HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - GPA 92 02 LAND USE LYONS AVE (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approv
Item to be presented
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: October 27, 1992
SUBJECT: The City Is proposing General Plan Amendment 92-02 which Includes minor
corrections to the Circulation Element, modification to land use categories
to reflect existing entitlements and to modify the land use categories in the
area of the Lyons Avenue extension (Master Case 92-154).
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
On August 18, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-32 recommending approval
of the Unified Development Code and Zoning Map to the City Council. The Commission directed
staff to process a General Plan Amendment to "clean up" some of the minor issues that surfaced
during the UDC process. The General Plan Amendment must be adopted prior to adoption of the
UDC so that the finding can be made that the UDC is consistent with the General Plan. In addition
to amendments recommended by the Commission (Planning Commission Resolution P92.35 is
attached), staff has Included four minor changes to the circulation element.
Prior to the adoption of the General Pian, the land use designation of the property in the area of
the Lyons Avenue extension was discussed. The area consists of approximately 33 acres with
access from Placerita Canyon Road and Aden Avenue. The topography Is relatively flat at Placerita
Canyon Road with a small hill located at the southern end. Currently, land uses Include industrial,
commercial, residential and equestrian. It was determined that the property should be temporarily
designated RL (Residential Low, midpoint of 2.2 units per acre), pending a decision on the future
alignment of the Lyons Avenue extension. On November 26, 1991, the City Council conceptually
approved a Lyons Avenue extension alignment pending a precise center line and right-of-way width
and, on January. 28, 1992, the Council voted 5-0 to designate the area IC (Industrial Commercial).
On July 21, 1992, requests for changes to the Zoning Map were presented to the Planning
Commission. Despite the Council's direction on the land use designation of the area of the Lyons
Avenue extension, the Commission felt that, due to existing traffic congestion In the area, a
designation of RL was more appropriate until the extension was actually constructed.
ANALYSIS
In review of the existing land use pattern and proposed Lyons Avenue extension, the following
issues pertain:
a. Land use: Properties In this vicinity are largely Incompatible with the proposed Lyons
Avenue extension. Most are not consistent with the current RL designation. The site is
occupied with non-residential uses such as the Los Angeles County Maintenance Yard, a
commercial self storage facility, and the Southern California Gas Company. Due to these
commercial uses, a non-residential land use category merits consideration.
b. Traffic: An existing average daily trip (ADT) volume exists on Lyons Avenue of 34,000 and
pp�ppv� Agendallem: a—
Master Case 92-154
Page 2
32,000 on San Fernando Road. The same traffic volume Is anticipated on the future Lyons
Avenue extension. Therefore, It is also expected that the non-residential land uses present
along these major arterials would be extended along the new extension.
C. Noise: The General Plan's Noise Element states a goal'Ro prevent and mitigate significant
noise levels in residential neighborhoods above 60.65 dBA." The existing noise level in the
area, according to the Existing Noise Contours map, Is between 60 and 70 dBA.due to the
Immediately adjacent Southern Pacific Railroad. This noise level also Indicates that a
non-residential land use is appropriate in this vicinity.
The property owners in the area have requested that the area be designated IC to reflect the
existing uses and previously mentioned factors. -Since the area north of the site Is classified as
Business Park (BP), this category may also be appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The amendment was heard by the Commission on October 6, 1992. During the Planning
Commission's public hearing on the amendment, issues were raised regarding Lyons Avenue
Extension and the Calgrove terminus.
Two area residents spoke In opposition to the Amendment. The concerns of the residents focused
on the location of the Lyons Avenue extension and the clarification on the number of lanes of travel
on Sand Canyon Road.
During the Commission's deliberation of the project, the Commission directed staff to make minor
changes to the resolution and exhibits. In addition, the Commission discussed the area of the
Lyons Avenue extension and land uses in that area. The Commission felt that the designation
should remain as Residential Low until the alignment for Lyons Avenue Is designed and funded.
