HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - ADEN AVE (2)AGENDA REPORT
a�City Manager Approv
Item to be presented by: Jeff Hogan
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: April 28, 1998
SUBJECT: A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING IN THE DIRECT VICINITY OF
ADEN AVENUE FROM INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL
LOW.
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Building Services Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 98-3% adopting a negative declaration for the Zone Change and General Plan
Amendment.
Adopt Resolution No. 98-40, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 98-001.
Introduce Ordinance No. 98-9 and pass to a second reading establishing Zone Change No. 98-001
for the parcels in the direct vicinity of Aden Avenue.
GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND
On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and
certified the Environmental Impact Report. Included in the General Plan was the General Plan
Land Use Map which designated the property located in the direct vicinity of the proposed
Lyons Avenue Extension RL (Residential Low).
The following year, on January 28,1992, the City Council directed staff to amend the General
Plan land use map and land use designation in the immediate area of the proposed Lyons
Avenue Extension from RL (Residential Low) to IC (Industrial Commercial). The Residential
Low land use designation allows residential uses on the property and an Industrial Commercial
land use designation would consist of various light manufacturing and commercial uses.
After direction from the City Council, staff noticed and prepared the General Plan Amendment
(#92-02) for Planning Commission review. Staff fulfilled the State Code legal public notice
requirements by advertising for the General Plan Amendment in the local newspaper,
On October 6, 1992, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval
to the City Council for the General Plan Amendment (#92-02) which consisted of various Land
Use Element changes. The properties located in the direct vicinity of the proposed Lyons
Avenue Extension area were included in the land use changes. However, the Planning
Commission recommended that the land use designation not be changed from RL (Residential
Low) to IC (Industrial Commercial) until the proposed Lyons Avenue Extension is designed and
funded.
Adopted: •
.Agenda
On October 27, 1992, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and approved the
General Plan Amendment (#92-02) which included the approval to change the land use
designation in the area adjacent to the proposed Lyons Avenue Extension from RL.(Residential
Low) to IC (Industrial Commercial).
UNIFIED_ DEVELOPMENT CODE BACKGROUND
Following the approval of the General Plan and General Plan Amendment, the Unified
Development Code (UDC) was formally adopted by the City Council on November 24, 1992. The
adoption of the UDC codified the process and standards associated.with land use development
and adopted the official zoning map of the City. The zoning for the property in question was
changed from Los Angeles County zoning A1-1 (Light Agricultural) to the City of Santa Clarita's
zoning of IC (Industrial Commercial) which is consistent with the adopted General Plan.
RESIDENT'S REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
In January of 1998, staff received a phone call from one of the residents in the area of the
proposed Lyons Avenue Extension, upset that the zoning and General Plan land use designation
were changed from residential to industrial commercial. Staff informed the resident that the
General Plan land use designation was changed on October 27, 1992 and the zoning designation
was changed on November 24, 1992,
On January 21, 1998, staff met with several of the residents in that immediate area along Aden
Avenue. This meeting ultimately resulted in a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change back to residential. The residents in the area felt they were not properly noticed of the
changes and could have prevented any changes if informed of them. They also believed a
residential designation was consistent with the existing improvements and those expected in
the foreseeable future. -After further conversation and analysis, staff believed that the request
was reasonable and immediately initiated a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from
IC (Industrial Commercial) to RL (Residential Low).
PLANNING COMMISSION
On March 17, 1998, staff presented the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
to the Planning Commission which resulted in a recommendation of approval to the City
Council.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
At the request of the residents in the neighborhood, the project site is only a portion of the site
that was originally changed back in 1992: The project site consist of 15 parcels immediately
adjacent to the east and west side of Aden Avenue just south of Placerita Canyon Road and the
Metropolitan Water District easement.
The project site consists of single family homes and vacant land. Two of the parcels on the
project site are vacant (total square footage of parcels is +/- 4,000) and owned by Placenta
Baptist Church. The total acreage of the project site consists of approximately 6 acres. A
majority of the parcels on the project site range from 18,000 to 39,000 square feet each which
is consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
c=2
is consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts
of the project. It was determined there were no adverse environmental impacts as a result of
the project. Subsequently, a draft negative declaration was prepared for the project. Staff has
not received any written comments or inquiries regarding the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
None by this action.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance No. 98-9
Resolution No. 98-39
Resolution No. 98-40
Negative Declaration (Available for review in City Clerk's reading file)
Initial Study (Available for review in City Clerk's reading file)
Vicinity Map (Available for review in City Clerk's reading file)
Site Plan (Available for review in City Clerk's reading file)
Letter from residents requesting a zone change. (Available for review in City Clerk's reading
file)
Planning Commission Minutes (Available for review in City Clerk's reading file)
Public Notice (Available for review in City Clerk's reading file)
JJL:JWH:lep
council\aradendoc
J
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ZONE CHANGE (ORDINANCE 98-9),
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (RESOLUTION 98-40), AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(RESOLUTION 98-38) FOR THE AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ADEN AVENUE
IN THE PLACERITA CANYON AREA.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City of Santa
Clarita City Council on this matter and associated potential environmental impacts, if any, at
the following time and location:
DATE: April 28, 1998
TIME: 6:30 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
23920 Valencia Boulevard
First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
PROJECT LOCATION: The project consist of 15 parcels located immediately east ant west
of Aden Avenue.
