HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - GPA 91 001 NOISE RESO 91 200 (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
February 11, 1992
AGENDk REPORT
City Manager A
Item to be.pre
General Plan Amendment No. 91-001, amending the Noise Element
of the General Plan to include noise contour information
Resolution Number: 91-200
Community Development
At its meeting of January 16, 1992, the Council continued the public hearing
on this item to February 11, 1992, for the purpose of allowing the staff to
respond to a letter received late that day from Michael McEntee, 9595 Wilshire
Blvd.. Suite 900, Beverly Hills, CA. The letter raised several questions
about the General Plan Amendment.
The staff, in conjunction with Michael Brandman Associates, has now assessed
this letter. It :addresses five subjects: (1) The general nature of the
project description, (2) Interaction between the noise element with other
general plan elements, (3) Perceived mapping errors relative to community and
street names, and noise level information, (4) The methodology of mapping the
contours is questioned, and (5) Request for a supplemental Environmental
Impact Report.
The staff analysis is attached. Based on review of this letter, the staff,
and the consultant all feel that no changes to the noise contour maps, the
related staff reports, nor the environmental review is warranted.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the attached Negative Declaration.
2. Pending public testimony, approve the proposed General Plan amendment.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 91-200.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter received 1-16-92 from Michael McEntee
2. Staff response to McEntee letter
3. City Council Agenda Report dated 1-16-92
4. Negative Declaration
5. Planning Commission Resolution P91-61
6. City Council Resolution No. 91-200
7. Existing Noise Contour Map
8. Future Noise Contour Map
MAR: 542
Adopted: 2- 9
Item: 4000e
LAW OFFICES Of •I <) f CLARITA
MICHAEL McENTEE C1TY
9595 WI1SnIRE BOULEVARD . SUITE 900 BEVERLY HILLS. CAUFOpOIA 90111 • 12131 272.2212
MICHAEL MCENTEE 1•.�l }1; �� PIS LJ�
JULIA J. ROBERTS
Re: City Council Agenda item ^ 3 set for hearing January-l4, 1992
Hand delivered to city council clerk January 14, 19?fir,.
Letter Opposing Adoption of the general Plan Amendment
Re: Item 3 Noise contours
I, Michael McEntee, declare:
1. I own property within the City of Santa Clarita. The address
is 22011 Kristin Lane, Santa Clarita, Ca.
2. The noise contour "Negative Declaration" contains incorrect
statements.
At page 2 of the Staff Report dated December 3, 1991, it states
the "PROJECT DESCRIPTION" TO BE TIIE ADDITION OF two maps
displaying noise contour information.
This project description is totally wrong. The "project" is
amending the General Plan, and the project states its intention
at page 4 of the Agenda packet as follows:
LIF. The Noise Element accurately describes existing and
projected' levels of noise and noise contours for major
noise sources."
j1G. The noise element determines the extent of noise
problems in the community and planning area.
IIH. The Noise Element describes the selection and
imposition of methods of noise attenuation and the
protection of residences from excess noise.
Thus, what is proposed are two maps which affect and interact
with and cause the cumulative and separate interactions with the
other elements of the neneral. Plan. These cumulative and
separate interactions have not been dealt with in the Negative
Declaration and the proposed action will in fact have significant
and/or cumulative impacts of the locating of new roads, widening
of existing roads, the circulation within the valley, the use of
land, and the revitalization of existing neighborhoods.
Specifically, at page 10 of the Agenda packet, item. 60 labelled
116. Noises' has wrong answers.
Contrary to the negative answers, I state that
a. Adopting the two maps will result in increases in noise
because the maps purport to designate new roads through existing
residential zones. For example, Rye Canyon Road and 'Rio Vista
Roads are shown. Each would radically alter traffic patterns and
hence impact housing with noise.
b. The cumulative impact of noise from Lyons, the Railroad,
Rio Vista, and San Fernando road is not addressed. i.e. the fact
that 4 major noise sources are intersecting and thereby
increasing both the sound intensity and the duration of sound.
c. There is exposure of people to severe vibrations?- All
along the railroad near San Fernando Road, around the clock, this
major freight railroad, carrying heavy loads all night, causes
heavy vibrations as far as 500 feet away. For example, in the
Saugus Cafe on the west side of San Fernando Road, the vibration
cause dishes to rattle and distracts customers conversations.
Adopting the proposed noise contours opens the way for major
land use changes. Thus, on page 10 of the Agenda packet, at item
118. Land Use.'$ the answer of no impact is wrong. There will be a
huge change in land use as the roads are built within the
proposed sound corridors.
