HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - BUILDER DISCOUNT MC 92 004 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval•
4,
Item pb a pre��y•
Richard Henderson
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: April 28, 1992
SUBJECT: Builder's Discount (Master Case No. 92-004, Annexation No.
1992-01, & Prezone No. 92-001)
Ordinance No. 92-9
Resolution No. 92-86
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
Prezone. No. 92-001 is a request to prezone approximately 7.8 acres of
undeveloped land located at the northwest corner of Newhall Ranch Road and
Bouquet Canyon Road I from Los Angeles County C-3 . DP (Unlimited
Commercial -Development Program) zoning to City of Santa Clarita C-3 DP
(Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) zoning for the purpose of
annexation to the City of Santa Clarita.
The City of Santa Clarita is the applicant for this prezone and annexation.
On December 4, 1991, the City of Santa Clarita and the property owner, The
Newhall Land and Farming Company, agreed to a proposal which included, among
other things, annexation to the City of Santa Clarita of the area commonly
known as the "Builder's Discount Site".
ANALYSIS
The County of Los -Angeles, as lead agency, has previously approved. the
commercial project now under construction on the site. Environmental
clearance and construction approvals for the proposed commercial project have
been previously granted by the County and must be upheld, by the City. The
commercial project is being developed to current County standards.
As part of the project review.for the prezone, an Initial Study was prepared
to evaluate the impacts of the project. The provision of public services was
the only area of potential concern. Upon prezoning and subsequent annexation,
public services currently provided by the County would either be provided by
the City (e.g. administrative and general services), by the County under
contract to the City (e.g., fire & police), or would continueto be provided
Continued To; o7G — o/0191A9endaltem:
by the County under the property tax agreement to be negotiated for this
annexation. Upon completion, the project would generate sales tax revenues of
approximately $32,370,664 over 30 years, which would more than offset the cost
of providing public services upon annexation. Upon annexation and after
development of the proposed site, the project would be a net revenue generator
to the City.
On March 17, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P92-09
recommending to the City Council that it approve the request for a prezone and
certify the Negative Declaration prepared for Prezone No. 92-001.
Ordinance No. 92-9 constitutes an amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the
City of Santa Clarita and would provide -.the zoning. designation of C-3 DP
(Unlimited Commercial -development Program) 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.
Staff recommends that the City Council continue
scheduled City Council meeting of May 26, 1992, to
public noticing of all adjacent property owners.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance No. 92-9
Resolution No. 92-86
Resolution No. P92-09
PC Staff Report
Negative Declaration
Exhibit A - Legal Description
Exhibit B - Map
ANNXi333
this item to the regularly
allow for completion of the
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
n
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING BUILDER'S DISCOUNT SITE,
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NEWHALL RANCH ROAD
AND BOUQUET CANYON ROAD, HAVING A FRONTAGE OF APPROXIMATELY
825 FEET ON NEWHALL RANCH ROAD AND A FRONTAGE OF APPROXIMATELY
563 FEET ON BOUQUET CANYON ROAD. PREZONE OF APPROXIMATELY
7.83 ACRES OF UNINHABITED LAND FROM EXISTING LOS ANGELES COUNTY
C-3 DP (UNLIMITED COMMERCIAL -DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM) ZONING
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA C-3 DP
(UNLIMITED COMMERCIAL -DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM) ZONING.FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION TO
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita regarding Builder's Discount site, generally located at
the northeast corner of Newhall Ranch Road 825 feet on Newhall Ranch
Road and a frontage of approximately 563 feet on Bouquet Canyon
Road. Prezone of approximately 7.83 acres of uninhabited land from
existing Los Angeles County C-3 DP (Unlimited Commercial -Development
Program) zoning to the City of Santa Clarita C-3 DP (Unlimited
Commercial -Development Program) zoning for the purpose of annexation
to the City of Santa Clarita.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 28th
day of April, 1992, 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: April 1, 1992
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
PUBLISH DATE: April 3, 1992
ORDINANCE NO. 92-9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
(Prezone No. 92-001)
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated
prezoning of certain property located at the northwest corner of Newhall Ranch
Road and Bouquet Canyon Road prior to its annexation to the City of Santa
Clarita (Annexation No. 1992-01); 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 April 28,
1992, 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 C-3 DP (Unlimited
Commercial -Development Program) zoning classification on the
property 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 February 11, 1992, to March 3, 1992.