APPLICATION: Master Case No. 98-035
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to change the zoning in the direct vicinity of Aden
Avenue from Industrial Commercial to Residential Low.
PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Santa Clarita
A DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed
project and is available for public review beginning at 4:00 p.m. on February 20, 1998 at:
City Hall
Department of Community Development
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this mattter
during the public hearing: Further information may be obtained by contacting Jeff Hogan at
the Planning Division, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa
Clarita, California. Phone No. (805) 255-4330.
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter 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 of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall
Published: The Newhall Signal April 1, 1998
JWH:
current\notgpa.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 98-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA TO
ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #98-001
AND ZONE CHANGE #98-001.
WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARPiA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVEASFOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare:
A. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project and that said study found
that no adverse impact, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the .
same defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
B. That a proposed Negative Declaration was posted and advertised in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
C. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, the City Council further
finds and determines that the proposed Negative Declaration is consistent with
the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan contingent to the approval of
the general plan amendment and zone change, and that the Negative Declaration
complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and local guidelines.
D. Based upon foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines that
a Negative Declaration is in compliance with CEQA and that the proposed
project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration prepared for this project and recommends that the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration prepared for general plan amendment #98-001 and zone change 498-001
as complete and in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the City's Environmental
Guidelines.
4
Reso98-39
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
19_.
I, Sharon Dawson; 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
documents/resis.doc
103
RESOLUTION NO. 98-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #98-001.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, 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;
and
WHEREAS, included in the adoption of the General Plan on June 25, 1991, was the
General Plan Land Use Map that designates the property located in the direct vicinity of the
proposed Lyons Avenue Extension RL (Residential Low); and
WHEREAS, on January 28,1992, the City Council directed staff to amend the General
Plan land use designation in the immediate area of the proposed Lyons Avenue Extension from
RL (Residential Low) to IC (Industrial Commercial); and
WHEREAS, Staff fulfilled the State Code legal public notice requirements by advertising
for the General Plan Amendment (#92-02) in the local newspaper pursuant to Sections 65091a3
and 65353. The State Code requires general plan amendments, at the minimum, to be noticed
in the newspaper if the number of affected property owners total under 1,000 within the 500'
radius. If all the affected property owners total over 1,000 then the State Code requires, at a
minimum, agencies to mail individual notices to all those property owners within the 500 foot
radius; and
WHEREAS, on October 6, 1992, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing and recommended approval to the City Council for General Plan Amendment #92-02
which consisted of various Land Use Element changes. The property located in the direct
vicinity of the proposed Lyons Avenue Extension area was one of the land use changes.
However, the Planning Commission recommended that the land use designation not be changed
from RL (Residential Low) to IC (Industrial Commercial) until the proposed Lyons Avenue
Extension is designed and funded; and
WHEREAS, staff fulfilled the State Code legal public notice requirements by advertising
the General Plan Amendment in the local newspaper for the October 27, 1992, City Council
meeting.
WHEREAS, on October 27, 1992, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and
approved General Plan Amendment #92-02 which consisted of Circulation Elementchangesand
Land Use Element changes. The City Council changed the land use designation in the area
adjacent to the proposed Lyons Avenue Extension from RL (Residential Low) to IC (Industrial
Commercial); and
7
WHEREAS, property owners in the direct vicinity of the proposed Lyons Avenue
Extension are now requesting a General Plan Amendment from IC (Industrial Commercial) to
RL (Residential Low); and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated the process of a General
Plan Amendment for the property owners in direct vicinity of the proposed Lyons Avenue
extension; and
WHEREAS, staff has fulfilled the State Code legal public notice requirements by
advertising in the local newspaper on February 20, 1998, pursuant to Sections 65091a3 and
65353. In addition, staff mailed individual notices to all property owners within a 500' radius
of the project site and also mailed a certified notice to all the property owners within the project
site ensuring all owners are aware of the proposal; and
WHEREAS, at the March 17, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, located at 23920 City
Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.; testimony was received, if an, for, and/or against the
proposed General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said General Plan Amendment was duly heard and
approved by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, a Zone Change for the subject site was duly heard
and approved by the Planning Commission; and
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 General Plan Amendment is a change from IC (Industrial Commercial) to RL
(Residential Low) which would provide consistency between the General Plan
land use designation and existing residential units on the project site and
surrounding property to the north. The General Plan Amendment would not be
consistent with the Zoning Map.
