HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-01-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - GPA 91 001 RESO 91 200 (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
s'
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item ,- be presented 0 "
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 Existing. Noise Contour Man 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.
RECOMMENDATION
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 item:
Continued To:-�/-9-�-
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
1. Mayor Opens Hearing
a..States Purpose of Hearing
2. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3. Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
S. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony
8. Discussion by Council
9. Council Decision
10. Mayor Announces Decision
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC 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
0
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 FOLLOVS:
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 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.
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
December 10, 1991 and
Council Chambers, 23920
p.m.
hearing was held by the City Council on
continued to January 14, 1992, in the City
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30
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 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 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
Jill Klajic, Mayor
. 1992.
ATTEST:
0
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:
0
MAR: 516
0
Donna M: Grindey, City Clerk
r
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
natu e)' (Name/Title)
Reviewed b Donald M. Williams. Senior Planner
(S n
i
ame/Title)
Approved Christine Trinklev. Princi(Nval Planner
ignature) i ](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.
........................ ------------- ===a ............... =--.....
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.
EFFECTS
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? ..................
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ...............
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ...........................
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? ..................................
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? ..........
YES MAYBE NO
[ ] [ I [XI
[ ] [ I [XI
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... [ I [ I [XI
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ l [ I [XI
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ............................ [ ] [ I [XI
- 2 -
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 [ I [X]
k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] I I [X]
1. Other? [ J [ ] [X]
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
b. The creation of objectionable odors?. ....... [ l [ I [X]
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ] [ l [XI
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? ............................ [ 1 I l [X]
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. [ l
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... [ I
d. Discharge into surface.waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ l
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? ............................ [ ]
Mt
YES MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ J [ ] [X]
i.
Other?
[ ] [ ] [X]
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of .species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ J [ ] [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? ...........
[ ] [ ] [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage.of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ ] [ ] [X]
5.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? ....................
[ ] [ ] [XJ
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? .....
[ ] [ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ......
[ ] [ ] [X]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat -and/or migratory routes? ...........
[ ] [ ] [X]
6.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ........
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? .................
[ ] [ ] [X]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ...
[ ] [ ] [X]
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? .................
[ ] [ ] [X]
8.
Land
Use. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? .......................
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ...............
[ ] [ ] [X]
- 4 -
YES MAYBE NO
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... [ I [ l [Xl
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? [ ] [ ] [X]
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X]
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................ [ ]
[ l [Xl
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? .............. ......... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Use, store..transport'or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ [ l
[ l [Xl
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ ]
[ ] [Xl
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? .................................... [ l
[ I [Xl
11.
Population. Will the proposal:
a.
Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Other? [ ]
[ l [X]
12.
Housing. Will the proposal:
a.
Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Other? [ ]
[ l [X]
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X]
- 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
[ I
1X1
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. [ I
[ I
[XI
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ]
[ I
[X]
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .............................. [ I
[ I
[Xl
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? ............. :........... [ ]
[ I
[X]
C.
Schools? ................................... [ l
[ I
[XI
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? :.. [ ]
[ ]
[X]
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ I
[ ]
[XI
f.
Other governmental services? ............... [ ]
[ ]
[X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . .................................... [ l
[ I
[XI
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? [ ]
[ ]
[X]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ...................... [ I
[ I
[XI
b.
Communications systems? .................... [ ]
[ I
[X]
C.
Water systems? ............................. [ l
[ I
[XI
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ]
[ ]
[X]
e.
Storm drainage systems? ..................... [ ]
[ I
[X]
M:�
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? .........
[ ] [ ] [X]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation .of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ...
[ ] [ ] [X]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ...................................
[ ] I J [X]
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ...................
[ ] [ ] [XJ
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? ....
[ ] [ ] [X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the.quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? .....................
[ ] [ ] [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? ..............
[,J [ ] [X]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ...
[ J [ ] [XJ
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural.values? .............
[ J [ ] [XJ
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? .....................
[ ] [ J [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 wall 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
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? ................. ( J [ ] [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.) .. [ J [ ] [XJ
4. Does the project have. environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ J [XJ
FISH AND GAME "DE 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).
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 safety concerns 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.
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [X]
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant
effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [ l
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 $y•
�� ✓//may/�1 'Cl�lf7J Michael A. Rubin. Associate Planner Nov. 19. 1991
(Signature) (Name/Title) (Date)
_Christine Trinklev. Principal Plnr. Nov. 19. 1991
(Name/Title) (Date)
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:
Ly M. Harris
rector of Community Development
17th day of December 1991.
;7
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
MAR:511
o na M. Grindey Of
City Clerk
c
J
LAW OFFICES OF C; i91A CLARITA
MICHAEL WENTEE CITY OF W
9595 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD . SU17E 900 • BEVERLY HUES. C5ALIF IIA 90212 • 12101 212.2012
MICHAEL M<ENTEE I=:a I 1� �8 lit
JULIA J. ROBERTS
Re: City Council Agenda item 3 set for hearing January 14, 1992
Hand delivered to city council clerk January 14, 1%92; -
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 THE ADDITION OF two maps
displaying noise contour information.
This project description is totally wrong. The Ilproject" is
amending the General Plan, and the project states its intention
at page 4 of the Agenda packet as follows:
IIF. The Noise Element accurately describes existing and
projected levels of noise and noise contours for major
noise sources."
LIG. 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. General 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 6, labelled
016. Noise" has wrong answers.
Contrary to the negative answers, 2 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 Bound 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
"8. 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 Mao 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 portionofPlacerita Canyon east of. 1-14 is not named.
It appears that the. 1-5 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 J 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 LOGARITHMICALLY. THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 55 AND 66 IS OVER A FACTOR OF TEN
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 Pian Amendment at this time.
Please vote to' require a Supplemental EIR as a condition
precedent to considering the General Plan Amendment.
MMc;abd.
sincerely yours,
Oicael McEntee