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:
Ordinance No. 92-9
Page 2
a. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and that the
is 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 C-3 DP (Unlimited
Commercial -Development Program) exists within the area of the
subject property; and
b. That the subject property is a proper location for the C-3 DP
(Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) classification; and
C. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare and -good
planning practice justify the prezone classification to C-3 DP
(Unlimited Commercial -Development Program); and
d. The proposed prezone classification to C-3 DP (Unlimited
Commmercial-Development Program) 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. 1992-01 prezoning area consists of 7.8 acres
of undeveloped land located west of the existing City limits at
the northwest corner of Newhall Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon
Road.
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 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 February 11, 1992, 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. 92-001 and Annexation No. 1992-01.
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 C-3 DP (Unlimited Commercial -Development Program).
0
Ordinance No. 92-9
Page 3
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. 1992-01) 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:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of 1992.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa
Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 92-_ was
regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of
the City Council on the day of 1992. That thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
on the day of 1992, by the following vote, to wit:
W4 *M
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
0 ANNX: 334
RESOLUTION NO. 92-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
40 OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
PREZONE NO. 92-001
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NEWHALL RANCH ROAD AND
BOUQUET CANYON ROAD, IN THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
of fact: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings
a. The City of Santa Clarita proposes to prezone approximately 7.8
acres of undeveloped land located at the northwest corner of Newhall
Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon Road from Los Angeles County C-3 DP
(Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) zoning to City. of Santa
Clarita C-3 DP (Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) zoning for
the purpose of annexation to the City of Santa Clarita.
b. This proposal is determined to be a project per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been reviewed pursuant -to
its provisions. On February 6, 1992, The Community Development
Department completed the Initial Study on this project and
determined that this project as proposed would not have any
significant effect on the environment, nor would it impact resources
protected by the California Department of Fish and Game and that a
finding of de minimus impact on such resources is appropriate.
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact and upon studies
and investigations made on behalf of the City Council, the City Council
further finds as follows:
a. Based on the Initial Study, the project does not have the
potential to adversely effect the environment. or resources
under the protection of the California Department of Fish and
Game, and no significant impacts are anticipated resulting from
the widening of Soledad Canyon Road, between Sand Canyon Road
and Shadow Pines Boulevard.
b. A proposed Negative Declaration was prepared for the project
based on the Initial.Study findings and the determination that
the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
Environment.
C. A notice of environmental assessment was posted and advertised, and
the proposed Negative Declaration was made available for a 21 day
review period in compliance with the City's adopted CEQA resolution.
Resolution No. 92-86'
Page 2
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City
Council hereby determines that;
a. The project is compatible with existing development in the area,
consistent with the Community Commercial land use designation, and
policies of the Santa Clarita General Plan.
b. The.project will not have a significant impact on the environment or
on resources under the protection of the California Department of.
Fish and Game.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, California as follows:
a. The City Council hereby certifies the Negative Declaration prepared
for the project.
b. The City Council hereby approves that a final determination of
Negative Declaration be issued.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992.
MAYOR
is ATTEST:
0
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing
Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 1992
by the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ANNX:337
CITY CLERK
w
RESOLUTION NO. P92-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, APPROVING
MASTER CASE 92-004, AND
IG APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF PREZONE NO. 90-003
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated
prezoning of certain properties located at the northwest corner of Newhall
Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon Road prior to its annexation to the City of
Santa Clarita (Annexation No. 1992-01); 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 March
3, 1992, 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:
follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as
a. The purpose.of the prezone is to request a change from existing
Los Angeles C-3 DP (Unlimited Commercial -Development Program)
zoning to City of Santa Clarita C-3 DP (Unlimited
Commercial -Development Program) zoning of the property
identified in Exhibit A prior to its 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 February 11, 1992, to March 3, 1992.