C. Notification requirements pursuant to specific sections of the Government Code
of the State of California were duly followed. All property owners within the
subject site were notified by certified letters. In addition, all property owners
within 500 feet of the subject site were notified of the Initial Study and General
Plan Amendment. The GPA was advertised in the local newspaper on February
20, 1998.
D. The subject site consists of approximately six acres totaling 15 different parcels
owned by various property owners.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at
the public hearing, the City Council finds and determines that, with adoption of the General
Plan Amendment, the project is consistent with the General Plan and complies with all other
applicable requirements of State law.
SECTION 3 In acting on the General Plan Amendment application, the City
Council has considered certain principles, policies, and standards, and finds and determines as
follows:
A. That a need for a general plan land use designation to RL (Residential Low),
exists within the project area.
1. Goal 2, Policy 2.9 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: Encourage
the development of equestrian -oriented housing in areas that are
presently equestrian -oriented, and ensure that other surrounding land
uses are compatible with the adjacent equestrian zones.
B. That the subject property is a proper location for the RL designation.
1. General Plan allows the RL Residential Low land use designation a
density range from 1.1 to 3.3 units per acre.
C. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice
justify the General Plan Amendment land use designation to RL.
1. Goal 4, Policy 4.15 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: Maintain
and/or enhance the character of .the various communities through
compatible land use standards and design guidelines, while promoting an
overall identity for the Santa Clarita Valley.
D. That the proposed land use designation of RL is consistent with existingland uses
in the area and would not result in a substantive change to the subject site.
1. Goal 4, Policy 4.12 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: Maintain
and enhance the desirable rural qualities found in the certain existing
neighborhoods which are rural in character, such as Placerita,`Sand, and
Hasley Canyons.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves the
application for a General Plan Amendment (#98-001) to designate the subject property RL
(Residential Low).
0
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 119'_'
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon Dawson, 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
gpa98001.jwh
/D
ORDINANCE 98-9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE #98-001.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, Staff fulfilled and went beyond the State Code legal public notice
requirements by advertising in the local newspaper pursuant to Sections 65091a3 and 65353
and sending out individual notices to every parcel owner in the City of Santa Clarita regarding
the adoption of the Unified Development; and
WHEREAS, the Unified Development Code (UDC) was formally adopted by the City
Council on November 24, 1992, codifying the process and standards associated with land use
development and adopting the zoning map. When the UDC was formally adopted the property
adjacent to the proposed Lyons Avenue Extension was changed from Los Angeles County zoning
Al -1 (Light Agricultural) to the City of Santa Clarita's zoning of IC (Industrial Commercial)
which is consistent with the Land Use Element of Santa Clarita's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 1998, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment (#98-
001) which changed the General Plan land use designation in the immediate area of the
proposed Lyons Avenue Extension from IC (Industrial Commercial) to RL (Residential Low).
WHEREAS, property owners in the direct vicinity of the proposed Lyons Avenue
extension are now requesting a Zone Change from IC (Industrial Commercial) to RL (Residential
Low); and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated the process of a General
Zone Change for the property owners in direct vicinity of the proposed Lyons Avenue Extension;
and
WHEREAS, staff has fulfilled the State Code legal public notice requirements by
advertising in the local newspaper on February 20, 1998; pursuant to Sections 65091a3 and
65353. In addition, staff mailed individual notices to all property owners within a 500' radius
of the project site and also mailed a certified notice to all the property owners within the project
site ensuring all owners are aware of the proposal; and
WHEREAS, all application fees for the zone change and general plan amendment have
been waived; and
WHEREAS, at the March 17, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, located at 23920 City
Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m; testimony was received, if an, for, and/or against the
proposed Zone Change; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said Zone Change was duly heard and approved by
the Planning Commission; and
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 Zone Change is a change from IC (Industrial Commercial) to RL (Residential
Low) which would provide consistency between the General Plan land use
designation and zoning map. The Zone Change would also be consistent with the
existing residential units on the project site and surrounding property to the
north.
B. Notification requirements pursuant to specific sections of the Government Code
of the State of California were duly followed. All property owners within the
subject site were noted by certified letters. In addition, all property owners
within 500 feet of the subject site were notified of the Zone Change. The Zone
Change was advertised in the local newspaper on February 20, 1998.