The cumulative impact of noise from Lyons, the Railroad, Rio At
page 14, item 1 is answered wrong. There of course will be a
degrading of quality of environment when roads are built within
the proposed sound contours.
Again on page 14, Item 3 is answered wrong. The cumulative
impact is dramatically shown by the intersection of the Lyons
Extension, the Railroad, San Fernando Road, and gas company and
road maintenance heavy equipment yards all located near Placerita
Canyon Road and Lyons and the railroad. These multiple
industrial and heavy use commercial noise sources inherently
combine in intensity and in duration into the night, to cause the
cumulative effect not considered in the Negative Declaration or
in the proposed Maps..
The Maps are grossly inaccurate, as indicated by the following
note:
The community of Val Verde is entirely missing from the Map.
Martinez canyon road is not named and is missing totally missing
form the Map north section above 126.
They do not show Placerita Canyon road west of I-14. That road
has heavy usage as the connector between Canyon Country and
downtown Newhall. Thus, the maps are wrong.
The portion of Placerita Canyon east of I-14 is not named.
It appears that the I-5 freeway has a lower sound generation
potential than that shown for the lightly and intermittently
traveled Lake Hughes Road.
The hatchmark legends are unintelligible. Taken literally, they
show most of the roads to be railroads.
on the "Existing Noise Contours" Map, the date is false. The
date should be December, 1991.
The contour near circle 7 is not consistent with the data shown
in the general plan. The contour shows a 55 db CNEL but the
General Plan noise element contains actual test data showing a
CNEL of 66. BECAUSE SOUND POWER_ INCREASES LOGARITHMICALTY'—THE
Thus, the Map is wrong by a factor of ten.
Further, the methodology described verbally in the record by the
purported author of the Map indicates the maps are nothing more
than guesses, not based on any data base, not even purporting to
be consistent with actual measurements anywhere in the Santa
Clarita Valley.
Thus, the essential goal of the Maps, as stated in the Staff Memo
at page 4 of the Agenda Package that the "f. The Noise element
accurately describes existing and projected levels of noise and
noise contours for major noise sources." is simply not attained.
Information wrong by a factor of ten is worse than not having a
map to begin with. These Maps become evidence utilized by a wide
variety of persons to guide city planning, land use, protect.the
environment, and enforce the General Plan in Court. Grossly
wrong information simply degrade the General Plan.
The job of an eir is to fully determine the many interactions of
proposed noise contours PLANNED and the proposed land uses. A
Supplemental EIR is essential here because,
a. A negative declaration is not appropriate in light of the
direct impacts, and in light of the cumulative impacts.
. b. The General Plan required and received an EIR. EQUAL
DIGNITY between the General Plan and Amendments to ADD to the
General Plan a comprehensive set of noise contours requires that
the Amendment also have an EIR.
C. A major function of an EIR is to examine every
potentially significant interaction between the existing noise
and. the elements of the Plan to search out ALTERNATIVES which
will help mitigate the impacts,
I declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct. Execucted at
Los Angeles, Ca. on December 17, 1991.
Please deny the proposed General Plan Amendment at this time.
Please vote to require a Supplemental EIR as a condition
precedent to considering the General Plan Amendment.
Sincerely yours,
dch"ael McEntee
MMc:abd.
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval G
Item to be presente
Lynn M. Harris
January 14, 1992
General Plan Amendment No. 91-001, amending the Noise Element
of the General Plan to include noise contour information
Resolution Number: 91-200
Community Development
The public hearing on this item was opened by the City Council on December 10,
1991; since the Planning Commission was still deliberating the proposed
amendment, the Council hearing was continued to January 14, 1992. The
Planning Commission, on December 17, 1991, recommended approval of the
proposed amendment, by adoption of its resolution P91-61.
The City's contract with the General Plan consultant requires the preparation
of existing and future noise contour maps in addition to narrative noise
contour information set forth in the General Plan. The future noise contour
map was not available prior to the Planning Commission recommendation and
Council adoption of June 25, 1991. Additionally, noise contour information
within the planning area on the existing noise contour map was not available
for Planning Commission recommendation or Council adoption. This information
has been finalized as two maps and provided to the City pursuant to the
contract and is ready for inclusion in the General Plan:
The Existine Noise Contour Mao shows existing noise contours within the
Planning Area and consists of freeways, primary arterials, major local
streets, and railroad right-of-way. The intervals shown are per state
requirements, incorporating the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), a
federal standard used to show noise contours. The noise levels mapped are the
contours for the 55; 60, 65, and 70 CNEL. This map is a part of -the Final
Background Report for the General Plan.
