HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - PREZONE ANNEX (2)„w
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
Lvnn M. Harris
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: March 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Prezone No. 90-004 (Annexation No. 1990-04)
Ordinance No. 91-15
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
Prezone No. 90-004 is a request to prezone approximately 99.39 acres of
uninhabited land generally located southeast of the existing City limits,
south of Iron Canyon Road and east of the eastern terminus of Warmsprings
Drive. (See attached map.)
The proposal is for Prezone No. 90-004 (a 'prezone ordinance") and the
related environmental document to be approved by the City Council in
preparation of Annexation No. 1990-04. The ordinance constitutes an
amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Santa Clarita from
existing Los Angeles County A-1-2 zoning to compatible City zoning for
the purpose of annexation to the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed
ordinance sets forth applicable Government Code sections, reasons for the
prezone, exhibits identifying the site, and other required information.
On February 5, 1991, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P91-13
recommending to the City Council that it approve the request for a
prezone to the City A-1-2 zoning classification, and further recommended
that the Council certify the Negative Declaration prepared for Prezone
No. 90-004.
The project site consists of two parcels under multiple ownership. There
are no known persons or organizations opposed to this proposal. The City
seeks annexation of the property to eliminate the existing County
"island" and create a more logical boundary within the area.
Subsequent actions to be considered by the City Council include the
second reading of the proposed prezone ordinance at the City Council
meeting scheduled for March 26, 1991, adoption of a resolution initiating
annexation proceedings with the LAFCO, adoption of a joint resolution
with the County of Los Angeles regarding property tax transfer, and
adoption of a resolution approving and ordering the annexation of the
project area. J�
a
Agenda Item:_
r
RECOMMENDATION
Certify .the attached Negative Declarationwith the finding that
the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
Approve Prezone No. 90-004, and introduce the attached ordinance,
Ordinance 91-15, waive _further reading, and pass to second reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance 91-15
Resolution No. 91-13
Staff Report
Negative Declaration
Exhibit A - Legal Description
Exhibit B - Map
ANNX: 48
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
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PREZONE NO. 90-004,
A PREZONE OF 99.39 ACRES OF UNINHABITED LAND FROM
LOS ANGELES COUNTY A-1-2 ZONING TO
CITY A-1-2 ZONING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS,
SOUTH OF IRON CANYON ROAD, AND EAST OF THE EASTERN
TERMINUS OF WARMSPRINGS DRIVE.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita regardingPrezone No. 90-004,. a Prezone of 99.39
acres of uninhabited land from Los Angeles Country A-1-2 zoning to
City A-1-2 zoning for the purpose of annexation to the City of
Santa Clarita, generally located southeast of the existing City
limits,.south of Iron Canyon Road, and east of the eastern terminus
of Warmsprings Drive.
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. 91-15
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
(Prezone No. 90-004)
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated
prezoning of certain uninhabited properties generally located southeast
of the existing City limits, south of Iron Canyon Road and east of the
eastern terminus of Warmsprings Drive prior to their annexation to the
City of Santa Clarita (Annexation No. 1990-04); and
WHEREAS, such zoning would become effective upon annexation,
-described.in Exhibit A and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated
within and made part of Section 22.60.190 of the City's Planning and
Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita City Council did set 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 A-1-2 zoning classification
on the properties identified in Exhibit A prior to their
annexation to the City.
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and
comment by affected governmental agencies and the public,
and all comments received have been considered. The public
review period was from January 15, 1991, to February 5,
1991.
CJ
Ordinance No. 91-15
Page 1
•
C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant
to Sections 65090 and 65351 of the Government Code of the
State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any,
received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made
by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on their behalf, the
City Council further finds and determines as follows:
a., The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of a General Plan. There is
reasonable probability that this project will be consistent
with the General Plan currently being considered or
studied, that there is little or no probable detriment to,
or interference with, the future adopted General Plan if
the proposed resolution is ultimately inconsistent with
that Plan, and that the proposed project complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and local
ordinance.
SECTION 3. In acting on the prezoning application, the City Council
has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines
as follows;
a. That a need for the prezone classification to A-1-2 exists
within the area of the subject property; and
b. That the subject property is a proper location for the
A-1-2 prezone classification; and
C. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
planning practice justify the prezone classification to
A-1-2; and
d. The proposed prezone classification to A-1-2 is consistent
with existing land use in the area and would not change the
existing zoning of the subject site; and
e. The Annexation No. 1990-04 prezoning area consists of
approximately 99.39 acres of land contiguous to the
boundary of the City of Santa Clarita.