D. The subject site consists of approximately six acres totaling 15 different parcels
owned by various property owners.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at
the public hearing, the City Council finds and determines that, with adoption of the Zone
Change, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Unified Development Code and
complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance.
SECTION 3. The Unified Development Code (UDC) requires the City Council to
make the following finding in acting upon application for a zone change to the Development
Code:
A. That the proposed change is consistent with the objectives of the Development
Code, the General Plan and development policies of the City, in which case the
council shall introduce an ordinance amending the Zoning Map and/or
Development Code, whichever is appropriate; or
SECTION 4 In acting on the Zone Change application, the City Council has
considered certain principles, policies, and standards, and finds and determines as follows:
A. That a need for a general plan land use designation to RL (Residential Low),
exists within the project area.
Goal 2, Policy 2.9 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: Encourage
the development of equestrian -oriented housing in areas that are
presently equestrian -oriented, and ensure that other surrounding land
uses are compatible with the adjacent equestrian zones.
B. That the subject property is a proper location for the RL designation.
1. General Plan allows the RL Residential Low land use designation a
AA
density range from 1.1 to 3.3 units per acre.
C. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice
justify the General Plan Amendment land use designation to RL.
1. Goal 4, Policy 4.15 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: Maintain
and/or enhance the character of the various communities through
compatible land use standards and design guidelines, while promoting an
overall identity for the Santa Clarita Valley.
D. That the proposed land use designation of RL is consistent with existing land uses
in the area and would not result in a substantive change to the subject site.
1. Goal 4, Policy 4.12 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: Maintain
and enhance the desirable rural qualities found in the certain existing
neighborhoods which are rural in character, such as Placerita, Sand, and
Hasley Canyons.
SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves the
application for a Zone Change (#98-001) and that the Official Zoning Map of the City of Santa
Clarita is hereby amended to designate the subject property RL (Residential Low).
PASSED AND APPROVED this
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
day of '19—
MAYOR 19
MAYOR
I, Sharon Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 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:
NOES:
ABSENT:
gpa98001.jwh
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(] Proposed [XI Final
MASTER CASE NO: 98-035
PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Master Case #98-036, GPA #98-001, and ZC #98-001
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 15 Parcels located immediately adjacent to Aden Avenue.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: A request to change the zoning in the direct "vicinity of
Aden Avenue from Industria]/Commercial to Residential Low.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant
to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the
environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of
CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
(x] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
-----------_______________________________________________________
JEFF LAMBERT
PLANNING MANAGERI
Prepared by. M V I t" /I _JeffAozan. Plannine Technician
(Sig�iature) (Name/Title)
Approved
(Name/Title)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Review Period From February 20, 1998 To March 13, 1998.
Public Notice Given On February 20. 1998 By:
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CERTIFICATION DATE:
current\ndad1t3.jwh
rage iS:%FSS\CLMRF \N DLV.X
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Lead Agency: City of Santa Ciarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. Ste. 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact Person & Phone Number: Jeff Hagan (805) 255-4330
Master Case: 98-035
Entitlement Type(s): General Plan Amendment 98-001 and Zone Change 98-001
Case Planner: Jeff Hogan
Project Location (Thomas Bros.): 15 Parcels located immediately adjacent to Aden Avenue.
Project Description and Setting: A request to change the zoning in the direct vicinity of Aden
Avenue from Industrial/Commercial to Residential Low.
General Plan and Zoning Designation(s): Industrial Commercial for both.
Project Applicant (Name, Address, Phone): City of Santa Ciarita
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Resdential Low to the north, Private Education to the east and
Industrial Commercial to the south and west.
Other public agencies whose approval is required
(e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least ane
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[] Land Use and Planning []
Transportation/
[j
Public Services
Circulation
(] Population and Housing [ ]
Biological Resources
[ ]
Recreation
[ ] Geological Problems (]
Noise
[ ]
Aesthetics
[ ] Water [ ]
Hazards
[ ]
Cultural Resources
(] Air Quality [ j
Mandatory Tests of
[ ]
Utilities and Service
Significance
System
I]
Energy and Mineral
Resources
ON
-1-
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[x] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that 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 on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1R
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed.
upon the proposed project.
Prepared by:
(Jeff H n, P anni g Technician) (Date)
Approved by:
Jason Smisko, Assistant Planner II) (Date)
'2-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
-3-
Potentially
significant
Impact
Potentially unless Less than
.
significant Mitigation significant
No
Impact Incarporated Impact
Impact
I.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
I I Ixl
I I
(Source 4 )
b)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
[] [] []
[xI
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
c)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the city?
