HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - PREZONE 92 003 MC 92 094 (2)City Manager Approval �k
Item to be presented by:
Rich Henderson
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: January 9, 1996
SUBJECT: APPROVING PREZONE NO. 92-003 (MASTERCASE NO. 92-094) AND
APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LOCATED NORTH OF
COPPER HILL DRIVE AND EAST AND WEST OF SECO CANYON ROAD
ORDINANCE NO. 96-7
RESOLUTION NO. 96-6
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Annexation to the City is regulated by the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act
of 1985 (revised 1994) and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The LAFCO
requires that the City prezone the territory to be annexed prior to annexation.
Prezone No. 92-003 is a proposal to prezone a 425 -acre area ("Seco Canyon" Annexation) to City
of Santa Clarita's RE (Residential Estate), RL (Residential Low), RS (Residential Single Family),
and CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zones, in conformance with the City's General Plan to allow
for annexation of the site to the City. The project site is located North of Copper Hill Drive and
east and west of Seco Canyon Road adjacent to the existing City boundary in the Saugus area.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 5, 1995. Only one person
from the audience spoke in favor, and there were no other speakers on this item. At that
meeting the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P95-26 which recommended that the City
Council approve the Negative Declaration prepared on the project with a finding that the project
will not have a significant effect on the environment, and adopt the proposed ordinance
approving Prezone No. 92-003.
This annexation was initiated by local residents in the area. A petition was submitted with 60
percent of the property owners approving of the annexation. The area encompassed by this
annexation is almost entirely developed. Of the 425 acres, only one 24 -acre parcel, due to be
developed as a church, is presently vacant. This is an inhabited annexation. The area includes
1,530 residences (976 single family units, and 554 multiple family condominium units). Two
neighborhood shopping centers, approximately one -acre each, are also located within the site
� nd
Adopted: RQQo 96-
9—s40
!�
Agenda
proposed for annexation.
The proposed prezoning designations are consistent with the City's General Plan and Unified
Development Code (UDC).
RECOMMENDATION
Council open the public hearing, adopt Resolution No. 96-6, approving the negative declaration
prepared for the project, with the finding that the project will not have a significant effect on
the environment; and introduce Ordinance No. 96-7, approving Prezone No. 92-003, waive
further reading, and pass to a second reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 96-6
Ordinance No. 96-7
Negative Declaration
Initial Study (In Reading file in City Clerk's Office)
Resolution No. P95-26
Vicinity Map
Exhibit A - Legal Description
Exhibit B - Map
s:\cd\ annex\923arpz.mar
Public Hearing Procedure
1. Mayor opens hearing
•States purpose of hearing
2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice
3. Staff report
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent)
•Proponent
7. Mayor closes public testimony
S. Discussion by Council
9. Council decision
10. Mayor announces decision
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PREZONE APPLICATION OF
425 ACRES FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY ZONING RPD 5000-4.5U AND RPD
5000-7.5U (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), C-2 (NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESS), AND C -2 -PD TO CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ZONING RE
(RESIDENTIAL ESTATE), RL (RESIDENTIAL LOW), RS (RESIDENTIAL
SUBURBAN) AND CN (COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD) TO ALLOW FOR
ANNEXATION. THE LOCATION IS EAST AND WEST OF SECO CANYON
ROAD, NORTH OF COPPER HILL DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
regarding a Prezone application of 425 acres from Los Angeles County Zoning RPD
5000-4.5U and RPD 5000-7.5U (Residential Planned Development), C-2
(Neighborhood Business), and C -2 -PD to City of Santa Clarita Zoning RE (Residential
Estate), RL (Residential Low), RS (Residential Suburban) and CN (Commercial
Neighborhood) to allow for annexation. The location is east and west of Seco Canyon
Road, north of Copper Hill Drive. The applicant is the City of Santa Clarita.
The hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City
Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 9th day
of January, 1996, 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 maybe 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 maybe limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at or prior to the public
hearing.