The Commission also stated that this area Is lacking Infrastructure and should not have a change
In land use designation to an Increased category until the infrastructure was in place.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1. Open the public hearing, receive testimony;
2. Approve General Plan Amendment 92-02 (which makes no change to the land use
category in the area of the Lyons Avenue extension but approves all other
modifications); and,
3. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance of approval for the Council's consideration at
the November 10, 1992 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution P92.35
Planning Commission Staff Report
Minutes October 6, 1992 Commission meeting
Negative Declaration
Correspondences
2U21_C HEAkING ?ZOCE;-U?.y
1.
Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
2.
City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3.
Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4.
Proponent Argument (30.minutes)
5.
Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6.
Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. _Proponent
7.
Mayor Closes Public Testimony
a.
Discussion by Council
9.
Council Decision
10. Mayor Announces Decision
i
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
MASTER CASE 92-154, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
GENERAL PLAN. AMENDING MINOR TEXT CORRECTIONS
FOR HOUSEKEEPING PURPOSES, MODIFICATIONS TO THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT INCLUDING THE PROPOSED
EXTENSION OF LYONS AVENUE, AND CHANGES TO VARIOUS
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa
Clarita regarding Master Case 92-154, General Plan Amendment '92-02, a proposed
amendment of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Amending minor teat
corrections for housekeeping purposes, modifications to the circulation
element including the proposed extension of Lyons Avenue, and changes to
various land use designations throughout the City.
A hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 27th day of October, 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.
Date: October 1, 1992
Donna M. Grindey, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: October 5, 1992
CITY OF'SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
General Plan Amendment 92-02
MASTER CASE 92-154
DATE: October 6, 1992
T0: Chairman Voodrow and Members of the Planning Commission
'�I[U'
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community DevelopmentgLO'n
PROJECT
PLANNER: Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
REQUEST: The City is proposing a. General Plan Amendment to make some
minor corrections to the Circulation Element, modify land use
categories to reflect existing entitlements and to modify the
land use.categories in the Lyons Avenue extension area.
BACKGROUND ,
On August 18, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-32 which
recommended approval to the City Council of the Unified Development Code and
Zoning Map. During the hearings on this document,. the Commission directed
staff to process a General Plan Amendment to •clean up' some of the .minor
issues that came out of the UDC process. In addition, staff has added three
minor test changes in the circulation element and one Council directed chanpe.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Since this General Plan Amendment is made of a number of different issues, the
staff report will be divided into a number of separate sections.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Below are listed the recommended clarifications to the Circulation Element of
the General Plan:
1) Exhibit C-3 and Figure 8 indicate that Sand Canyon Road, south of Lost
Canyon, shall contain major highway right-of-way, four lane with trail
easements. Staff recommends that Exhibit C-3 and Figure 8 be. changed to
read as follows:
Maior highwav right-of-way. two travel lanes with drainage and trail
easements.
Agenda Item: a
2) The text of the plan indicates that the section of Sand Canyon Road, south
of Lost Canyon Road, shall contain only two travel lanes. For
clarification purposes staff recommends the underlined language be added
to the existing paragraph on pages C-40 and C-41. It is as follows:
... "The first is Sand Canyon Road, south of Lost Canyon Road, where
trail easements and related circulation conditions warrant additional
travel lanes but where only two travel lanes (one in each direction)
will be considered (left turn and de-celeration lanes are not
considered travel lanes and may be recuired), ..."
3) Exhibit C-3 indicates that Calgrove Boulevard is a major highway from The
Old Road to Wiley Canyon Road. The text on page C-43 of the Circulation
Element designates Calgrove Boulevard a secondary highway, from The Old
Road to Valley Street. Staff recommends that Exhibit C-3 be changed.
eliminating the major highway designation and classifying Calgrove
Boulevard as a secondary highway.
4) Exhibit C-3 contains an unnamed secondary highway between Soledad Canyon
Road and Via Princessa Road. This highway is described as the "Bermite
Connector" within the text of the General Plan. Staff recommends that the
name "Bermite Connector" be added to the unnamed secondary highway on
Exhibit C-3.