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 mpde by
the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds and.
determines as follows:
a. The project is consistent with the General 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 proposed prezone classification to C-3 DP
(Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) exists within the
area of the subject property; and
b. That the subject property is a proper location for the C-3 DP
(Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) prezone
classification as proposed; and
C. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning
practice justify the proposed prezone classification to C-3 DP
(Unlimited Commercial -Development Program); and
d. The proposed prezone classification to C-3DP (Unlimited
Commercial -Development Program) is consistent with existing land
use in the area and would not change the existing zoning of the
subject site; and.
e. The proposed prezone classification is a change from existing
Los Angeles County C-3 DP (Unlimited Commercial -Development
Program) to City of Santa Clarita C-3 DP (Unlimited
Commercial -Development Program) zoning.
d. The Annexation No. 1992-01 prezoning area consists of 7.83 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 February 11, 1992, 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. 92-001 and
Annexation No. 1992-01.
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends to the
City Council that it approve the request for a prezone to the. C-3 DP
(Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) zoning classification as proposed.
RESO P92-09
Page 2
SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution to the Departments of Public Works, Fire, and Parks and Recrvtion,
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 190 days of the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March , 1992.
77 � Z.
C-� �'�
Jerry D. Cherrington, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Ly M. Harris(
D rector of Community Development
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as,,
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the Planning Commission of. the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of March 1992 by the
following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cherrington, Woodrow, Brathwaite, Modugno and Doughman
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
ANNX:314
RESO P92-09
Page 3
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
`7�1,vti`'aJ
DATE: March 17, 1992
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing for Master Case 92-004 (Prezone No. 92-001,
Annexation No. 1992-01)
On March 3, 1992, this item was continued by the Planning Commission to the
regular Planning Commission meeting on March 17, 1992, and was announced as
such.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Master Case 92-004
Prezone No. 92-001
Annexation No. 1992-01
DATE: March 3, 1982
TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
CASE PLANNER: Donald M. Williams, Senior Planner
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: The project site is generally located at the northwest corner
of Newhall Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon Road, having a
frontage of approximately 825 ft. on Newhall Ranch Road and a
frontage of approximately 563 ft. on Bouquet Canyon Road.
REQUEST: A prezone from Los Angeles County C-3 DP (Unlimited
Commercial -Development Program) zoning to City of Santa
Clarita C-3 DP (Unlimited Commercial -Development Program)
zoning on approximately 7.83 acres of undeveloped land for the
purpose of annexation to the City of Santa Clarita.
BACKGROUND:
On December 4, 1991, the City of Santa Clarita and the property owner, The
Newhall Land and Farming Company, agreed to a proposal which included, among
other things, annexation to the City of Santa Clarita of the area commonly
known as the "Builder's Discount" parcel located at the northwest corner of
Newhall Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon Road. Annexation to the City of Santa
Clarita is governed by the Cortese -Knox Local Government .Reorganization Act
of 1985 (Revised 1991) and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
The LAFCO requires that the City prezone the territory to be annexed. The
requested prezone would fulfill this requirement.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Santa Clarita is proposing to change the existing zone from Los
Angeles County C -3 -DP (Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) zoning to
City of Santa Clarita C-3 DP (Unlimited Commercial -Development Program)
e zoning on approximately 7.83 acres of undeveloped land for the purpose of
annexation to the City Santa Clarita
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, ZONING AND LAND USE:
The City of Santa Clarita's General Plan designates the project area as CC,
Community Commercial. The existing zoning is Los Angeles County C-3 DP
(Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) zoning. The subject site is a
vacant 7.83 parcel. The City is seeking to prezone the project area to City
C-3 DP (Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) zoning. The prezoning as
proposed is consistent with the designation of the City's General Plan.
The following table summarizes information for the project and surrounding
sites.
