HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - PREZONE 90 013 ORD 91 8 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager, Approval:
Item to be presented by:
e
Lynn M. Harris. `7�/2JvtiGdJ
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: March 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Prezone No. 90-013
Ordinance 91-8
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND:
Prezone No. 90-013 is a request to prezone approximately 75.5 acres located in
the community of Saugus north of Copperhill Drive and Benz Road from County of
Los Angeles A-1-1 DP to City A-1-1 DP for the purpose of annexation to the
City -of Santa Clarita. The Monteverde Development Company is the applicant
for this prezone and annexation. On January 15, 1991, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. P91-08 recommending to the City Council that it approve
the request for a prezone and certify the Negative Declaration prepared for
Prezone No. 90-013.
Ordinance No. 91-8 constitutes an amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the
City of Santa Clarita and would provide the zoning designation of A-1-1 DP for
the purpose of annexation 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.
RECOMMENDATION
Certify the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed
prezoning will not have a significant effect on the environment. .
Approve Prezone No. 90-013, and introduce the attached ordinance,
Ordinance No. 91-8, waive further reading, and pass to second reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance No. 91-8
Resolution,No. P91-08
PC Staff Report
Negative Declaration
Exhibit A - Legal Description
Exhibit B - Map
DWH:294
Agenda Item:
4
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)
S.
Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6.
Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
7.
Mayor Closes Public Testimony
8.
Discussion by Council
9.
Council Decision
10. Mayor Announces Decision
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE.OF PUBLIC BEARING REGARDING PREZONE NO. 90-013,
A PREZONE OF 75.5 ACRES FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY
A-1-1 DP TO CITY OF SANTA CLARITA A-1-1 DP
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF COPPERHILL DRIVE AND
VEST OF CROWN COURT IN SAUGUS
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita regarding Prezone No. 90-013, a prezone of 75.5
acres from Los Angeles County A-1-1 DP to City of Santa Clarita
A-1-1 DP,, generally located north of Copperhill Drive and west of
Crown Court in Saugus.
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. 91-8
AN ORDINANCE OF -THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF.SANTA CLAEITA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
(Prezone No. 90-013)
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. 1990-13); 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 Council of the City of Santa Clarita did set
March 13, 1991, 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 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:
follows:
SECTION 1. The .'City Council does hereby find and determine as
a. The prezone is a change.to City A-1-1 DP 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 December 18: 1991 To January 15. 1991 ; and
C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to
Sections 65090 and 65351 0£ the Government Code of the. State of
California were duly followed.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any,
received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by
the Planning Commission and the City Council and on their behalf, the City
Council further finds and determines as follows:
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 91-8
Page 2
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 A-1-1 DP does exist
within the area of the subject property;
b. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning
practice do justify the zoning classification to A-1-1 DP;
C. The proposed prezone classsification of A-1-1 DP 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. 1990-13 prezoning area consists of
approximately 75.5 acres of land in the Saugus area, located
north of Copperhill Drive and the existing City limits, west of
Crown Court and the existing city limits, and, south of the
Southern California Edison Company easment.
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 wouldresult from the
proposal;
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
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. 90-013 (and Annexation No. 1990=13).
0
ORDINANCE NO, 8
Page 3
SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby
ordain that the application for a prezone is approved, and that the official
zoning map of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby amended so that the subject
property is prezoned A-1-1 DP.