LAND USE ELEMENT
-a
As the Planning Commission hearings on the Unified Development Code came to a
close the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare amendments to the
General Plan on three sites within the City. Below is a list of these
requests:
1) The Weston Development tract (46626) which contains an approved
Development Agreement for 201 homes. The adopted General Plan designated
the northern portion of the site as Residential Estate and the southern
portion as Residential Low. The approved project densities warrant. the
Residential Low designation for the entire site. The Planning Commission
voted to make this change.
2) The owners of the Stillmore apartments on Stillmore Street between Camp
Plenty Road and Whites Canyon Road requested that their property be zoned
to reflect the existing density of the site. The Planning Commission
voted to rezone this site to Residential High.
3) This request is identical to the one listed above except the location is
the Oak Tree Apartments on Circle J Road near San Fernando Road.
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Background:
During the. adoption of the General Plan, the property east of the intersection
of Lyons Avenue and San Fernando Road was discussed. At the conclusion of
deliberations, it was determined to temporarily assign the land use
classification of RL (Residential Low Density, midpoint of 2.2 units per acre)
in that area pending further decisions of the future alignment of the Lyons
Avenue extension. on November 26, 1991, the City Council conceptually
approved a Lyons Avenue extension alignment pending a precise center line and
right-of-way width. At its meeting of January 28, 1992, the Council directed
the staff to conduct a land use study of this vicinity. The result of that
study indicates there is merit to the consideration of a change in the land
use classification in this vicinity.
Project Description:
The area consists of approximately 33 acres with access from Placerita Canyon
Road and Aden Avenue. The topography is relatively flat at Placerita Canyon
Road with a small hill located at the southern end. Currently, land uses
include industrial, commercial, residential and equestrian.
Analysis:
In review of the existing land use pattern and proposed Lyons Avenue extension
the following issues pertain:
a. Land use: Properties in this vicinity are largely incompatible with the
proposed Lyons Avenue extension. Most are not consistent with the current
RL designation. The site is occupied with non-residential uses, such as
the Los Angeles County Maintenance Yard, a commercial self storage
facility, and the Southern California Gas Company. Due to these
commercial uses, a non-residential land use category merits consideration.
b. Traffic: An existing average daily trip (ADT) volume exists on Lyons
Avenue of 34,000 and 32,000 on San Fernando Road. The same traffic volume
is anticipated on the future Lyons Avenue extension. Therefore, it is
also expected that the non-residential land uses present along these major
arterials would be extended along the new extension.
c. Noise: The General Plan's Noise Element states a goal "to prevent and
mitigate significant noise levels in residential neighborhoods above 60-65
dBA. I The existing noise level in the area, according to the Existing
Noise Contours map, is between 60 and 70 dBA due to the immediately
adjacent Southern Pacific Railroad. This noise level also indicates that
a non-residential land use is appropriate in this vicinity.'
While the Planning Commission has expressed concern over this change of
classification and voted to retain the residential zoning, the City Council
has directed staff to bring this item before them. The resolution attached to
this document contains language to keep the land use classification at the
existing Residential Low which is based on previous discussions at the
Planning Commission. The City Council will review the matter simultaneously
with the UDC and Zoning Map.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
State law requires that all 'projects" receive an environmental review and
determination. Portions of the project would be subject to Categorical
Exemptions (Sections 15061 (b)(1,3))which would cover existing buildings,
existing entitlements and errors in the printout of the General Plan. The
change of classification for the Lyons Avenue area would not be an exemption,
therefore an "Initial Study"- was prepared for the whole project. . After
conducting the' "Initial Study', staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission find that the project 'would not have a significant effect on the
environment. A draft negative declaration was prepared for this proposal.
3,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Open the public hearing, receive testimony;
2. Adopt the attached Negative Declaration;
3. Recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment
92-02 (which makes no change to the land use category in the area of
the Lyons Avenue extension but approves all other modifications); and,
3. Adopt the attached Resolution P92-35.
FLF:480
4
RESOLUTION NO. P92-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS:
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-02
MASTER CASE 92-154
THE PLANNING
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
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. Since the General Plan was adopted, four areas In need of clarifications have been
noted In the Circulation element (Exhibit 1, Circulation Element changes).