LOCATION
CITY GENERAL PLAN
COUNTY ZONING
LAND USE
Project
Community
Commercial
C -3 -DP
Vacant
NORTH
Community
Commercial
A-2-5
Vacant
EAST
Community
Commercial
C-3
Developed
SOUTH
Community
Commercial
A-2-5
Vacant
VEST Community Commercial A-2-5 Vacant
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEV
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to
evaluate the impacts of the project. The provision of public services was
the only area of concern. Upon prezoning and subsequent annexation, public
services currently provided by the County would either be provided by the
City (e.g. administrative and general services), provided by the County
under contract to the City (e.g. fire & police),or would continue to be
provided by the County under the property tax agreement to be negotiated for
this annexation. Upon completion, the project would generate sales tax
revenues of approximately $32,370;664 over 30 years, which would more than
offset the cost of providing public services upon annexation. Upon
annexation and after full development of the proposed site, the project
would be a net revenue generator to the City.
It was determined that this proposal shall have no adverse environmental
impacts and a draft Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on
February 11, 1992.
/INTERAGENCY REVIEV:
The Community Development Department solicited comments and recommendations
from departments and agencies which would be affected by. this project. This
resulted in a comment from the Los Angeles Sheriff Department expressing
concern on the commercial project's impact on police services. The Sheriff
Department's comments also included a statement of support for the
annexation.
ANALYSIS:
The proposal is to prezone the.project site from existing Los Angeles County
C-3 DP (Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) zoning to City of Santa
Clarita C-3 DP (Unlimited Commercial -Development Program) zoning. This
project deals solely with a jurisdictional change and as the County zones
are nearly identical to those to be established by the City, this project
would have no significant impact on the environment. The proposed project
would not alter any present land uses in the area.
The General` Plan Land Use Element identifies Community Commercial as a
designation for those areas of the City that are for retailing uses of a
community -wide nature that attract people from beyond the immediate
neighborhood. The proposed annexation and prezone for Builder's Discount
Center can be considered consistent with the General Plan Community
Commercial Land Use Element.
The County of Los Angeles, as lead agency, has previously approved the
commercial project now under construction on the site. Environmental
clearance and construction approvals for the proposed commercial project
have been previously granted by the County. The commercial project is being
developed to County standards. Upon annexation and after completion, the
commercial project would generate estimated sales tax revenues of
approximately $32,370,664 over 30 years, which will more than offset the
cost of. providing public services upon annexation. Excess sales tax
revenues would accrue to the City's General Fund and could be used to
provide residential and other services elsewhere in the community.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Open the Public Nearing; 4
2. Recommend- approval' to the City Council of Prezone No.
92-001 and Negative Declaration; and
3. Adopt Resolution P92-09 recommending approval of Prezone
No. 92-001 to the City Council and recommending that the
City Council adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for
this project.
ANNX: 311
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
/ R=233330 "fJl, ;
L-13794 Ji VACANT e
µ' N
'/s a
N 46- 37'03'E = O1
02.14
VACANT
A-4-16'49"
R-2327.gd
L-173.84
CpVN a. m
'3•,3• IV C�3 Op
73. J1•ro
-wlr
37..F C.3 02 ¢
�N`k,NgcC ,as JZ, op
�••q'CH_
04°
= ANQr
VACANT QD(/NTr��
LEGEND,
Z,••,,,.• ANNEXATION BOUNDARY N
--- EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY
Cuw1r of W A090" 0-0 0r dh~" C"W*Fwl-o..Pw:«wN to
CRY N flat" cur" C-0 DI Rim"" CMI ovial- . 1 0 - ti-Rr1=..Mr
Vffl- w AOi A■Y-UY MA
C7TT0 "47ACLUIn"A REZONE NO. 92-001
crr®an swa
1'- 18Ei
7.!lAGI[ 2111 -I -M 267N123
CITY OF SANTA CE AWA
EAMMMA w M& 1N1-01)
a yy s;
CITY OF SANTA.CLARITA „� xi a r•
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
............................... ......................... =_...................