Dated: December 12, 1995
Publish Date: December 15, 1995
Donna M. Grindey, CMC
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 96-6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PREPARED FOR PREZONE NO.. 92-003 (MCN 92-094)
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY NORTH OF
COPPER HILL DRIVE AND EAST AND WEST OF SECO CANYON ROAD
ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS
WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare:
A. That the City has initiated Prezone No. 92-003 to bring the project area into
conformance with the City's General Plan land use designation of RE
(Residential Estate), RL (Residential Low), RS (Residential Single Family), and
CN (Commercial Neighborhood), and the City's Unified Development Code
(UDC), which became effective December 24, 1992.. The project site, which
consists of 425 inhabited acres, is. located generally north of Copper Hill Drive,
and east and west of Seco Canyon Road, adjacent to the existing City limits in the
Saugus area.
B. That such zoning designation for the project site, described in Exhibit A and
mapped in Exhibit B, would become effective upon annexation of the project site
to the City of Santa Clarita.
C. That a proposed Negative Declaration was prepared for the project based on the
Initial Study findings and the determination that the proposed project would not
have a significant effect on the environment, would not impact resources
protected by the California Department of Fish and Game, and that a finding of
de minimus impact on such resources was appropriate.
D. That the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public
hearing on December 5, 1995, pursuant to applicable law, to consider an
amendment to the Official Zoning Map for the City of Santa Clarita, and adopted
Resolution No. P95-26, with the finding that the Negative Declaration was in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and
recommending that the City Council approve Prezone No. 92-003 and the
Negative Declaration prepared for the project.
E. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, the Council further finds
and determines that the proposed Negative Declaration is consistent with the
goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and that the Negative Declaration
complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local guidelines.
F. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines
that the Negative Declaration is in compliance with CEQA and that the proposed
RESOLUTION NO. 96-6
Page 2
project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
SECTION 2. The Negative Declaration for the project, attached hereto as Exhibit A and
by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby approved. The Director of Community
Development is hereby directed to file the Negative Declaration with the County Clerk of the
County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
19
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
1, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the 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 19_ by the following
vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
s:\cd\annex\923 ccre.mar
ORDINANCE NO. 96-7
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (PREZONE 92-003)
FOR THE AREA LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE
THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS GENERALLY
NORTH OF COPPER HILL DRIVE
AND EAST AND WEST OF SECO CANYON ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated prezoning of
approximately 425 acres of generally inhabited land, located adjacent to and outside the existing
City limits, north of Copper Hill Drive and east and west of Seco Canyon Road, and adjacent to
the existing City in the Saugus area of the Santa Clarita Valley, prior to annexation to the City
of Santa Clarita (proposed Annexation No. 1992-03); and
WHEREAS, such prezoning, as described in Exhibit A and mapped in Exhibit B, would
become effective upon annexation and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated within and
made a part of the City's Unified Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita City Council set January 9, 1995, at the hour of
6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California,
as the time and place for a public hearing before said City Council, and notice of said public
hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, testimony was received for the proposed prezone; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said prezone was duly heard and considered.
THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows:
A. The prezone is a change from Los Angeles County RPD 5000-4.5u and RPD 500-
7.5u (Residential Planned Development), C-2, and C-2 PD (Neighborhood
Business) to City of Santa Clarita RE (Residential Estate), (RL) Residential Low,
RS (Residential Single Family), and CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
B. The Initial Study prepared for the project has been circulated for review and
comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and no comments
were received. The public review period was from October 31, 1995 to November
21, 1995.
C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090
and 65351 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public
Ordinance No. 96-7
Page 2
hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City
Council and on their behalf, the City Council further finds and determines that the project is
consistent with the General Plan and complies with all other applicable requirements of State
law and local ordinance.
SECTION 3. In acting on the prezoning application, the City Council has considered
certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows:
A. That a need for the prezone classifications to RE, RL, RS, and CN exists within
the project area.
B. That the subject property is a proper location for the RE, RL, RS, and CN
designations.
C. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice
justify the prezoning designations of RE, RL, RS, and CN.
D. That the proposed prezoning designations of RE, RL, RS, and CN are consistent
with existing land uses in the area and would not result in a substantive change
to the existing zoning of the subject site.