[] [] [ I
(x]
d)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
I ] I I I ]
(x]
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
e)
Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)? ( )
[ ] I ] I ]
[x].
f)
Other ( )
[1 [I []
[1
Ii.
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Proposal:
a)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[x]
population projections? ( )
b)
Create a net loss of jobs? ( )
I ] [ I ( I
[x]
c)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
[I I [I
[xI
housing? ( )
d)
Other ( )
[] (] []
[]
Ill.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Will the proposal result in:
a)
Unstable earth conditions or in changes to geologic
[ ] [ ] []
[xI
substructures? ( )
b)
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over
[] I I (I
(x]
covering of the soil? ( )
c)
Change in topography or ground surface relief
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[x]
features? ( )
d)
The destruction, covering or modification of any
[ ] [I []
Ix]
unique geologic or physical features? ( )
e)
Any Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either
[ ] [ ] [ I
(x]
on or off the site? ( )
III
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
[ ] (] [ ]
Ix]
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure, or similar hazards? ( )
g)
Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ( )
[ ] [ ] [ ]
(x]
h)
Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or
[ I [ ] [ ]
[x]
river? ( )
-3-
Potentially
significant
Impact
Potentially unless Less than
significant Mitigation significant
No
Impact Incorporated Impact
Impact
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
[ ] [ ] [ J
[x]
yards or more? ( )
j)
Development and/or grading on a slope greater than
[ ] [] []
[xI
25% natural grade? ( )
k)
Development within the Alqulst-Priolo Special
[ ] (] [ ]
[xI
Studies Zone? ( )
1)
Other
IV.
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[x]
the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b)
Exposure of people or property to water related
[ j [ ] [ I
[x]
hazards such as flooding? ( )
c)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
[ ] [ ] [ I
[x]'
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity) ( )
d)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
[ ] [ ] [ ]
(x]
body? ( )
e)
Changes in currents, or the course of direction of
[ I [ I [ J
[x]
water movements? ( )
f)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
( ] [ I [ ]
[x]
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial toss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
g)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
[ j [ ] [ ]
[x]
h)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
[ ] [ ] [ I
[x]
1)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
[ ] [ ] ( ]
[x]
otherwise available for public water supplies? ( )
j)
Other ( )
[1 [] tl
[]
V.
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[x]
existing or projected air quality violation? ( )
b)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[x]
c)
Create objectionable odors? ( )
[] I [I
[xj
d)
Other ( )
[ 7 [ j [ I
[x]
VI.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
1
proposal result in:
i
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?( )
(] (J [ ]
[x]
-4-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp [ ]
curves or dangerous intersections) or Incompatible
uses? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby [ ]
uses? ( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offslte? [ ]
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ]
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [ ]
alternative transportation (e.g. bus stops, bicycle
racks)( )
g) Disjointed pattern of roadway improvements ( ) [ ]
h) Other ( ) (]
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their []
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds) ( )
Potentially
Oak Trees ( ) [ ]
Significant
[ ] (x]
Impact
Wetland habitat or biuellne stream? ( ) [ ]
unless
Leas than
Mitigation
significant No
Incorporated
Impact Impact
II
II IXI
I7 I1 [X1
[1 I [I
b)
Oak Trees ( ) [ ]
[ I
[ ] (x]
c)
Wetland habitat or biuellne stream? ( ) [ ]
I I
I ] [x]
d)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) []
[ ]
[] [x]
e)
Other ( ) []
[]
[] [I
VIII.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? []
[]
[I [xJ
b)
Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and (]
[ I
[ 1 [x]
Inefficient manner? ( )
c)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ]
[ ]
[ I [X]
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State? ( )
d)
Other ( ) []
[]
[] []
IX.
HAZARDS. Would the proposal Involve:
a)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of [ ]
[ J
[ ] [X]
hazardous substances (including but not limited to
oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( )
b)
Possible interference with an emergency response [ ]
I1
I1 IXl
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health [ ]
[ ]
[ ] IXI
hazard? ( )
-5-
No
f) Other ( ) [] [] [] []
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) [ ] [ 1 [ ] (x]
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
vibration? ( )
c)
Other ( )
Potentially
[]
[] []
A.
PUBLIC SERVICES. would the proposal have an effect
Significant
on, or result in a need for new or altered government
Impact '
Potentially
Unless
Less than
a)
Significant
Mitigation
Stgnificant
No
b)
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential '
[ J
[ ]
[ ]
[x]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
Maintenance of pubic facilities, including roads?