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:
Ordinance No: 91-15
Page 2
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 January 15, 1991,
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
C. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above,
hereby finds the Negative Declaration is in compliance with
CEQA and it does certify the Negative Declaration prepared
for Prezone No. 90-004.
SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby
ordain that the application for a prezoning is approved, and that the
official zoning map of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby amended so
that the subject property is prezoned A-1-2.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on
the thirty-first day after adoption.
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
Ordinane No. 91-15
Page 3
L J
I, , City Clerk of the City of
Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance.No. 91 --
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:
ANNX: 49
4D
U
CITY CLERIC
EXHIBIT A
ANNEXATION NO. 1990-04
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 IN THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 15 WEST, SAN
BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ALSO BEING A POINT IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA AS SAME EXISTED ON NOVEMBER 4,1990; THENCE NORTHERLY,
EASTERLY, NORTHERLY, EASTERLY, SOUTHERLY, AND EASTERLY ALONG SAID CITY
BOUNDARY TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND
WESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID SECTION 36 TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
• PARCEL CONTAINS 99.39 ACRES (0.16 SQUARE MILES)
WRITTEN BY:
d
Thomas Counts
DATE PREPARED: November 4,1990
11
CYN. RD.
GOVT UOT 3
I
CITY OF
GOVT LOT 4
�111rf11111 LT` -j 14L1111
II� T. 3 N.
N', -SLY LINE
IROA OF SEC 3
-L'-LZ- -Z-Z ANNEXATION BORY.
-- EXIST CITY BDRY.
OF SANTA CLARITA
CED BY: SCALE:
I'=400'
252-H-165
FILED WITH TI-ECOIlVTY
(PROPOSED)
ANNEXATION
4AA
�A
ELY LINE
A OF SEC.36
111L36 31
s
N
A10 1990-04
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION NO. P91-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PREZONE NO. 90-004
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and -initiated
prezoning of certain properties (Annexation 1990-04) prior to their
annexation to the City of Santa Clarita generally located southeast of
the existing City limits, south of Iron Canyon Road and east of the
eastern terminus of Warmsprings Drive; and
WHEREAS, such zoning would become effective at 12;01 a.m. on the
thirty-first day after adoption.of the related prezone ordinance by the
City Council 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
February 5, 1991, at the hour of 7 p.m., in the City Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, as the time and
place for a public hearing before said Planning Commission, and notice of
said public hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, there was no testimony given
for or against the proposed prezone; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said Prezone was duly heard and
considered.
THEREFORE, be it resolved by the.Planning Commission of the City
of Santa Clarita as follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine as follows:
a. The purpose of the prezone is to request.a change to City
A-1-2 zoning 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 January 15, 1991, to February 5,
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 as follows:
a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding; in a timely fashion
with the preparation of a General Plan. There is
reasonable probability that .this project will be consistent
with the General Plan currently being considered or
studied, that there.is little or no probable detriment to,
or interference with, the future adopted General Plan if
the proposed resolution is ultimately inconsistent with
that Plan, and that the proposed project complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and local
ordinance.
SECTION 3. In 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 classification as proposed to
A-1-2 exists within the -area of the subject property; and
b. That the subject property is a proper location for the
A-1-2 prezone classification as proposed; and
C. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
planning practice justify the prezone classification as
proposed to A-1-2; and
d. The prezone classsification as proposed to A-1-2; is
consistent with existing land use in the area and would not
change the existing zoning of the subject site; and
e. The Annexation No. 1990-04 prezoning area consists of 99.39
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 January 15, 1991,
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. 90-004 and Annexation No. 1990-04.
P91-13
2 -
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends to
the City Council that it approve the request for a prezone to the A-1-2
zoning classification as proposed.
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 within 180
days of the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of Febru y, 1991.
Louis Brathwaite, C irman
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 5th day of February, 1991, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners: Cherrington, Modugno, Brathwaite
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: None
EXCUSED: G;;n
, Wood w
M. Harrjd, Director
ANNX: 30
P91-13
- 3 -
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA-
STAFF REPORT
Prezone No. 90-004
DATE: February 5, 1991
TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Lynn M Harris, Director of Community Development�{-'78
CASE PLANNER: Donald M. Williams VVVV
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: Generally located southeast of the existing City limits,
south of Iron Canyon Road and east of the eastern terminus
of Warmsprings Drive.
REQUEST: Prezone from existing Los Angeles County Zoning (A-1-2) to
City Zoning (A-1-2).
BACKGROUND:
The Local Agency Formation Commission requires that the City prezone all
territories annexed to the City of Santa Clarita. The requested prezone
would fullfill this requirement for Annexation 1990-04.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City proposes to establish compatible City zoning in place of existing
County zones in the area. Proposed zoning as requested would not change
the existing zoning on the subject site. The proposal is to prezone.
approximately 99.39 acres of undeveloped land from existing Los Angeles
County Zoning (A-1-2) to City Zoning (A-1-2).