C. On the January 28,1992, the City Council directed staff to prepare a land use study
of the Lyons Avenue extension alignment and prepare a General Plan Amendment
If warranted (Exhibit 1, Land Use Element Changes, Lyons Avenue Extension).
d. On August 18, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-32
recommending the City Council approve the Unified Development Code and related
Zoning Map. During the hearings, the Commission directed staff to prepare a
General Plan Amendment to modify the land use designations of three properties
within the City to reflect the existing entitlements on the site (Exhibit 1, Land Use
Element Changes).
e. The proposed project was reviewed pursuantto the California Environmental Quality
Act.
f. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 6,
1992, In the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00
p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and
other evidence received at the public hearing held for the project, and upon studies and
Investigations made by the Planning Commission and on Its behalf, the Planning Commission
further finds as follows:
a. At the hearing of October 6, 1992, the Planning Commission considered the staff
report prepared for this project and received testimony on the proposal.
b. The RL (Residential Low) land use designation for the Lyons Avenue Extension area
should remain In the RL category until the extension Is designed and funded.
RESO NO. P92-35
Page 2
C. The Commission further finds and determines that the proposed General Plan
Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan,
with the exception of the change In land use designation for the area adjacent to the
Lyons Avenue Extension.
d. The proposed amendment complies with all other applicable requirements of state
law and local ordinances.
SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarlta 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 to the City Council of the General Plan amendment to, reflect the changes
In land use designation on the properties and the Circulation element to read as shown In the
attached Exhibit 1.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October . 1992.
Jack Woodrow, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Lynn/M. Harris
Deputy City Manager
Community Development
RESO NO. P92.35
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) §
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 6th day of October 1992 by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Woodrow, Doughman, Charrington, Brathwaite & Modugno.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
onna M. Gri dey
City Clerk
FLF:II
eouncike9235.flf
Exhibit 1
Circulation Element Changes:
Exhibit C-3 and Figure 8 be changed to read as follows:
Major highway right-of-way, two travel lanes with drainage and trail easements
2. Pages C-40 and C-41. To read as follows:
... "The first is Sand Canyon Road, south of Lost Canyon Road, where trail
easements and related circulation conditions warrant additional travel lanes but
where only two travel lanes (one in each direction) will be considered (left turn and
de-celeration lanes are not considered travel lanes and may be required)...:.
3. Exhibit C-3 be changed, eliminating the major highway designation and classifying
Calgrove Boulevard as a secondary highway.
4. "Bermite Connector" be added to the unnamed secondary highway on Exhibit C-3.
5. Page C-43, the third paragraph shall be revised to say "Calgrove Boulevard from the
Old Road to the vicinity of Valley Street."
Land Use Element Changes:
1. Modify the Land Use form RM to RH in the area generally considered as the existing
development on the south side of Stlllmore Avenue between Camp Plenty Road and
Whites Canyon Road.
2. Modify the Land Use form RM to RH In the area generally considered as the existing
development on the east side of Circle J Ranch Road between the existing Industrial
designation and Via Princessa.
3. Modify the Land Use forth RE to RL In the area generally considered as the
approved development at the northern terminus of terminus of Foxiane Avenue
within the City Limits.
Land Use Element Changes, Lyons Avenue Extension:
The area Is generally considered to be bounded by the railroad to the west, The
Masters College to the south, the Metropolitan Water District easement to the east
and the existing BP land use designation to the north. This area is to remain In the
RL category as currently shown on the general plan.
Exhibit 1
Circulation Element Changes:
1. Exhibit C-3 and Figure 8 be changed to read as follows:
Maior highway right-of-way, two travel lanes with drainage and trail.
easements.
2. Pages C-40 and C-41. To read as follows:
... "The first is Sand Canyon Road, south of Lost Canyon Road, where
trail easements and related circulation conditions warrant additional
travel lanes but where only two travel lanes (one in each direction)
will be considered(left turn and de-celeration lanes are not
considered travel lanes and may be required), ..."
3. Exhibit C-3 .be changed, eliminating the major highway designation and
classifying Calgrove Boulevard as a secondary highway.