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. 1990-13) 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
NAYOR
ORDINANCE NO. 91-8
Page 4
0
I, City Clerk of the City of
Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91-8 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:295
0
0
CITY CLERK
Exhibit A
PREZONE 90-013
Legal Description
That portion of the northwest quarter of Section 6, Township4 North, Range 15
West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the unincorporated territory of the County
of Los Angeles, State of California, according to the Official Plat thereof,
described as follows:
BEGINNING at the northwesterly corner of Lot 2 of Tract No. 44311;
Thence along the westerly line of said Tract No. 44311, as shown on map
recorded in Book 1098, Pages 1 through 5 inclusive, of Maps, in the office of
the County Recorder of said county, and continuing along the westerly line of
Tract No. 31432, as shown on map recorded in Book 903, Pages 12 through 15
inclusive, of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county, South
03'55'30" West, 2038.06 feet to the northwesterly line of Copper Hill Drive,
100 feet wide, as shown- on map of.said Tract No. 44311; thence along the
northwesterly line of said Copper Hill Drive, South 66'26'14" West, 115.98
feet to the beginning of tangent curve concave northerly having a radius of
1450.00 feet; thence westerly along the northerly line of said Copper Hill
Drive and last mentioned curve, through a central angle of 56'00122", an arc
distance of 1417.36 feet to the west.line of said Section 6; thence along
said last mentioned west line, North 0'20'10" West, 1987.15 feet. to the
northwest corner of said Section 6; thence along the north line of said
Section 6. South 89732'34" East, 1615.04 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING and
containing 75.5254 acres of land.
0
0 Exhibit B
PREZONE 90-013
Location Map
LIE
a
e
r
=:
Ll
m
1 ♦, D
CO
rT I
-
1
am
a
e
r
=:
Ll
m
CJ
d kegrori E�udder
Crmp�j
rim
CZ
JCY-1 .. 11 ^. nnJ V • � � � _ '(
RESOLUTION NO. P91-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
:ECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PREZONE NO. 90-013
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated
prezoning of certain properties located in the Saugus area prior to their
annexation to the City of Santa Clarita (Annexation No. 1990-13); 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
January 15, 1991, 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, said Prezone was duly heard and
considered.
THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Planning Commission of the City
of Santa Clarita as follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as
follows:
a. The purpose of the prezone is to request the A-1-1 DP
zoning designation on properties identified in Exhibit A
prior to their annexation to the City.
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and
comment to affected governmental agencies and the public,
and all comments received have been considered. The public
review period for the Initial Study was from December 26,
1990, to January 15, 1991.
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 that the City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a
P91-08
DWH:262
timely fashion with the preparation of a General Plana 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 and local ordinance.
SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained in this
resolution, the Planning Commission has considered certain principles and
standards, and finds and determines as follows:
a. That a need for the prezone to A-1-1 DP zoning designation
does exist within.the area of the subject property.
b. That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and
good planning practice justify the zoning.classi£ication of
A-1-1 DP.
C. That the annexation and prezoning area consists of 75.5
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 Initial 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 December 26, 1990,
in accordance.with the provisions of 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. 90-013 (and Annexation No. 1990-13).
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends to the
City Council that it approve the request to prezone this site to the
A-1-1 DP zoning designation.
SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution to the Departments of Public Yorks, 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.
P91-08
DWH:262
.9
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall expire and approval shall be null
and void if the City Council fails to act on said Prezone and Annexation
within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day f anuary, 1991.
erry Che,rrington, 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 15th day of January,' 1991, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners: Woodrow, Garasi, Cherring ton, Modugno
NOES
ABSTAINED:
EXCUSED: Brathwaite
P91-08
DWH:262
U� aldz.!/J
n M. Harri Director
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Prezone No. 90-013
DATE: January 15, 1991
TO: Chairman Braithwaite and Members of the Planning
Commission (y/1� ��'y�
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community d elopmen�
CASE PLANNER: David W. Hogan
APPLICANT: Monteverde Development Company
LOCATION: Located north of the existing City boundary and
Copperhill Drive and west of Crown Court and
the existing City boundary.
REQUEST: Prezone from existing Los Angeles County Zoning (A-1-1
DP) to City of Santa Clarita Zoning (A-1-1 DP) for the
purpose.of annexation of 75.5 acres to the City.
BACKGROUND:
On September 18, 1990, the owner of the property, The Monteverde
Development Company, requested that the City prezone the property in
preparation for annexation of this area to the City of Santa Clarita.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposal is to prezone approximately 75.5 acres of undeveloped land
from existing Los Angeles County Zoning (A-1-1 DP) to City of Santa
Clarita Zoning (A-1-1 DP) for the purpose of annexation to the City of
Santa Clarita.