PERMIT/PROJECT: Prezone 92-001 (Annexation No. 1992-001) Builder's Discount
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita MASTER CASE NO: 92-004
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Generally located at the northwest corner of Newhall
Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon Road, having a frontage of approximately 825 ft.
on Newhall Ranch Road and a frontage of approximately 563 ft. on Bouquet
Canyon Road.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Prezone of approximately 7.83.acres of
uninhabited land from existing Los Angeles County C-3 (Unlimited Commercial)
zoning to City of Santa Clarita C-3 (Unlimited Commercial) zoning for the
purpose 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 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 bys �• E: Aguilar, AnnexationConsultant
(Signature) ,� (Name/Title)
Reviewed bysDonald M. Williams, Senior Planner
(Sign ure) _ (Name/Title)
' Approved
dbnald M. Williams, Senior Planner
(Name/Title)
Public Review'Period From 2/11/92 To 3/03/92
Public Notice Given On 2/11/92 By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
CERTIFICATION DATE:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B) y
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
v
�AFT
MASTER CASE NO: 92=004 Case Planner: Don Villiams
Project Location: Generally located west of the existing city limits at the
northwest corner Newhall Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon Road, having a frontage
of approximately 825 ft. on Newhall Ranch Road and a frontage of approximately
563 ft. on Bouquet Canyon Road.
Project Description and Setting: Prezone of approximately 7.83 acres of
undeveloped land from existing Los Angeles County C-3 (Unlimited Commercial)
zoning to City of Santa Clarita C-3 (Unlimited Commercial) zoning for the
purpose of annexation to the City of Santa Clarita. .
General Plan Designation: Community Commercial
Proposed City Zoning: C-3 (Unlimited Commercial)
Applicant: City of Santa Clarita
Environmental'Constraint Areas: Floodplain & Significant Ecological Area
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Vill the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. ( J [ J [XJ
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [ ] [ J [XJ
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... ( ] [ J [X]
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ J I J [XJ
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ J [ J ' [XJ
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... [ ] [ J [XJ
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ....:............................ [ ] [ ] [XJ
FJ
YES MAYBE NO
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ l
[ ] [XI
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... [ I
[ I [X]
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [ ]
[ ] [X]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
1.
Other? [ ]
[ ] [X]
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... [ ]
[ l [X]
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Other? [ ]
[ ] [X]
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [ 1 I l [XI
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. I l
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? ............................ [ I
-1-
YES MAYBE NO
-2-
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ ]
[ ]
[X]
i.
Other?. [ ]
[ ]
[X]
4.
Plant Life. Vill the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species ofplants(including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [ 7
[ ]
[X]
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? ........... [ 7
[ ]
[X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ...................................... [ ]
[ 7
[X]
5.
Animal Life. Vill 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? ........... [ ]
[ 7
[X]
6.
Noise. Vill the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ......:. [ ]
[ ]
[X]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ 7
[ ]
[X]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ]
[ 7
[X]
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
e
substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ]
[ ]
[X]
8.
Land
Use. Vill the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an areal ....................... [ 1
I ]
[Xl
-2-
YES MAYBE NO
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... [ J [ I [XJ
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... [ ] [ I IXl
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ...................... [ J [ ] [XJ
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? .................................. I I
[ I [XI
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [ ]
( ] [X]
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? .......................... [ ]
[ ] [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 I [XI
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... I I
I I IXI
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... I l
I I [XI
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a.
Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [ l
[ I IXl
b.
Other? [ ]
[ I [X]
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove qr otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? [ l [ ] [X]
b. Other? [ I [ ] (X]
-3-
YES MAYBE NO
13. Transportation/Circulation. Vill the proposal
result in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................
[ I
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .................
[ ]
C.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................
I ]
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ..............................
[ l
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .......
[ ]
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ..............................
I ]
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? ...........................
[X]
b.
Police protection? .........................
[X]
C.
Schools? ...................................
[ ]
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? ....
[ ]
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ...........................
[XI
f.
Other governmental services? ...............
IXJ
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy. ....................................
I I
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X]
-4-
A
YES MAYBE NO
b. Communications systems? .................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
C. Water systems? ............................. I ]
[ l [X]
d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ]
[ ] [XJ
e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ]
[ J [X]
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ]
[ ] [XJ
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
[ ] [ ] [X]
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ]
[ J [Xj
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
[ ] [ J [XJ
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ J
[ ] [X]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
[ ] [ J [X]
hazards? ................................... [ ]
[ ] IX]
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ J
[ ] [X]
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ....................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ]
[ ] [XJ
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact•upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ]
[ ] [Xj
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? ..............
[ ] [ ] [XJ
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ...
[ ] [ ] [X]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique -ethnic cultural values? .............