4. Bermite Connector" be added to the unnamed secondaryhighway on
Exhibit C-3.
5. Page C-43, the third paragraph shall be. revised to say "Calgrove
Boulevard from the Old Road to the vicinity of Valley Street."
Land Use Element Changes:
1. Modify the Land Use form RM to RH in the area generally considered as
the existing development on the south side of Stillmore Avenue
between Camp Plenty Road and Whites Canyon Road.
2. Modify the Land Use form RM to RH in the area generally considered as
the existing development on the east side of Circle J Ranch Road
between the existing industrial designation and Via Princessa.
3. Modify the Land Use form RE to RL in the area generally considered as
the approved development at the northern terminus of terminus of
Foxlane Avenue within the City Limits.
Land Use Element Changes, Lyons Avenue Extension:
The area is generally considered to be bounded by the railroad to the
west, The Masters College to the south, the Metropolitan Water
District easement to the east and the existing BP .land use
designation to the north. This area is to remain in the.RL category
as currently shown on the general plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MASTER CASE NO. 92-154.GPA 92-02 Prepared by: Laura Stotler & Margaret Gaura
Project Location: Various portions of the City including 33.26 acres east of
the present terminus of Lyons Avenue at San Fernando Road, between San
Fernando Road and Placerita Canyon Road.
Project Description and Setting: The project proposal is to amend the City's
General Plan. The amendment includes minor text corrections, identification
of a highway extension and land use designation changes to recognize existing
entitlements. The highway extension would extend Lyons Avenue to connect to
Rio Vista. A land use designation change from RL (Residential Low) to IC
(Industrial Commercial) is proposed in the area generally bounded by the
railroad to the west, 12th Street to the north, MWD easement to the east and
the Newhall Channel to the south.
Applicant: City of Santa Clarita
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [ J [XJ
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? [ ] [ ] [XJ
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 [Xl
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 ] [X]
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ ] I ] IXl
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ............................ ( ] [ J [X]
■1
- 2 -
10
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 252 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? ....................
[ ] I ]
[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.
Development within a high wind hazard
area? .................................
[ ] [ ]
[X]
e.
Other?
[ ] ( ]
[X]
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage .
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface.runoff? ............................
I ] I ]
[X]
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ..............................
I ] I`]
IX]
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? .........................
[ ] I ]
IX]
d.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-_
cluding.but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? .............
[ ] [ ]
[X]
e.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ......................
[ ] [ ]
[X]
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? ............
[ ] [ ]
[X7
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................
I ] I ]
[X]
10
- 3 -
YES
MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ]
[ ] [X]
i.
Other?
[ ]
( ] 17{]
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)? ....................
[ ]
[ J [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? .....
[ J
[ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ......
[ ]
[ J [X]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ...........
[ j
[ ] [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? ...
[ ]
[ J [X]
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? .................
[ J
[ J [X]
S.
Land
Use. Will the proposal result.in:
a.
Substantial alteration.of the present
land use of an area? .......................
[ ]
[X] [ J
b.
A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? .................
[X]
( ] [ ]
- 4 -
j is
YES
MAYBE NO
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
fry
zoning laws? ............................... [ ]
I ] IX]
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? ................................. I l
I ] [X]
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 nA
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ I ]
I ] IX]
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ............................:......... [ ]
[ ] IXL
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... I ]
I ] IX]
11.
Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... I l
I ] IX]
b. other? [ ]
[ ] [X]
12.
Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ]
[ ] [X]
b. Other? [ ]
I ] [X]
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
•vehicular movement? ........................ [ ]
[ ] [X]
j is
- 5 -
q
13
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? ............................
[ l
L ] LX]
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ..............................
[X]
( 1 [ J
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .......
[ J
[ ] [X]
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ..............................
[ l
L ] [X]
14. Public
Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental
services in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? ...........................
[ I
[ I [X]
b.
Police protection? .........................
[ ]
[ J [XI
C.
Schools? ...................................
[ ]
L I LXI
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? ....
[ J
[ ] (X)
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including.roads? ...........................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
f.
Other governmental services? ...............
[ ]
[ ] [X]
15. Energy. Will'the proposal result in7
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . ....................................