The Future Noise Contour Man displays the 65 and 70 CNEL contours in the
Planning area. Various highways, arterials, local streets and railroad lines
anticipated to be part of the future circulation network are shown. This map
is a part of the Noise Element of the General Plan.
A Negative Declaration (attached) was prepared for this project, pursuant to
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Pending public testimony, approve the attached Negative Declaration, approve
the proposed General Plan amendment, and adopt Resolution No. 91-200.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Negative Declaration 4. Existing Noise Contour Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution P91-61 5. Future Noise Contour Map
3. City Council Resolution No. 91-200 Agenda{t�em:
Continued To: -��-9 J w
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
............ __________________________•___... ==== ...... ==....
_
PERMIT/PROJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 91-001
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita CASE NO: GPA 91-001
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide
DESCRIPTION.OF THE PROJECT: Addition of noise contour information to the
Noise Element of the'General Plan
...........................................................................
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. [X] are not attached.
...........................................................................
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MA
Prepared / ,/,Vi // ` Lf4ichael A. Rubin, Associate Planner
Ab
Mi
(Name/Title)
Reviewed Donald M. Williams. Senior Planner
[dame/Title)
Approved
(Name/Title)
Public Review Period From November 19, 1991 To December 10. 1991.
Public Notice Given On November 19, 1991 By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [ ] Posting of properties. [ ] written notice.
...........................................................................
CERTIFICATION DATE:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CASE NO: GPA 91-001 Case Planner: Michael Rubin
Project Location: Citywide
Project Description and Setting: Addition of noise contour information
to the Noise Element of the General Plan
General Plan Designation N/A
Zoning: N/A
Applicant: -_ City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Constraint Areas: none
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Vill the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [ l [X]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the sail? ............... [ ] [ ] NIX]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief.features? ........................... [ ] [ ] [x]
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. I l I ] IX1
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? ................................... [ ] [ I IX1
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ l I ] [X1
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ ] [ l [X1
- 2 -
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [ I [ I [Xl
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. I I I l IXl
C. Change in the amount of surface mater
in any water body? ......................... [ l I I [Xl
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? ..................... [ ] E 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? [ ] [ ] [XI
g. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................ [ l [ I IXI
YES MAYBE NO
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? .......................
[ ] [ ] [X]
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............
[ ] I ] [X]
k.
Development within the Alquist=Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ......................
[ I [ I [XI
1.
Other?
[ ] [ I [XI
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
- a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? ....................
[ ] [ ] [XI
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?
[ ] [ ] [XI
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [ I [ I [Xl
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. I I I l IXl
C. Change in the amount of surface mater
in any water body? ......................... [ l I I [Xl
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? ..................... [ ] E 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? [ ] [ ] [XI
g. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................ [ l [ I IXI
- 3 -
YES MAYBE NO
h. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ ] ( ] [Xj
i. Other? [ ] [ ] [X]
4. Plant Life. Vill the proposal result in:
] [XJ
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ 1 [
] [X]
of any species of plants (including trees,
[ 1 [X]
unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ] [
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [ ] [
] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ] [
rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [ ] [
] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
land use of an area? ....................... [ ] [
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ............ [ ] [
] [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultu;al
crop? ...................................... [ ] [
1 1X1
S. 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)? .................... [ ] [
] [Xj
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [
1 [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [
] [XJ
6.
7.
8.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ] [
] [XJ
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ 1 [
] [X]
b. Exposure of people to severe or
[ 1 [X]
unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ] [
J [Xj
C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ] [
1 [X]
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ] [
J [Xj
Land Use. Vill the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? ....................... [ ] [
1 [XJ
b. A substantial
alteration of
the
planned land
use of an area?
............... [ 1
[ 1 [X]
- 4 -
YES MAYBE NO
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... I l I ] [XI
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ...................... [ ] ( ] [X]
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. [ 1
I I 1X1
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [ ]
( I [XI
10. Risk
of Upset/Man-!Sade Hazards. Will the proposal:
a.
Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? ........................... [ ]
[ I [X]
• b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ [ 1
[ I [XI
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ 1
I I IX1
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ I
I I [X1
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a.
Alter.the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Other? [ ]
[ ] [X]
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? ........................
- 5 -
YES
MAYBE NO
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .................
( ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................
I 1
I 1 [X1
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ..............................
I 1
I 1 IX]
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .......
[ ]
[ ] [X]
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ..............................
[ 1
I 1 1X1
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? ...........................
[ ]
[ ] [XJ
b.
Police protection? .........................
[ ]
[ J [XJ
C.
Schools? ...................................
I 1
[ 1 [X1
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? ....
[ ]
[ j [X]
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ...........................
[ 1
I 1 IX1
f.
Other governmental services? ...............
[ ]
[ ] [X]
15. Energy. Vill the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . ....................................
[ 1
[ 1 1X1
b.
Substantial increase .in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
[ ]
[ ] [XJ
16. Utilities. Vill the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ......................
[ 1
[ J [X]
b.
Communications systems? ....................
[ ]
[ 1 1X1
C.
Water systems? .............................
I l
[ l [X]
d.
Sanitary sever systems? ....................
[ J
[ 1 [XJ
e.
Storm drainage systems? ....................
[ J
I ] [X]
YES MAYBE NO
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [ ] [X]
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in.-
a.
n:a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ................................... [ I
18. Aesthetics.. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ ]
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? [ l
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ]
20. Cultural Resources.
[X]
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [
] [ l [X]
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? ............. [
] [ ] [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ...................... [
] [ ] [X]
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.) ................ [
] [N/A] [X]
- 7 -
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? ......... [ J [ ] [X]
FISH AND GAME.ODE MINIMUS" FINDING
Discussion of Impacts
Since the project consists solely of combining existing information with the
adopted General Plan, the City has found that there is no evidence before
the City that the project will have a potential to adversely affect wildlife
resources of the habitat upon which wildlife depends. No significant impact
is anticipated with this project (Community Development).
- B -
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project consists of adding noise contour information to the
Noise Element of_ the City's adopted General Plan. This information was
previously developed as part of the Noise Element, however, it was not
specifically adopted as part of the General Plan. The addition of this
information does not change any aspect of the General Plan. None of the
goals, policies, or implementation measures of any element of the General
Plan are affected by the inclusion of this information. Similarly, proposed
land uses, densities, circulation patterns, and safetyconcerns designated
throughout the General Plan are not affected by this project, since
noise -related information was taken into consideration in the development .of
the General Plan (Community Development).
E. DETERMINATION
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 VILL 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 . ......................................... .�
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared By -
Mi
chael
ytlichael A. Rubin, Associate Planner Nov. 19. 1991
(Signature) (Name/Title) (Date)
Christine Trinklev. Principal Plnr. Nov. 19, 1991
Signature) J I (Name/Title) (Date)
MAR:506
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-001
Staff Response to Correspondence Received
The letter from Michael 'McEntee, received on January 14, 1992 at 4:50 p.m.
centers on the following points, with the City's response incorporated:
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The letter states that the project description in the staff report and
negative declaration should have been phrased as "the addition of two maps
displaying noise contour information," rather than the City's choice of
the "addition of noise contour information." State law requires that
noise contour information be provided as part of the. noise element, but
does not require it to be in the form of contour maps; it could be
displayed in tables, in text, or any other form as long as the information
is provided. Since the state requirement is general in nature, the City's
choice of how this description is worded is general as well, to better
conform to state law.
2. INTERACTION WITH OTHER ELEMENTS
The argument is raised that the noise contour information is the catalyst
causing the interaction between the noise element and other elements of
the General Plan. The noise contours are primarily derived from the
circulation element, since most noise.in Santa Clarita is a function of
transportation routes. The. establishment of noise contours is not
precedent -setting in the designation of future roads; it is a response to
how those future roads would reflect noise generation. The environmental
impacts of noise were addressed in the General Plan Environmental Impact
Report. The noise contour information was used in developing the General
Plan. All previous analyses of the General Plan, including the EIR,.
incorporated this information; the present project merely uses existing
information by formally adopting it as part of the General Plan.
3. MAPPING -ERRORS
Several perceived omissions and errors are -indicated. Again, the contour
maps are primarily based on a map in the Circulation Element of the
General Plan, Exhibit C-3, "Master Plan of Arterial Highways." A copy of
this map is attached. It is the intent that the noise contour maps follow
this map as closely as possible. The roads that are shown on this map are
also mapped with noise contours on the noise contour maps. Similarly, the
streets that are shown with street names in the master plan map are also
the ones with street names on the noise contour maps. Also, no community
names are shown in Exhibit C-3; therefore, no community names are
indicated on the noise contour maps.