[ ]
[ ]
[ j [xJ
lines, oil pipelines)? ( )
Other government services? ( )
[ ]
[ ]
[] [x]
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[x]
grass, or trees? ( )
a)
f) Other ( ) [] [] [] []
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) [ ] [ 1 [ ] (x]
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
vibration? ( )
c)
Other ( )
(]
[]
[] []
A.
PUBLIC SERVICES. would the proposal have an effect
on, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a)
Fire protection? ( )
[ ]
[ ]
[ ] [x]
b)
Police protection? ( )
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1 [x]
c)
Schools? ( )
[]
[]
[] [x]
d)
Maintenance of pubic facilities, including roads?
[ ]
[ ]
[ j [xJ
e)
Other government services? ( )
[ ]
[ ]
[] [x]
Al.
UTILITIES. Would the proposal result In a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a)
Power or natural gas? ( )
[ ]
(]
[ J [x]
b)
Communications systems? ( )
[ ]
1 ]
[ ] [x]
c)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
[ ]
[ ]
[ ] [x]
facilities? ( )
d)
Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
[ ]
(]
[ 1 [x]
e)
Storm water drainage? ( )
[]
[]
[] [x]
f)
Solid waste disposal? ( }
[ ]
[ ]
[ j [x]
g)
Local or regional water supplies? ( )
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1 [x]
h)
Other ( )
[]
[]
[] I
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a)
Affect a scenic vista open to public view? ( )
[ j
[ ]
[ ] [x]
b)
Have a negative aesthetic effect? ( )
[ ]
[ ]
[ ] [x]
c)
Create light or glare? ( )
[ ]
[ 1
[ ] [x]
.6.
XV.
Potentially
impact upon the quality or quanity of existing
Significant
recreational opportunities? [] [)
[] [x]
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
d) Other ( ),' I
I
I
O
XV.
RECREATION. Will the proposal result In an
impact upon the quality or quanity of existing
recreational opportunities? [] [)
[] [x]
XIV.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
Disturb paleontological or archaeological [ ] [ ]
[ ] " " (x]
resources?
b)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which [ J (]
[ ] [xi
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( )
c)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the [ ] [ ]
[ ] [x]
potential impact area? ( )
d)
Affect a recognized historical site? ( ) [ ] (]
[ ] [x]
e)
Other ( ) (J (]
(] I
XVI.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the [ ] [ ]
[ ] [x]
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustaining
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?
b)
Does the project have the potential to achieve [ ] [ ]
[ ] [x]
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.)
"
c)
Does the project have impacts which are Individually [ ] [ ]
[ ] [x]
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.)
d)
Does the project have environmental effects which [ ] [ ]
[ ] [x]
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINUMUS" FINDING
-7-
a) 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."
.g.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
II II
Less than
Significant No
Impact Impact
II [XI
XVIII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSES:
Section
Subsection
Evaluation of Impact
I and II.
There are no significant, permanent, or temporary impacts in the
Land Use
areas of Housing and Population with the proposed general plan
Planning/
amendment and zone change
Housing
1. Land Use and Planning
Population
The project site is currently zoned Industrial Commercial and
has a general plan designation of Industrial Commercial. The
surrounding zoning is primarily Residential Low and if
changed would be consistent with the immediate residential
area. There would be no impacts as a result of this project.
The project site has existing single family homes and no
commercial uses on it.
III, IV, V,
There are no significant, permanent, or temporary impacts in the
VII, XIII,
areas of Geology, Water, Air Quality, Biology, Recreation, and
XV, and
Cultural Resources with the proposed general plan amendment and .
XIV
zone change.
Geologic
Problems/
Water/Air
Quality/
Biological
Resources/
Recreation/
Cultural
Resources
VI, XI, XII
There are no significant, permanent, or temporary impacts in the.
Circulation/
areas of Circulation, Public Services, and Utilities with the proposed
Public
general plan amendment and zone change.
Services/
Utilities
VIII
There are no significant, permanent, or temporary impacts in the
Energy and
areas of Energy and Mineral Resources with the proposed general
Mineral
plan amendment and zone change.
Resources -
IX and X
There are no significant, permanent, or temporary impacts in the
Hazards
areas of Hazards and Noise with the proposed general plan
and Noise
amendment and zone change.
currengadenia.jwh
-9-
February 1, 1998
Property owners listed below in care of.
Emery Kauzlarich
24510 Aden Avenue
Newhall, CA 91321
Dear Jeffrey Lambert:
We are the Placerita Canyon homeowners with whom you met on January 21, 1998, concerning our
desire to have our residential neighborhood restored to it's original and appropriate Residential Low
Density (RL) zoning from the current (and inappropriate) Commercial/Industrial (GI) classification.
Thank you for your letter of January 28, 1998. In response, we wish to make the following comments.