[ ]'
[ ] [X]
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? ......................
[ ]
[ ) [X]
b.
Communications systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [XI
C.
Water systems? .............................
L ]
[ I LXI
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [XJ
e.
Storm drainage systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
q
13
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)? ... [ ]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ................................... [ ]
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? ....................... [ ]
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.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? ................ [ ]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to .
cause a.physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ J
Iq-
- 7 -
Discussion of Impacts.
Due to the varied nature of the General Plan amendment proposed, the
elements of this amendment will be reviewed independently for associated
impacts.
Lyons Avenue Extension
The Lyons Avenue extension would have a curvilinear configuration and would
link to Rio Vista when constructed. 'At this time, a specific roadway
alignment has not been adopted so the exact nature of the roadway impacts
are unknown and additional. environmental evaluation would be undertaken
prior to construction. Portions of the site would be subject to grading
which may include grading in sloping areas subject to hillside review. The
roadway would cross the railroad tracks and its design would need.to be
coordinated with the railroad. The roadway would impact upon a blueline
stream known as Newhall Creek. Army Corps of Engineers and California Fish
and Game permits may be needed for construction in this area and these
approvals would be considered at the time building and grading permit
applications are submitted.. The location of Newhall Creek in.relation to
the site would result in the creation of remnant parcels following
construction.
The purpose of this roadway alignment is to reduce and/or discouragei
increases in vehicular trips on Placerita Canyon' Road. According to .the
City's General Plan, there is an existing average daily traffic volume on
Lyons Avenue of 34,000 vehicles and 32,000 vehicles on San Fernando Road.
It is anticipated that the same traffic volume would continue following
construction of the extension.
Presently, the extension would bisect an area designated as Residential Low
(RL) in the City's General Plan. Short and long-term noise and traffic
impacts anticipated with construction of the extension may not be consistent
with low density.. residential uses... The land use designation on the
properties adjacent to the extension may be. re -designated ..for higher
intensity uses following construction of the extension.
Highways are considered growth inducing.It is likely that uses along this
highway would intensify from lower density uses (agricultural and
residential) to the higher intensity uses generally associated with
thoroughfares in the City (commercial. and light manufacturing). No
significant impact is anticipated from adding the Lyons extension to the
General Plan since, when constructed, it would provide an additional
circulation alternative and improve the circulation in the area.
Construction related impacts would be addressed prior to construction of the
roadway since this information is not available at this time.,
Lyons/12th Street.redesignation from RL to IC
A variety of land uses exist within this area with the main access point to
this area being Placerita Canyon Road. The Land Use designation for these
properties is Residential Low (RL) and it is proposed to be changed to an IC
designation. Traffic circulation, noise and surrounding uses provide
environmental constraints in this area.
IS
This area has limited access through Placerita Canyon Road and 12th 'Street.
A change from RL to IC would allow 'for an increase in the intensity of uses
in the area. Commercial and light industrial uses would have the capacity
to generate more trips than -residential uses. Given the present access
constraints of this area, without additional access points, increasing the
allowable density would have thepotential to create further traffic impacts
upon Placerita.Canyon Road and 12th Street.
A portion of the area designated RL is in an.area designated above 65dBA in
the City's General Plan. Major noise sources in the area include the
railroad and traffic from Placerita Canyon Road. The 65dBA level is
important since this is the level above which special building methods must
be employed to reduce noise levels within residential units. Changing the
land use designation to IC has the potential to increase traffic and allow
activities which increase ambient noise levels.
The proposed use does differ from the previously planned use of the area.
Uses within the area proposed for IC are mixed. The existing uses include
single-family residences, agricultural uses in LA County, maintenance and
storage yards, a self -storage facility, and the Southern California Gas
Company service facility. Surrounding land uses to the east are
single-family residential, and to the north are commercial and industrial
uses. A railroad track and channel separate the subject site on the south
and west from commercial and industrial uses. No significant impact is!
anticipated by changing the land use designation provided adequate
provisions for circulation are made.prior to.site.development.
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•.
