HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - ADOPT RESO 98 137 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be presented by: Laura Stotler
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: November 24, 1998
SUBJECT: APPROVING PREZONE 98-002 AND THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE 2,116 ACRE NORTH VALENCIA 2
PREZONE, LOCATED OUTSIDE AND ADJACENT TO THE CITY
LIMITS NORTH OF NEWHALL RANCH ROAD, EAST AND
WEST OF MCBEAN PARKWAY AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF
COPPERHILL DRIVE/RYE CANYON ROAD.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-137
ORDINANCE NO. 98-20
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council to conduct the public hearing, adopt Resolution No. 98-137 to
approve the Negative Declaration prepared for the prezone, with the finding that
the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and, introduce
Ordinance No. 98-20 approving Prezone 98-002, waive further reading, and pass.
to a second reading.
BACKGROUND
This request is for the prezone of 2,116 acres in the North Valencia area to City
zones consistent with the General Plan. The City initiated this prezone request
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the North
Valencia 2 (NV2) Specific Plan and Annexation that the Council approved last
July. The site presently has a mix of vacant land and developed residential,
commercial, industrial uses,. and Valencia High School. Site characteristics
include a portion of San Francisquito Creek, an earthquake fault study zone,
several protected oak trees and some minor hillsides. No development of the '
property is proposed as part of this prezone request.
In order to reduce annexation processing times, a prezone is sought at this time
so that the City will have an opportunity to process an annexation request with
the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) concurrently with the
processing of the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan. The LAFCO requires that the
City prezone territory prior to annexation. A fiscal impact analysis for the North
Contin to: -Z6-q1Agenda ite�:4
Valencia 2 Specific Plan will be prepared prior to consideration of an annexation
application to LAFCO.
It should be noted that this prezone request includes development areas not included
within the NV2 Specific Plan. The NV2- Specific Plan includes areas known locally as East
Creek, Decoro South and a portion of the Valencia Industrial Center. Prezone areas outside
the NV2 Specific Plan are North Park (inhabited), Decoro Highlands (under construction)
and West Creek (proposed in LA County). Although prezoned together, annexation of this
area is likely to proceed through separate actions, if at all.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 3, 1998 and the
Commission's recommendation for approval is attached to this report.
DISCUSSION
The proposed City zones are BP (Business Park), CC (Community Commercial), CN
(Neighborhood Commercial), RH (Residential High), RMH (Residential Medium High), RS
(Residential Suburban), RL (Residential Low), RE (Residential Estate). The proposed
zoning is consistent with the City's General Plan and with existing development. City
zoning and development regulations would apply to this property upon completion of an
annexation to the City. If the NV2 Specific Plan were approved, then the Specific Plan area
zoning would change to SP (Specific Plan).
An initial study and negative declaration have been prepared for this prezone based upon
the General Plan Final EIR.
The Valencia Company has agreed to pay all fees associated with the annexation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Prezoning of the property to allow for annexation would have no fiscal impact. A fiscal
impact analysis will be prepared prior to consideration of an annexation application to
LAFCO. The fiscal impact analysis is likely to be completed in late January -early February
1999.
ATTACHMENTS
Public Notice
Resolution No. 98-137, Adoption of Negative Declaration
Ordinance No. 98-20, Prezone
Negative Declaration
Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 3, 1998
Resolution No. P98-32
Initial Study (In City Clerk's Reading File)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION: MASTER CASE NUMBER 98-183 (Prezone 98-002)
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
PROJECT DESCRIPTION; Prezone of 2,116 acres from County of Los Angeles Zoning
to City of Santa Clarita zones BP (Business Park), CC
(Community Commercial),CN (Neighborhood Commercial),
RH (Residential High), RMH (Residential Medium High),
RS (Residential Suburban), RL (Residential Low) and RE
(Residential Estate) consistent with the City's General
Plan land use designations. A prezone is requested to
allow for future annexation of this area into the City of
Santa Clarita. NO DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AS
PART OF THIS PREZONE REQUEST.
PROJECT LOCATION: North of Newhall Ranch Road, east and west of McBean
Parkway,and north and south of Copper Hill Drive/Rye
Canyon Road within unincorporated Los Angeles County,
directly adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. This area
includes the unincorporated areas locally known as North
Park, East Creek, Decoro South, Decoro Highlands, West
Creek and portions of the Valencia Industrial Center.
A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and is
available for public review beginning at 4:00 p.m. on October 13, 1998 at:
City Hall
Planning & Building Services Department
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
A public hearing on this matter is scheduled for City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission
consideration on:
DATE: November 3, 1998
TIME: At or after 7:00 P.M.