E. That the proposed Annexation No. 1992-03 prezoning consists of 425 acres of
generally inhabited land located adjacent to, and outside of the existing City
limits, north of Copper Hill Drive, and east and west of Seco Canyon Road, as
identified in Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and considered the
Initial Study prepared for the project and finds and determines as follows:
A. Said study found that no adverse impact to the existing and future environment
of the area would result from the proposal.
B. The proposed prezone would not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and the proposed Negative Declaration was prepared, posted, and
advertised in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION _TION 5 Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby ordain that
the application for a prezone is approved, and that the Official Zoning Map of the City of Santa
Clarita is hereby amended to designate the subject property RE, RL, RS, and CN.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day
after adoption, or upon the effective date of the annexation (proposed Annexation No. 1992-03)
of the subject property to the City of Santa Clarita, whichever occurs last.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause
it to be published in the manner prescribed by law:
Ordinance No. 96-7
Page 3
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of -'19—.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA }
I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of
19 . That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the day of 19 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK
s:\cd\annex\923ord.mar
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[ X] Proposed [ 1 Final
PERMIT/PROJECT: Prezone 92-003 (Annexation No. 1992-03)
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita MASTER CASE NO.: 92-094
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The City is proposing to prezone the project site from
Los Angeles County zoning RPD 5000 - 7.5u and RPD 5000 4.5u to City of Santa Clarita RL
(Residential Low) and RS (Residential Suburban). Prezoning of the site will allow the City to
annex an existing residential area.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and
pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council
[ ] Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the
environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of
CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[XI are not required. [ 1 are attached. [ ] are not attached.
KEN PULSKAMP,
Prepared
CITY MANAGER
LReviewed by: Richard Henderson. City Planner
Signature)
Public Review Period From: 10/31/95 To 11/21/95
Public Notice Given On: 10/31195 By:
[X] Legal Advertisement. [X] Posting of Properties. [X] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
MAR:lep
sAcd\an ex\923ndc.e
RESOLUTION NO. P95-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE PREZONE NO. 92-003
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated prezoning of
certain property located in the Saugus area prior to its annexation to the City of Santa
Clarita (proposed Annexation No. 1992-03); and
WHEREAS, such zoning would become effective upon annexation, as described
in Exhibit A and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated within and made part of Title
17 of the City's Unified Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission set November 21,
1995, at the hour of 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said Planning
Commission, and notice of said public hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa
Clarita Municipal Code;
THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa
as follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that:
a. The purpose of the proposal is to prezone the project site from Los
Angeles County RPD 5000-4.5u, RPD 5000-7.5u (Residential Planned
Development), C-2 (Neighborhood Business), and C -2 -PD to City of
Santa Clarita RE (Residential Estate), RL (Residential Low), RS
(Residential Suburban), and CN (Commercial Neighborhood) to allow
for annexation of the site to the City of Santa Clarita; and
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by
affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments
received, if any, have been considered. The public review period was
from October 31, 1995, to November 21, 1995; and
C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections
65090 and 65351 of the Government Code of the State of California
were duly followed.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the
public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and
on its behalf, the Commission further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent
with the City's General Plan, including the land use designations for the project site of RE
(Residential Estate, RL (Residential Low), RS (Residential Suburban), and CN (Commercial
Neighborhood).
SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained in this resolution, the
Planning Commission has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and
determines as follows:
a. That a need for the prezone to Residential Estate, Residential Low,
Residential Suburban, and Commercial Neighborhood does exist within
-the area of the subject property; and
b. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning
practice justifies the prezone classification of Residential Low and
Residential Suburban; and
C. That the project site consists of 425 acres of land contiguous to the
corporate limits of the City of Santa Clarita.
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and
considered the Initial Study prepared for the project and finds and determines as follows:.
a. Said study found that no adverse impact to the existing and future
environmental resources of the area would result from the proposal; and
b. The proposed prezone would not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and a proposed Negative Declaration was posted and
advertised on October 31, 1995, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
C. The Planning Commission, based upon the findings set forth above,
hereby finds the negative declaration for this project to have been
prepared in compliance with CEQA, and recommends to the City
Council that it adopt the Negative Declaration for Prezone No. 92-003
and Annexation No. 1992-03.