X
Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code.) .....:.......:.. [ ] [N/AJ [ ]
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? ................. [ J [ j (XI
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.) ........... [ ] [ J [Xj
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 ( j [Xj
D. 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 . .................................... [Xj
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
VILL BE PREPARED ..................................... [ ]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required . ......................................... [ j
1-7
- 10 -
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prep red By.
Laura Stotler, Assistant Planner II 9/16/92
�(Signat re) (Name/Title) (Date)
Approv By:
Y Donald M Williams. Senior Planner 9/16/92
ign ure) (Name/Title) (Date)
ENV:3 (10/90)
-M, RS
? Mir
fit
----------
EN RVL -------
0,
RAW.
ns
"WIrNt
�g
\7:
i ZiT", r ...
RS
0010 IL Ell -------
BP
R
*ova
novae
51.
A -
'k
4k#
RE
"'i A"
ILI BP
RYL..............
_77 /, - I . . I V, RS
RS- -
RL
.......... -I
X- Ilk -
RL
77
R
S RS S
RL R
0S
RVL y
_Z� It. I . I I - , 11. "'..
C 6S I� I I .
t::", Ri
.4" 'y
RS
RL. RL
IRS' I,.: RS
Y
bs RL
35-L I
RVL L S
0
RVL
RK -
Y'
-6
40000e
BP
- __�% . I RL
�—,\ f op I, . �-- --, f j �7.
0S RMI
z
BP
Rl�_ RS 0S -RM k CC
17
1A, .................
RL'
JD
KS
........... ......
10
RM
cc RL
(PD) Co 1-) 7
RL
L
L I
L
N
CK RLI -
CTC M
1C (PO) ....... _RM/
P) L'101
RS
Rk
L
/-tc RM
RS: . I . . . . RL
RS
0 .. . .... - RVL
CTC Co
------------ - --
D)
(PD)
Ct RVU:
cc
C U
6S
RM D)'. 8
OX
Tc,
CTC
BP
P6
S B
RMT P 4 7 0 4 1JI1
0S. RVL
BF 7 RVL
Bp
I L
BP
RL (PD)
BP
RM
RMH 0S
4 v4, �11. -.
RS !.
...... Br BP -RS
B
7 RS
0
BP
AU
D)
RS
RL\ RL
P
--- ----------
1 4 cc
RM
Ap
Will
7z'
IRM
.1 rV RS
-IRM
RE
RL
OL
BP -
RS RS
01 RL
RE
0
R E
P L, RL
RE
V/ -j: L;
PE
L
RL K
MI
'(j/(M0CA) RVL
RW, t
(MOCA)
RL
10S
2 BP
0EA JRVL.
IRS
R L
MOC
RL
PA I—_ I i RL
tRM wo
RL
4i 7T ILegend
S!
0S:.
_!J 7'
GRICULTURAL& RESIDENTIAL ZONES: COMMERCIAL ZONES: SPECIAL ZONES:
A
CA
Proposed Official Zoning Ma'p nit
I RL L
C 1�- Oat
IRA 7. A Agriculture CTC Commercial Towne Center MHV- Mobile Home'Pork.,
S.... . .. . R E C C Commercial Communi ;-eve opment
ty
an Clra General Plan _RVL Residential Estate 1 Planned
'c
(PD
R E --'i"-hborhood
City of Santa Clarl'ta (PD) C 14 Commercial Ne g Spe-ific Plan
WSW
Mineral/Oil Conservation Area
Commercial Office
Residential Ver Low
RVL
y
Ir 1C
VSR r Open Space
RL Residential Low Visitor Serving/Reso I (PD)
e ram,,..
L R Residential Suburban Developm nt Prog
S
-'77
INDUSTRIAL ZONES:
RE o(PD) Private Education
RM Residential Medium
BP Buiiness' Park
RMH Reside
ntial Mediu� Hig
Dn
ps
Ind 'trial Commercial
1C. -
R H Residential High
0,
1C
2-200 Feet
'clustrial
in
E V I S 10 N S
R
I/ 6)6NTA �,o
0dober.241-lip9i
P
B
R L
7�f -7,
-77