GENERAL PLAN
The proposed General Plan of the City of -Santa Clarita designates this
area as Residential -Estate (RE) and -Residential -Low (RL). The density
range for the RE designation is 0.0 to 0.5 du/ac, the density range for
the RL designation is 1.1 to 3.3 du/ac.' The prezoning as proposed is
generally consistent with 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.
2k /
Staff Report -2-
Prezone No. 90-013
Direction Land Use
Project Site Vacant and Santa Clarita Water
Company water tank site
North Vacant and Southern California
Edison power lines
East Single Family Residential
South Single Family Residential
West Vacant
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
January 15, 1991
Zoning_
A-1-1 DP
A-2-1
R-1-9000 &
R-1-6500
R-1-6500
A-2-2
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 December 26, 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.uses or density,
on this site. It has been determined that the proposed prezone would be
consistent with the City's proposed draft General Plan.
Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the
proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
Adopt Resolution P91-08 recommending approval of Prezone No. 90-013 to the
City Council and recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Effect prepared for this project.
DVH:261
ZA -'z
AFTRESOLUTION NO. P91-08 t" R
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 Saugus area prior to their
annexation to the City of Santa Clarita (Annexation No. 1990-13); 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
January 15, 1991, 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, said Prezone was duly heard and
considered.
THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Planning Commission of the City
of Santa Clarita as follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as
follows:
a. The purpose of the prezone is to request the A-1-1 DP
zoning designation on properties identified in Exhibit A
prior to their annexation to the City.
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and
comment to affected governmental agencies and the public,
and all comments received have been considered. The public
review period for the Initial Study was from December 26,
1990, to January 15, 1991.
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 that the City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a
P91-08
DVH -262
ZA- 3
-
VIP-�iAFT
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 and local ordinance.
SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained in this
resolution, the Planning Commission has considered certain principles and
standards, and finds and determines as follows:
a. That a need for the prezone to A-1-1 DP zoning designation
does exist within the area of the subject property.
b. That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and
good planning practice justify the zoning classification of
A-1-1 DP.
C. That the annexation and prezoning area consists of 75.5
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 Initial 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 December 26, 1990,
in accordance with the provisions of 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. 90-013 (and Annexation No. 1990-13).
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends to the
City Council that it approve the request to prezone this site to the
A-1-1 DP zoning designation.
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.
P91-08
DWH:262
F3 a
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall expire and approval shall be null
and void if -the City Council fails to act on said Prezone and Annexation
within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of January, 1991.
Louis Brathwaite, 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 15th day of January, 1991, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
EXCUSED:
Lynn M. Harris, Director
P91-08
DWH:262
Z/} -S
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
PERMIT/PROJECT: Prezone 90-013 and Annexation 1990-13
APPLICANT: Monteverde Development Company MASTER CASE NO: 90-198
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: North of Copperhill Drive and west of Crown Court
in Saugus.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Prezone 75.5 acres from Los Angeles County
zoning classification A-1-1 DP to City of Santa of Clarita zoning
classification A-1-1 DP for the purpose of annexation to the City.
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 that a Negative Declaration shall be
adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] are not required. [ ] are attached. [ ] are not attached.
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by: Q David W. Hogan, Assistant Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
Approved
(Name/Title)
Public Review Period From 12/26/90 To 1/15/91 .
Public Notice Given On 12/26/90 By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
CERTIFICATION DATE
DWH:330
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MASTER CASE N0: 90-195 Case Planner: David W. Hogan
Project Location: North of Copperhill Drive and West of Crown Court in
Saugus.
Project Description and Setting: The applicant proposes to prezone 75.5
acres (PZN 90-013) in Saugus from Los Angeles County A-1-1 DP to City of
Santa Clarita A-1-1 DP and annex (ANX 1990-13) the area to the City.
General Plan Designation Residential -Estate and Residential -Low Density.