The map and list of property owners enclosed in your letter was much more broad than discussed at our
January 21, 1998 meeting at the home of Emery Kauzlarich. We have no desire or intent to affect any
zoning changes beyond the boundaries of our seven contiguous residential properties. The only properties
involved in our request are those within a boundary consisting of Placerita Canyon Road on the north, the
Metropolitan Water District on the northeast, the Ericson property on the south, and the Weste property
on the west. The properties mentioned in the previous sentence are not included in our rezoning request
but are used to establish a correct border around our contiguous properties. We have included in enclosure
1) a copy of your map with our desired boundary indicated. A list of the affected property owners
involved in this action appears below.
We would like you to inform us of the step-by-step process required to bring our request to a successful
conclusion, and the fees normally required for each step. Time is of great importance as one of our prop-
erties is for sale.
Since it is our feeling that our residential neighborhood was inappropriately (and without our knowledge)
included in a General Plan rezoning of properties surrounding us to a CII zone, we request that all fees
required to reestablish our residential zone be waived. Please inform us as to what action is required on
our part to have the fees waived.
We feel our requests of the City of Santa Clarita are reasonable. Before creation of the city 10 years ago,
all of the involved properties were zoned A-1 by Los Angeles.County. They were all appropriately in use
at that time as residences and horse properties. With the creation of the City of Santa Clarita came a vari-
ety of studies designed to establish a General Plan for the city. Two of those studies which could have
affected our properties were the establishment of the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and the
Lyons Avenue Extension amendment to the General Circulation Plan. You have stated that, a few years.
ago, a general letter may have been sent to all residents of the City of Santa Clarita informing them that
the city was establishing new zoning classes within the city for creation of the General Plan. We concur
that the letter may have been sent and that it might have been appropriate for zoning changes that essen-
tially were changes in name only (for instance, A-1 to RL.) The only rezoning information provided by
the city that we have been able to find that affected us directly was a letter presenting the draft Placenta
Canyon Special Standards District addressed to "Placenta Canyon Resident," dated May 14, 1992. It is
included in this letter as enclosure 2, pages 1 though 4. On page 4 of enclosure 2, our residential neigh-
borhood is shown to be within the boundaries of the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District, in the
southwest comer. It also shows our properties within a RL zone. That, of course, caused none of us con-
cem since it was essentially a zone change in name only. That was the last information any of us received
concerning zone changes to our property. Only recently, as one resident of our neighborhood attempted to
sell their property, did any of us discover that all of our properties had been changed from either A=1' or
RL to CA zone. You must admit that this is quite a drastic change for a residential neighborhood. We'
strongly feel that the city should have directly notified the involved property owners of the proposed
changes so that we would have had an opportunity to express our concerns. Before the creation of the
city, Los.Angeles County routinely sent notification to all property owners within 500 feet of a proposed
zone change.
Please contact us with the information requested above and confirm to us that the City of Santa Clarita
has a correct understanding of the property boundaries and the propertyowners involved in trying to
restore a RL zone to our residential neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Emery Kauzlarich
24510 Aden Avenue
A�N whall, CA 91
�!!!�
Robert J. Blanchard
24515 Aden Avenue
Newhall�CA U
Duane L. Reed
24524 Aden Avenue
Newhall, CA 91321
-ZJA.vC At
Frank D. Cannistraci
24518 Aden Avenue
New, CA 91321
Lavon Martens Michael Dennis Sitar Jack C. Duitsman
24545 Aden Avenue 22124 Placenta Canyon Road 22120.Placerita Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321 Newhall, CA 91321 Newhall, C/A 911321
}cw. di -�YCa- ='� /Ji1cei�ta� 8�csri4 - a
La.von morts
em
a
x
a
VICINITY MAP
MC# 97-035
Rd.-
NEWHALL
Drive ..
Saxonia Park
CT SITE
c
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ZONE CHANGE (ORDINANCE 98-9),
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (RESOLUTION 98-40), AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(RESOLUTION 98-38) FOR THE AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ADEN AVENUE
IN THE PLACERITA CANYON AREA.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City of Santa
Clarita City Council on this matter and associated potential environmental impacts, if any, at
the following time and location:
DATE: April 28, 1998
TIME: 6:30 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
23920 Valencia Boulevard
First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
PROJECT LOCATION: The project consist of 15 parcels located immediately east ant west
of Aden Avenue.
APPLICATION: Master Case No. 98-035
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to change the zoning in the direct vicinity of Aden
Avenue from Industrial Commercial to Residential Low.
PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Santa Clarita
A DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed
project and is available for public review beginning at 4:00 p.m. on February 20, 1998 at:
City Hall
Department of Community Development
23920 Valencik Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this mattter
during the public hearing. Further information may be obtained by contacting Jeff Hogan at
the Planning Division, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa
Clarita, California. Phone No. (805) 255-4330.
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter 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 of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall
Published: The Newhall Signal April 1, 1998
JWH:
current\notgpa.doc
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ZONE CHANGE (ORDINANCE 98-9),
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (RESOLUTION 98-40), AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(RESOLUTION 98-38) FOR THE AREA EVEgEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ADEN AVENUE
IN THE PLACERITA CANYON AREA.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City of Santa
Clarita City Council on this matter and associated potential environmental impacts, if any, at
the following time and location:
DATE: April 21, 1998
TIME: 6:30 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
23920 Valencia Boulevard
First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
PROJECT LOCATION: The project consist of 15 parcels located immediately east ant west
of Aden Avenue.
APPLICATION: Master Case No. 98-035
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to change the zoning in the direct vicinity of Aden
Avenue from Industrial Commercial to Residential Low.
PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Santa Clarita
A DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed
project and is available for public review beginning at 4:00 p.m. on February 20, 1998 at:
City Hall,
Department of Community Development
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this mattter
during the public hearing. Further information may be obtained by contacting Jeff Hogan at
the Planning Division, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa
Clarita, California. Phone No. (805) 255-4330.
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter 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 of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall
Published: The Newhall Signal March 27, 1998
JWH:
current\notgpa.doc
MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
March 17, 1998
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order
by Chairperson Hoback at 7:08 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, at 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California.
FLAG SALUTE
The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was led by Commissioner Berger.
ROLL CALL
The secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairperson Hoback and Commissioners
Berger, Kellar and Killmeyer. Commissioner Brathwaite was not present. Also attending
were Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager; Vince Berton, Senior Planner; Jennifer Reid,
Associate Planner; Jeff Hogan, Assistant Planner I; Thomas Altmayer, Assistant City
Attorney; Andrew Yi, Associate Engineer; and Lori Powell, secretary.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Berger and seconded by Commissioner Kellar to
amend the Agenda to hear Item 3 before Item 2. Said motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF MD1UTES OF MARCH 3, 1998
A motion was made by Commissioner Kellar and seconded by Commissioner Killmeyer to
approve the Minutes of March 3, 1998. Said motion was passed by a vote of 4-0.
• i : -M N`.I-W-10 We
ITEM 3 MASTER CASE NUMBER 98-035 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 98-001, . ZONE CHANGE 98-001, RESOLUTION P98-09, AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION)
The staff report and slide presentation was given by Jeff Hogan, Assistant Planner I.
Mr. Hogan answered questions directed to him by the Commissioners regarding IC zoning,
the affects of future development, the affects to the Masters College, the logic in changing
the zoning and the buffer between the residential and IC zone.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:25 p.m.
Those speaking in favor of the item were: Michael Sitar, 22124 Placenta Canyon Road,
Santa Clarita; Diane Kayzlarich, 24510 Aden Avenue, Santa Clarita; Frank Cannistraci,
24518 Aden Avenue, Santa Clarita.
There were no speakers in opposition to this item.
Commissioner Berger asked if other residents and business owners . in the _ area were
notified of the proposed change. Mr. Lambert said all property owners within the 500 foot
radius were notified.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kellar and seconded by Commissioner Berger to
approve the negative declaration prepared for the project finding that the project will not
have a significant effect.upon the environment and adopted Resolution P98-08, approving
General Plan Amendment #98-001 and Zone Change #98-001. Said motionmas passed by a
vote of 4-0.
ITEM 2 MASTER CASE NUMBER 97.102 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-
002; ZONE CHANGE 97-002; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-012;
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 98-001; SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS SCH #97081065;
RESOLUTION P98-11; AND RESOLUITON P98-12)
The staff report was given by Jennifer Reid, Associate Planner.
Commissioner Killmeyer asked why there was a deficit to the City with this project. Ms.
Reid said there were several reasons, one was that this project was being developed by a
non-profit organization and there would not be any property tax benefits. Commissioner
Killmeyer said he was concerned about only having one emergency access.
Commissioner Berger asked for clarification on what the qualifications were in order for a
senior to live in the proposed project. Clarification was given by Ms. Reid.Commissioner
Berger said he wanted Trak staff to do a study on the project location to be sure that the
street would be safe for seniors. He said it is a very crowded street.
Commissioner Kellar requested that a Traffic Engineer attend the next Commission
meeting.
Chairperson Hoback asked about staffing. Ms. Reid said there would be two on-site
managers and three staff members would be working with the Committee on Aging and
would be hired to manage the project but they would not live on-site.
2