Response to Correspondence
page 2
The date of the existing noise contour map, July 1989, reflects the point
at which it was prepared and its information incorporated into the General
Plan.
The comment is made that the contours in the vicinity of Circle J Ranch
Road do not correspond to information in the General Plan (probably
meaning table N-1 in the Noise Element). That table and the contours on
the maps are unrelated; a comparison of the two is not meaningful.
4. METHODOLOGY OF MAPPING THE CONTOURS
The applicable noise sources which contribute to community noise in Santa
Clarita include: highways and freeways, primary arterials and major local
streets, and railroad operations (including commuter rail). The mapped
noise contours, therefore, reflect these noise sources. Airport and
aviation -related facilities, local industrial plants, and other ground
stationary noise sources, while considered, were found to be inapplicable
and noncontributing to the community noise environment.
As a guide to the development of the noise element, a one day field tour
of the City was conducted. Noise readings were taken at 19 locations
within the City. The readings were for a period of 10 to 15 minutes taken
with a hand held noise meter. The areas which were read were then plotted
on a reduced map of the City and included within the adopted noise element
text for reference purposes. It is quite possible and likely that these
noise readings could be different than the existing and projected noise
contours since the noise contours are calculated on the basis of a 24 hour
weighted.time period.
The purpose of the existing noise contour map is to give the City a
picture of the noise environment at a point in time. It was used as a
general guide in. the development of the existing conditions for the
overall General Plan. The future noise contour map was developed on the
basis of two basic generators of noise within the Valley, traffic and rail
noise. The future noise map was prepared by using the Circulation Element
traffic and rail noise. The future noise map was prepared by using the
Circulation Element traffic generation numbers at buildout (a worse case
scenario assuming that various streets and bridges would be built and
connected), and using the generation numbers for the rail line for both
the LACTC use and freight use. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
computer program was used for the traffic generation contours while the
Noise Assessment Guidelines of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development were used for the rail lines.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL.REVIEV
The. letter expresses a preference for a supplemental environmental impact
report rather than the City's choice of a Negative Declaration for this
general plan amendment. The staff feels there is no need for a
supplemental EIR based on the criteria in Section 15163 of the State CEQA
Guidelines for a "supplement to an EIR." These criteria. include the
following:
Response to Correspondence
page 3
a. Subsequent changes proposed that require important revisions of the
previous environmental document, involving new significant
environmental impacts not previously considered.
b. Substantial changes have occurred that could lead to substantial
environmental deterioration.
C. New information of substantial importance becomes available.
d. In particular a supplement may be used if only minor additions or
changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply
to the -project in the changed situation. The staff is of the opinion
that no changes, even minor, are necessary to make the EIR adequately
apply to the project, since this information was indeed used to
compile the Noise Element and the noise impact response in the EIR.
The key words in the above criteria are "important", "substantial", and
"new." The staff feels that the proposed general plan amendment is minor
in nature, utilizing existing information that will not have a substantial
impact on the environment. Therefore, a supplement to an EIR, is
unwarranted.
Furthermore, the staff feels this General Plan Amendment, could very well
be considered exempt under either of two exemptions in the State CEQA
Guidelines: Section 15061(b)(3) - General Rule, or Section 15306 -
Information Gathering. The General Rule states, "Where it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question
may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not
subject to CEQA." The staff's opinion is that the general rule is
applicable. The other possible exemption, information gathering, would
also apply which "consists of basic data collection, research,
experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not
result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
These may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a
study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved,
adopted, or funded."
However, it was the staff's intent to allow more than a minimum effort.
If an exemption were used, no reasons for the exemption would be required
to be- provided until after the General Plan Amendment is approved. The
negative declaration procedure allows for public review and comment, and•
the public is provided with an explanation in. the document of why this
approach is used.
MAR:jcg:541
RESOLUTION NO. P91-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-001
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as
follows:
a. On June 25, 1991, the City. Council adopted- Resolution No. 91-98,
adopting the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and Certifying
the Environmental Impact Report,:
b. The City's contract -with the General Plan consultant requires the
preparation -of existing and future noise -contour maps in addition to
narrative noise contour information set forth in the General Plan.
The future noise contour map.was not available prior to the Planning
Commission recommendation and Council adoption of June 25, 1991.
Additionally, noise contour information within the planning area on
the existing noise contour map was not available for Planning
Commission recommendation or Council adoption. This information has
been finalized and provided to the City pursuant to the contract and
is ready for inclusion in the General Plan.