The project site is vacant and undeveloped. No change to the existing
site is proposed by the project.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
All proposals are evaluated for compatibility with the proposed General
Plan of the City of Santa Clarita. Pending adoption of the comprehensive
General Plan by the City, the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley
Area -Wide General Plan is also being used as an interim guideline for
evaluation of prezone requests.
The land use designation for the project area under the County General
Plan is Hillside (HM). The land use designation under the proposed City
General Plan is Residential -Estate (RE). The prezoning as proposed is
consistent with designations of both the proposed General Plan for the
City and the existing Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Area -Wide
General Plan.
Staff Report -2- February 5, 1991
Prezone No. 90-004
ZONING AND LAND USE:
Existing Los Angeles County zoning regulations would be replaced with
compatible City zoning. The request is a change from County Zoning
(A -1 -2) -to City Zoning (A-1-2) on 99.39 acres of vacant land.
STATUS:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of the State of California
requires environmental evaluation of all annexation prezoning requests. It
has been determined that proposed zoning upon annexation would not change
the existing zoning on the project and would not have a significant -
adverse effect on the environment. In accordance with CEQA, a Negative
Declaration was posted and advertised on January 15, 1991.
INTER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW:
Review of the project by City departments and outside agencies did not
result in any significant comments.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed zoning would not change the existing zoning on the project site.
The project site is.vacant and undeveloped. No change to the existing
site is proposed by the project. It has been determined that the proposed
prezone would be consistent with existing and future development in the
surrounding area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution P91-13 recommending approval -of Prezone No. 90-004 to the
City Council and recommending that the City Council adopt the attached
Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect prepared for this project.
ANNX: 31
1 n
1 II
1 a
r
1L1L1L.LL ANNEXATION BDRY.
-- EXIST. 'CITY BDRY.
CITYOFSANTA CLARITA
I'=400'
AREA. AM.H. HNM.
99.39AC. 2848-5-16,17 252-H-165
0.16 so MI.
FILED WITH THECWnYREC0RDE
PREZONE NO. 90-004
Los Angeles County A-1-2 Zoning
to City of Santa Clarita A-1-2
Zoning
LINE I
EC.36
A5-4
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I,0 N
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
a
--------------- -----aaa.............. a------------------------ a---
PERMIT/PROJECT: Prezone 90-004 ^
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita MASTER CASE NO:90-244
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Generally located southeast of the existing City
limits, south of Iron Canyon Road, and east of the eastern terminus of
of Warmsprings Drive.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: To prezone approximately 99.39 acres of
uninhabited land from Los Angeles County A-1-2 to City A-1-2 for the
purpose of annexation to the City of Santa Clarita.
....aa.............aaa=...aaaaaaa......aa=......a.........aaaaa..-----=....
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the.City of Santa Clarita
[ ] City Council
[X] Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant
effect upon the environment, and that a'Negative Declaration shall be
adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] are not required. [ ] are attached. [ ] are not attached.
aacmaaaaaa..saa:aa.a.:a..a=a.aaa..:aaaaaa..aa=aaaa..aa=:sa...:aaaa.a...aaass
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by: E. A¢uilar, Annexation Consultant
(Si atur ) (Name/Title)
Approved Donald M. Williams
ignture) (Name/Title)
...aaa.a.............a.... ...........................as.
Public Review Period From 1/15/91 To 2/05/91
Public Notice Given On 1/15/91 By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties [X] Written notice.
.... .aaa....... :.......... a ----------------------------------- =a .... ..-----
CERTIFICATION DATE:
CA5 c7
I
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
INITIAL STUDY
PROSECT DESCRIPTION
Prezone No. 90-004
Prezone.No, 90-004
Annexation No. 1990-04
Case No. 90-244
City of Santa Clarita
Generally located southeast of the existing city limits,
south of Iron Canyon Road, and east of the eastern
terminus of Varmsprings Drive.
REQUEST: Prezone 99.39 acres of uninhabited land from existing Los
Angeles County zoning (A-1-2) to City zoning (A-1-2) for
the purpose of annexation of to the City of Santa Clarita.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed project is the prezone of approximately 99.39 acres of land
from existing Los Angeles County zoning to compatible City zoning. No
change to the prezone area is proposed by the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project area is located southeast of the existing city limits, south
of Iron Canyon Read, and east of the eastern terminus of Varmsprings
Drive. The project area consist of vacant and undeveloped land.