[ ] [ J [XJ
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses'within the
potential impact area? .....................
[ ] [ J [X]
SI!
YES MAYBE NO
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" FINDING
Will the project have an adverse effect either
individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife
resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose
of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants,
fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities,
including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends
for its continued viability".
Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code.) ................. [ j [N/A] [X]
A
d
B. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Secti Subsection Evaluation of Isroact
14 a,b,c,d,e,f Upon prezoning and subsequent annexation, public
services currently provided by the County would
either be provided by the City (e.g. administrative
and general services), provided by the County under
contract to City (e.g. fire E police), or would
continue to be provided by the.County under the
property tax agreement negotiated for this annexation.
The County of Los Angeles, as lead agency, has
previously approved a commercial project on the
site. Environmental review and construction
approvals for the project have been granted by the
County. Upon completion, the project will generate
sales tax revenues of approximately $32,370,664 over
30 years which will more than offset the cost of
providing public services upon annexation. Excess
sales tax revenues will accrue to the City's General
Fund and can be used to provide residential and other
services elsewhere in the community.• No significant
environmental impact is anticipated.
All Other Sections This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act. As
proposed, the request is to prezone the area from the
currently established County zone to the
corresponding City zone, for the purpose of
annexation. The project deals solely with
jurisdictional change and as the County zones are
nearly identical to those to be established by the
City, this project will have no significant impact on
the environment.
The County of Los Angeles, as lead agency, has
previously approved a commercial project on the
site. All the related environmental review and
construction approvals for the commercialproject
have been granted by the County.
r.
-7-
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
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 Repoit 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]
t:. .
-8-
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 . .................................... [XJ
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant
effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . ....................................
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required . ......................................... I l
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
E. Aguilar. Annexation Consultant
(Signature) (Name/Title)
2/06/92
(Date)
Rev ed and pproved by:
2!;;�ald M. Williams, Senior Planner
%L
Signat e) (Name/Title) (D e)
N .
p
ANNXs 301
A
-9-
EXHIBIT A
ANNEXATION NO. 1992-01
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
BEGINNING. AT A POINT IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, AS SAME
EXISTED ON JULY 19, 1990, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE
OF NEWHALL RANCH ROAD, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 18681, RECORDED IN BOOR 241,
PAGES 54-60 OF MAPS WITH THE CENTERLINE OF BOUQUET CANYON ROAD, THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF NEWHALL RANCH ROAD NORTH 57 DEGREES, 21'
MINUTES, 32 SECONDS WEST, 100.06 TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 627.12
FEET TO A POINT THAT IS TANGENT TO A LINE OF NORTH 75 DEGREES, 46 MINUTES, 23
SECONDS WEST, THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE'115.30 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL ONE OF
PARCEL MAP NO. 18681 RECORDED IN BOOR 241, PAGES 54-60 OF MAPS, THENCE ALONG
SAID LINE NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH ITS VARIOUS COURSES TO A POINT ON THE,
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL ONE, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 57 DEGREES, 21
MINUTES, 16 SECONDS WEST 99.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE OF BOUQUET CANYON ROAD,
BEING THE EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, THENCE AT A RIGHT
ANGLE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY AND CENTERLINE TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL CONTAINS 7.83 ACRES
WRITTEN BY: Z?le'4�
William Whitlatch
DATE PREPARED: 1 ✓ / Z-
WFW:67
A
VACANT
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
VACANT
4S•
opro
93'Bf3�N%f �1Q �Y C/ry
, C�3
e -
r '4o
as ANC
fs
VACANT w(�Ht,Y�—•
LEGEND,
121 -1 ANNEXATION BOUNDARY N
_—EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY
Cava o1 w AeNNe C -a or 6MOM od Commorobl-� omm) Zofftg a
ONT N UAM CWrM 0-3 a (u.f.sw Caww«ww..NNa.M FrOWr ) zeNM
CITY OF SANTA CLAWA
.83 AM12f11-1- M 12018 Ia
IflfDWMTIRCCVRIY%lco" R
EZONE NO. 92-001
CITY OF SANTA CIARITA
(AnnexatM Ib. 112-01i