C. The proposed project was reviewed pursuant to the California
Environmental -Quality Act.
d. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
December 3, 1991, and continued to December 17, 1991 in the City
Council Chambers, -23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00
p.m.
e. The General Plan. Noise Element identifies and appraises major noise
sources, existing and future, for the planning area.
f. The Noise Element accurately describes existing and projected levels
of noise and noise contours for major noise sources.
g. The Noise Element determines the extent of noise problems in the
community and planning area.
h. The Noise Element describes the selection and imposition of methods
of noise attenuation and the protection of residences from excess
noise.
i. The noise contour information which is the subject of this General
Plan amendment is consistent with all other provisions of the Noise
Element.
j. The Noise Element, as amended, remains consistent with all elements
of the General Plan.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and
upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its
behalf, the Commission further finds and determines that The proposed General
Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted
General Plan, and that the proposed amendment complies with all other
applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances.
SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has
reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial
Study, and determines that it is' in compliance with the California
Environmental quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and
that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. A negative declaration was prepared for this project. Based
upon the findings stated above, the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the negative declaration to the City Council.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of the proposed General Plan amendment to the City Council.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify ,the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
L M. Harris
rector of Community Development
17th day of December 1991.
Jerry -D. Cherrington, Chairman
Planning Commission
STATE.OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
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 December 1991 by the
following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cherrington, Woodrow, Modugno, Brathwaite and Doughman
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
o a M. Grindey
City Clerk
MAR:511
RESOLUTION NO. 91-200
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-001
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and. determine as
follows:
a. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-98,
adopting the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and Certifying
the Environmental Impact Report.
b. The City's contract with the General Plan consultant requires the
preparation of existing and future noise contour maps in addition to
narrative noise contour information set forth in the General Plan.
The future noise contour map was not available prior to the City
Council recommendation and Council adoption of June 25, 1991.
Additionally, noise contour information within the planning area on
the existing noise contour map was not available for City Council
recommendation or Council adoption. This information has been
finalized and provided to the City pursuant to the contract and is
ready for inclusion in the General Plan.
C. The City Council desires to amend the General Plan to include the
Existing Noise Contour Map and Future.Noise Contour Map.
d. The proposed project was reviewed. pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act.
e. The General Plan Noise Element identifies and appraises major noise
sources, existing and future, for the planning area.
f. The Noise Element accurately describes existing and projected levels
of noise and noise contours for major noise sources.
g. The Noise Elementdetermines the extent of noise problems in the
community and planning area.
h. The Noise Element describes the selection and imposition of methods
of noise attenuation and the protection of residences from excess
noise.
i. The noise contour information which is the subject of this General
Plan amendment is consistent with all other provisions of the Noise
Element. r
j. The Noise Element, as amended, remains consistent with all elements
of the General Plan.
k. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
December 3, 1991 and continued to December 17, 1991, ,in the City
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00
p.m.
1. The Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. P91-61 on December
17, 1991 recommending. approval of the proposed General Plan amendment
and Negative Declaration to the City Council.
M. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on
December 10, 1991, continued to January 14, 1992, and February 11,
1992, in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, at 6:30 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and
upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the
Council further finds and determines that The proposed General Plan amendment
is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and
that the proposed amendment complies with all other applicable requirements of
state law and local ordinances.
SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and
considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, and
determines that it is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 at seq.) and that the proposed
project will not have a significant impact on the environment. A negative
declaration was prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated'
above, the City Council hereby approves the Negative Declaration.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby
approves the General Plan amendment, and directs the staff to incorporate the
Existing Noise Contour Map and the Future Noise Contour Map into the General
Plan for the City of Santa Clarita.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992.
Jill Klajic, Mayor
ATTEST:
Donna M. Grindey, 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:
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
MAR:516
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REGARDING PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PERTAINING TO NOISE
CONTOUR INFORMATION.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council to consider a proposed
amendment of the General Plan to address noise contour information.
Public testimony regarding the proposed General Plan amendment.will be heard
by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard on the tenth (10th) day of December 1991 at or after 6:30 p.m.
The City Council may decide to modify the proposed .amendment based upon
testimony and other .information at the public hearings in any.lawful manner
deemed appropriate.
For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the City of
Santa Clarita, Department of Community Development, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Third Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; Telephone: (805) 255-4330.
If you wish to challenge the adoption of the proposed amendment in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearings described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Dated: November 21, 1991
Published: Newhall Signal, November 29, 1991