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends to the City
Council that it approve the request for a prezone of the project site to City of Santa Clarita
RE (Residential Estate), RL (Residential Low), RS (Residential Suburban), and CN
(Commercial Neighborhood).
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution to the
Departments of Public Works, Fire, and Parks, Recreation, and Community Services, and
shall give notice of this recommendation in the manner prescribed by the City Municipal
Code.
RESO. NO. P95-26
PAGE 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND
December , 1995.
ATTEST:
en skamp
Secretary, Planning ommission
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
ADOPTED this
5th clay of
vnsley, Chairperson
Commission
1, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, 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 5th day of December
1995, by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS: Townley, Brathwaite, Cherrington, Doughman and Modugno
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
OITY CLERK
MAR:EAM:Iep
s:\ cd \annex\923pere.mar
I1
RJUS YAM I LIS
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Beginning at the point of beginning said point, being the intersection of the City of Santa
Clarita boundary as existed on November 27, 1995 and the southeasterly prolongation of the
southwesterly line as described in deed to Grace Baptist Church of Newhall, a California non-
profit corporation, recorded January 14, 1992, as Instrument No. 92-71085 thence northwesterly
along said prolongation, and northwesterly, northerly, northeasterly, southeasterly along the
boundary of land as described in last said deed to the westerly boundary of Tract No. 43753,
recorded September 4, 1986, in Book 1073, pages 1- 33, of Maps in the office of the recorder of
the County of Los Angeles; thence northerly along said westerly line to the southwest corner of
Section 35, TSN, R16W, SBBM and said southwest comer being the southwest corner of Tract
No. 45137, recorded September 24, 1987, in Book 1094, Pages 8 - 69 of maps in the office of the
recorder of the County of Los Angeles; thence northerly, easterly, northerly, easterly,
southeasterly, southerly and westerly, along all the various courses of said Tract No. 45137 to
the 1/4 corner of Section 35, TSN, R16W, SBBM; thence southerly along the easterly line of
Tract No. 43753 said line being the westerly line of the northeast 1/4 of fractional section 2,
T4N, R16W, SBBM to a point in the center line of Copper Hill Drive, said center line being the
boundary of the City of Santa Clarita as it existed November 27, 1995; thence westerly along
said City boundary and following the same in all its various courses to the point of beginning.
Containing: 425.78 acres
WFW:hds
engaubd\vo199M3.wfw
LEGEND:
ANNEXATION BDRY.
EXIST CITY BDRY.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
CITY OF SANTA CLARIT
;HECKED BY: SCALEi
I" ■ 800'
425.78 AC. I7o 7GR6.9A�m1279 H 1285
FILED WITH THE COUNTY R
ANNEXATION . NO. 1992-03
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Master Case No: 92-094 (Prezone No. 92-003, Annexation No. 1992-03)
Case Planner: Michael Rubin, Associate Planner
Project Location: The project site is an approximately 425 -acre site located north of
Copper Hill Drive, both east and west of Seco Canyon Road, and includes the area generally
known as the Mountain View (North) homes. in the Saugus area of the of the Santa Clarita
Valley.
Project Description and Setting. The City is proposing to prezone the project site from
Los Angeles County RPD 5000 - 7.5u and RPD 5000 - 4.5u to City of Santa Clarita RL
(Residential Low) and RS (Residential Suburban). Prezoning of the site will allow the City
to annex an existing residential area.
General Plan Designation: RL (Residential Low) and RS (Residential Suburban)
Existing Zoning Designation: Los Angeles County RPD 5000 - 7.5u and RPD 5000 - 4.5u
Proposed Prezoning Designation: City of Santa Clarita RL (Residential Low) and RS
(Residential Suburban)
Applicant: City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Constraint Areas: None
A.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .............. . . [ ] [ l [Xl
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? .......... ......... [ ] I [X]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ............. . ........... .. [ ] [ l [X]
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [X]
City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Assessment
Master Case No. 92.094
Page 2
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? ................. [ ]
[ ]
[X]
£
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? .... [ ]
[ ]
[X]
g.
Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ....... [ ]
[ ]
[X]
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ ]
[ l
[X]
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ................ . . . . .... [ ]
[ l
[X]
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25% natural grade? ............... [
] [ ]
[X]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ....................... [`l
[ ]
[X]
1.
Other? ................................... []
[]
[X]
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? ........ [ l
[ l
[Xl
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? ............ [ ]
[ ]
[X]
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? ................... [ ]
[ ]
[X]
d..
Other? ................................... []
I
[X]
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ................... ........ [ 7 [ ] [X]
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................•. [] [I [XI
/o
City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Assessment
Master Case No. 92-094
Page 3
YES MAYBE NO
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? [ ]
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? , [j
e. Alteration of thedirection or rate of
flow of ground waters? [ l
f Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through clirect 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? ............................ [ l
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? .............. [ ] [ ]
i.
Other? [ l C7
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)? .......... [ ] [ ]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ........... [ ] [ ]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants,into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ............... [ ] [ ]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? .................... ............ [l [l
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[Xl
1Xl
[X]
City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Assessment
Master Case No. 92-094
Page 4
YES MAYBE NO
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)? ....................... [ ]
[ I [Xl
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? ............... [ ]
[ ] [XI
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? ......... [ ] [ I [X]
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? . . .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? [ ] [ ] [X]
b. A substantia[ alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ... . .. . ........... [ ] [ ] [Xl
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ........................... [ l [ l [XI
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ..... , .... [ ] [ ] [X]
City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Assessment
Master Case No. 92-094
Page 5
YES MAYBE NO
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ......... ........................... [l
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ....... .................... [ ]
10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a.
Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? . .......................... [ l
b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ............................... [ ]
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ............. .. . . [l
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................ ............ []
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ................... [ l
b. Other? ... [ l
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ......... ..... [ ]
b. Other? .............. .. [ ]
I ,�
[X]
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[X]
City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Assessment
Master Case No. 92.094
Page 6
YES MAYBE NO
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ....................... [ ]
[ l [X)
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .................. [ ]
[ ] [X]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ..............".............. I
[] [Xl
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ............................. [l
[) [X]
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? . ... . [)
[ ] [X]
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ...... . [ ]
[ ] [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? ............................ [ l
[ ] [XJ
b. Police protection? .......................... [ ]
[ 7 [Xl
C. Schools? ................ ........ ... [7
[] [Xl
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ........... [ ]
[ ] [X]
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ 7
[ l [X]
f Other governmental services? ...... I .......... [ ]
[ ] [X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
)y
City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Assessment
Master Case No. 92-094
Page 7
YES MAYBE NO
energy? , .... ................ .. C ] [ l [Xl
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? [ ] [ l [XI
b. Communications systems? . , [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Water systems? ..... ..... > .... . .. ... . ..... [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Sanitary sewer systems? . .. , . , [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Storm drainage systems? . . ................ [ ] [ ] [X]
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? ................................. []
[] [Xl
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a.
The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ............ .. [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ........................ C ]
[I [X]
it
City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Assessment
Master Case No. 92-094
Page 8
YES MAYBE NO
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? ... , ...... . , . [ ] [ l [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of aprehistoric 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? ........................ C]
[ 7 [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 .......... , , ....... [ ] [ ] [X]
Discussion of Impacts
The proposal includes the prezoning and annexation of425 acres of land presently developed
as single and multiple family residential, No change in land use is proposed; therefore, no
significant impacts on the environment are anticipated.
%h
City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Assessment
Master Case No. 92-094
Page 9
B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
IDENTIFIED
No significant impacts identified.
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.
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self sustain-
ing 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.) .... [ ] [ I [X]
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact two or more separate resources
where the impact on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is significant.) ................... [ ] [ ] [X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? ............. [ ] [ ] [X]
City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Assessment
Master Case No. 92-094
Page 10
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. [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. [ ]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [
Z.rep d $y: _
/
ael Rubin, Associ a Planner Date
Ap7ved By:
/ I_v
.. Date
S: \ CD W NNEK\ 9231 S. MAR
/0