Zoning:A-1-1 DP (Light Agriculture: 1 -ac minimum lot, development permit)
Applicant: Monteverde Development Co. Inc.
Environmental Constraint Areas: Steep terrain and blue -line stream
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [ ] I ] [X]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? [ ] [ ] IX]
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ ] I ] [X]
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... [ ] I I IX]
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. I ] I l IXl
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ l [ l IXl
Z
- 2 -
YES MAYBE NO
i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... [ J [ ] [X]
j. Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [ l [ ] [X]
k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X]
1. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ]
2. Air. Will the -proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? [ ] [ ] [X]
b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ] [ I [X]
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ] [ I [X]
d. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ]
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [ ] [ ] [XI
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. [ ]
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... [ ]
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ]
e. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ]
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ]
g. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................ [ ]
- 3 -
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
YES MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
into an area, or result in a barrier to
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ] [ ] [X]
i.
other?
[ ] [ ] [ ]
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
habitat and/or migratory routes? ...........
of any species of plants (including trees,
] [X]
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
[ ] [
] [X]
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
[ ] [ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
unacceptable noise levels? ..................
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
] [X]
C.
plenishment -of existing species? ...........
[ ] [ ] [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ ] [ ] [X]
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
8. Land
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
a.
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
land use of an area? .......................
[ ] [
insects or microfauna)? ....................
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
] [X] 2,4-11
rare or endangered species of animals? .....
[ ] [ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ......
[ ] [
] [X]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ...........
[ ] [
] [X]
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ........
[ ] [
] [X]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ..................
[ ] [
] [X]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ...
[ ] [
] [X]
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? .................
[ ] [
] [X].
8. Land
Use. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? .......................
[ ] [
] [X]
b.
A substantial alteration of the
land
] [
] [X] 2,4-11
planned use of an area? ...............
[
- 4 -
YES MAYBE NO
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? [ l
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ...................... [ ]
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? .....:........................... [ 1
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [ ]
lo. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? [ ]
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ L l
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... L ]
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... L ]
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [ ]
b. Other? [ ]
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................
b. Other?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
[ ]
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ j
o?A—/Z
- 5 -
YES
MAYBE NO
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .................
[ ]
[ ] [XJ
C.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................
I ]
I I [XI
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ..............................
[ ]
I I [X]
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .......
[ ]
[ ] [X]
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ..............................
[ ]
[ I IXI
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? ...........................
[ ]
I I [XI
b.
Police protection? .........................
[ J
[ ] [X]
C.
schools? ...................................
[ ]
I I [X]
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities?
[ ]
[ I [X]
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ...........................
I ]
I I [X]
f.
Other governmental services? ...............
[ ]
[ ] [XJ
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . ....................................
[ ]
I ] [XI
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
[ ]
I ] [XJ
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 [X]
b.
Communications systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Water systems? .............................
[ I
[ I IXI
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
e.
Storm drainage systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [XI
YES MAYBE NO
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] I I [X]
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? [ ] [ I [X]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ] [ ] [XI
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ................................... I J [ I [XI
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ ] [ I [XI
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ....................... [ ] [ I [XJ
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be.detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ I [ I [X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] I I [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ ]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building+ structure, or object? ... [ ]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ ]
- 7 -
Discussion of Impacts.
Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact
All The proposed prezone would change the existing zone
classification from County of Los Angeles A-1-1 DP
to City of Santa Clarita A-1-1 DP for the purposes
to annexation to the City. The proposed project
will not have an impact on the environment because:
(1) the prezone is not changing the zone classifi-
cation, allowable uses, or the allowable density on
the site: and. (2) no development proposal has been
submitted to City. Any future development proposals
for the site will receive additional consideration
and appropriate environmental review at that time.
20 A-1 S
- 8 -
B. DISCUSSION OF STAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
Not applicable.
ZA-IGS
s�
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]
2 A-1
- 10 -
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
WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [X]
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant
effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED..............6...................... [ ]
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
(Signature) Q (Name/Title) (Date)
Donald M. Williams. Associate Planner
(Name/Title) ( at )
2A-19