(Sig ture) (Name/Title)
Approved b me go M. Williams Associate Planner
( gnatu ) (Name/Title).
vvvvammm===eemvvvaaaaaamammmmmmmaavaaaammmmmavvaam>ammmvaava==emmmmammv===m
Public Review Period From 11/28/90 To 12/18/90 .
Public Notice Given On 11/28/90 By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
CERTIFICATION DATE:
MASTER CASE NO: 90-199
Project Location: Southe
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Case Planner:
Project Description and Setting:
to City of Santa Clarita RPD -5,000-19.8U and annex (ANX 1990-11) the area
to the City of Santa Clarita
General Plan Designation: Los Angeles County: Urban 4 (15 - 40 du/ac)
Zoning: RPD -5,000-19.8U (Residential Planned Development. 5.000 square
feet per lot 19.8 units ner acre)
Applicant: City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Constraint Areas: None
A.
1.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE. NO
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [ ]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [ .j
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [ ]
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features?...........................6...... [ ]
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ ]
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes; landslides,
mudslides; ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... [ ]
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ ]
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ l
')—/C>
r
- 2 -
YES MAYBE NO
i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... [ ] [ I .[XI
j. Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 251 natural grade? ............ [ ]
k. Development within the Alquist-Yriolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ]
1. Other? [ ]
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
' a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... [ ]
b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ]
c. Alteration of air movement,- moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate, -
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ]
d. Other? [ ]
3. Yater. Vill the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ I l
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. [ ]
C. Change in the amount of surface water .
in any water body? ......................... [ j
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen.or turbidity? ............. [ ]
e. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ]
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? [ j
g. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................ [ I
[ I [XI
[] [I
1 I [XI
[ I [XI
a-#
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
!WM
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ I [Xj
YES
MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ ]
[ ] [X]
i.
Other? [ ]
[ J [ ]
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [ j
[ j [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ........... [ ]
[ I [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ...................................... [ ]
[ I [X]
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? .................... [ ]
[ ] [XI
b.
Reduction of the numbers:of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ]
[ I [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ]
[ I [X]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ]
[ I [X]
Noise. Will the proposal result in:'
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ......... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ]
[ I [XI
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ]
[ ] [X]
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? .................. [ ]
[ I [X]
Land
Use. Vill the proposal'result in:
a.
Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? ....................... [ ]
['] [X]
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ I [Xj
- 4 -
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the.location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [ ] [ I [XI
b. Other? [ ] ( ] [ ]
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ I [X]
b. Other? ( I [ ] [ I
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ I [XI CP 4•3
YES
MAYBE NO
C.
A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws7 ............................... I ]
( I (XI
d.
A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ...................... [ J
[ I (XI
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increase in the.rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. I ]
L I [XI
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [ ]
[ I [XI
10. Risk
of Upset/Han-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a.
Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to,'oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? .......................... [ ]
[ I [XI
b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ I I
L I [X]
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ I
[ I [XI
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ I
I ] [XI
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the.location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [ ] [ I [XI
b. Other? [ ] ( ] [ ]
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ I [X]
b. Other? ( I [ ] [ I
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ I [XI CP 4•3
- 5 -
YES MAYBE NO
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [ ] [XI
C.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................ [ l
I I
[XI
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. [ ]
[ I
[XI
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ]
[ I
[XI
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .............................. [ ]
I I
[XI
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? ........................... [ ]
[ I
[XI
b.
Police protection? ......................... [ ]
[ I
[X]
C.
Schools? ................................... I 1
[ I
(XI
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ]
[ ]
[X]
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ ]
I I
[X]
f.
Other governmental services? ............... [ ]
[ ]
[X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . .................................... [ I
[ I
IXI
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? [ ]
[ I
[XI
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ...................... [ I
[ I
[XI
b.
Communications systems? .................... [ I
[ I
[X]
C.
Water systems? ............................. [ ]
[ l
[XI
d.
Sanitary sever.systems? ..................... [ I
[ I
[X]
�/�
e.
Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ]
[ I
[X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will.the proposal result in the alteration
YES MAYBE NO
f.
Solid waste and disposal systems? ..........
[ ] [ ] [X]
g.
Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
] [ J [XJ
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
improvements for any of the above? .........
[ ] [ ] [X]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
religious or sacred uses within the
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ...
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ...................................
[ J I ] IX]
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a.
The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ...................
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? .......................
[ J [ ] [X]
C.
will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? ....
[ ] [ ] [X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will.the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [
] [ J [X]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? [
] [ J [XJ
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [
] [ ] [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [
] [ ]' [X]
- 7 -
Discussion of Impacts.
section Subsection Evaluation of Impact
All The proposed prezone would change the existing zone
classification from County of Los Angeles RPD -5.000
-19.8U to City of Santa Clarita RPD -5.000-19.8U for
the purposes of annexine to the City. The proposed
project will not have an impact on the environment
because:(1) the prezone is not changing the zone
classification, the allowable uses, or the density
that would be allowed on the site: and (2) there is
existing development on the site that has already
received its' discretionary development approvals
from the County of Los Angeles.
—1(47
- 8 -
B. DISCUSSION OF VAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
Not applicable
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in
part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the
project may have a significant effect on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared.
YES MAYBE NO
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus-
taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? ................. ( ] [ ] [X]
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment:is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... [ ] [ ] [X]
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the.impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. [ ] [ ] [X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ ] [X]
EwSoZ
D.
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILLBE PREPARED . .................................... [X]
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant
effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILLBE PREPARED . .................................... [ ]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT'
is required . ......................................... [ ]
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared By:
David W. Hogan, Assistant Planner 26
(Signature) Vim— (Name/Title) (D to
d By:
(�ignatu,Ze) (Name/Title)
(Date
d -11