Proposed zoning upon annexation as
existing zoning on the project site
the environment.
fAd1WMV1
M'
requested would not change the
and would not significantly impact
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MASTER CASE NO: 90-244 Case Planner: Donald M. Williams
Project Location: Generally located southeast of the existing City
limits, south of Iron Canyon Road, and east of the eastern terminus of
Varmsprings Drive.
Project Description and Setting: Prezone of approximately 99.39 acres
of uninhabited land from Los Angeles Countv A-1-2 zoning to Citv A-1-2
zoning for for the purpose of annexation to the City of Santa Clarita.
General Plan Designation : Los Angeles County HM (Hillside Management)
Zoning: Los Angeles County A-1-2
Applicant: City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Constraint Areas: HM (Hillside Management)
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditionsor in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [ ] [ ] [X]
C'. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X]
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features?...................6.............. [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ ] [ ] [X]
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... [ l [ ] [X]
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ l [ ] [X]
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ 7 [ ] [X]
A�--9
aC--�
_ 2 _
YES
.MAYBE ,NO
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or morel ....................
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z.natural grade? ............ [ ]
[ J [X]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ]
[ I [XJ {'
1.
other? [ ]
[ I [X]
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... ( ]
( I [XI
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ]
[ I [XI
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ]
[ I [X]
d.
Other? [ ]
[ I [X]
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................. ( I
[ I [X]
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. I I
I I [XI
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... L I
I I LXI
d.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ]
[ I [X]
e.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ..................... I l
I I [XI
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? ............ [ I
[ ] [X]
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................ [ I
I I [XI
aC--�
- 3 -
YES
MAYBE
NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
1.
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ] [ )
[X]
i.
Other?
[ ] [''•.] .
[X]
4.
Plant Life. Will'the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ ] [ ]
[X]
f7t•.
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
[ ] [ ]
[X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ...........
[ ] [ ]
[X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ ] [ ]
[X]
5.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles; fish and
insects or microfauna)? ....................
[ ) [ ]
[X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of.animals? .....
[ ] [ ]
[X)
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ......
[ ] [ )
[X]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ...........
[ ] [ ]
[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.
Substgntial alteration of the present
land use of an area? .......................
[ ] [ )
[X]
b.
A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ...............
[ J [ ]
[X]
q _
YES MAYBE NO
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? I l I ] IX1
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ..............:....... [ ] [ j (X]
9. Natural Resources. Vill the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. I 1
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [ ]
10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? .......................... [ ]
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ [ ]
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... L ]
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... L l
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... L J
b. Other? [ ]
12. Housing. Vill 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:
IXl
(X]
[l Il IXl
[ J [ I IXJ
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] (X]
'5P& J��
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ ] [ ] (X]
f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ I [X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuelor
energy . .................................... [ ] [ I [XI
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? ( ] [ ] [XI
b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Water systems? ............................. I I [ I [X]
d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [ ] (X]
e. Storm draiaage systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
_ 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 ] [X1
p ,;r
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? '.............................. I I
I I (XJ
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ]
[ ] [XI
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .............................. [ 1
[ I [XI
14. Public Services. Will the'proposal have an effect
upon,
or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? ........................... I ]
( I [XI
b.
Police protection? ......................... [ ]
( ] [X]
C.
Schools? ................................... [ l
I I [XI
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ]
[ ] [X]
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ ] [ ] (X]
f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ I [X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuelor
energy . .................................... [ ] [ I [XI
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? ( ] [ ] [XI
b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Water systems? ............................. I I [ I [X]
d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [ ] (X]
e. Storm draiaage systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
7
5
\YES MAYBE NO
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [XI
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ] [ I [XI
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 [ ] [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 [XI
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ I [ I [XI
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? [ I [ ] [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ ]
[ ] [XI
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building; structure, or object? ... [ ]
[ I [XI
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]
o`G �7
M
7
Discussion of Impacts.
Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact
The proiect site is vancant and undeveloped. Prosposed zoning as
requested would not significantly impact the environment. No change to
J
existing site is proposed by the project,
ae-is
Eim
B. DISCUSSION OF PAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
No mitigation is reouired. Proposed zoning upon annexation as requested
would not change the existing zoning of the proiect area and would not
significantly impact the environment.
� J
/r
4J
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. ✓
i
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? ......... [ ] [ ] 1X]
- 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 f
WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [X]
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant
effect an the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added.to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED. .................................... [ ]
The proposed project MAY have a -significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required . ......................................... L ]
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
pteDBr y;
—�L E. Aguilar, Annexation Consultant 12/05/90
(Signature) (Name/Title) (Date)
Approed By: .
(Name/Title)
rl�mqwl l
12/05/90
(Date)