LOCATION: Council Chamber, City Hall
23920 Valencia Blvd. First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
A public hearing on this matter is scheduled for the City of Santa Clarita City Council
consideration on:
DATE: November 24, 1998
TIME: At or after 6:30 P.M.
LOCATION: Council Chamber, City Hall
23920 Valencia Blvd. First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
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
written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing.
If you wish to have written comments included in the materials the Planning Commission
receives prior to the public hearing, it must be submitted to the Planning & Building Services
Department by 12:00 P.M. on Tuesday, October 27, 1998. If you wish to have written comments
available for the City Council's review prior to the public hearing, it must be submitted to the
City Clerk by 12:00 P.M. on Monday, November 9, 1998.
For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the City of Santa Clarita,
Department of Planning & Building Services, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor, Santa Clarita,
CA 91355; Telephone: (805) 255-4330, Laura Stotler, Project Planner.
Ken Pulskamp Jeffrey Lambert
Assistant City Manager Director of Planning & Building Services
Published: The Newhall Signal October 13, 1996
NORTH VALENCIA No. 2 PREZONE
BP- Business.Park
RMH- Residential Medium High
CN- Neighborhood Commercial
'RS- Residential Suburban
CC- Community Commercial
RL- Residential Low
RH- Residential High
1
Master Case No. 98-183
Prezone No. 98-002
,P.. �...
RERE
;
Hill
Drive
ej
RMH
CN
RL4f
%
/•,
P.
RS
RL I
BP
RS
°°
r
*eGo44et�
■ .on INN
Po
°r
o
Drive
CN
CNI
'•I
Decoro
)BP BP
pr've
`
A...
CC
RS
Q
Q.
Um
rooti CC
l
0
�e
New Ranch Road
AIF
' • ■ ■ EXISTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA BOUNDARY
PROPOSED ZONING BOUNDARIES
PROPOSED CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ZONING
BP- Business.Park
RMH- Residential Medium High
CN- Neighborhood Commercial
'RS- Residential Suburban
CC- Community Commercial
RL- Residential Low
RH- Residential High
RE- Residential Estate
/
N
Not to Scale
RESOLUTION NO. 98-137
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PREZONE 98-002 OF
2,116 ACRES KNOWN AS NORTH VALENCIA 2, LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND
OUTSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS, GENERALLY NORTH OF NEWHALL RANCH
ROAD, EAST AND WEST OF MCBEAN PARKWAY, AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF
COPPER HILL DRIVE/RYE CANYON ROAD
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. 98-002 to zone 2,116 acres, known as
Newhall Ranch Road, BP, CC, CN; RH, RMH, RS, RL, and RE in conformance
with the City's General Plan BP, CC, ON, RH, RMH, RS, RL, and RE land use
designations to allow for the future annexation of North Valencia to the City of
Santa Clarita;and
B. That the North Valencia 2 prezone area is presently occupied by residential uses,
commercial uses, industrial uses, a high school and vacant land. No development
is proposed as part of the prezone request. The proposed zoning reflects existing
land uses, responsible planning principles, and existing land uses on-site; and
C. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project and that said study found
that no adverse impact to the. existing and future environmental resources of the
area would result from the proposed prezone that is consistent with the City's
adopted General Plan. An environmental impact report was prepared and
certified for. the General Plan in June 1991(SCH#90010683); and
D. That the Initial Study found that the proposed prezone -would not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment based on the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21083.3 and a proposed Negative
Declaration was posted and advertised on October 13, 1998 in accordance with
CEQA.
E. 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.
F. That the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public
hearing on November 3, 1998, pursuant to applicable law, to consider the
prezone, and adopted Resolution No. P98-32, 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 98-002 and
Resolution No. 98-137
Page 2
the Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and
H. That the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public hearing on
December 1, 1998, pursuant to applicable law, to consider the annexation and
prezone.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, the Council further
finds as follows:
A. 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.
B. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines
that the Negative Declaration is in compliance with CEQA, reflects the
independent judgement of the City and that the proposed project will not have
a significant impact on the environment.
SECTION 3. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, the Council further
finds as follows:
A. This project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of
persons residing in the area, nor be materially detrimental to the use, .
enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site, nor
jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health,
safety, or general welfare since the proposed zoning designations are consistent
with the City's General Plan land use designations.
SECTION 4. The Negative Declaration for the project is hereby approved. The Director
of Planning and Building Services is hereby directed to file the Negative Declaration with the
County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles.
SECTION 5. 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 Municipal Code.
Resolution No. 98-137
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
19
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) •
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, 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
sAcd\annex\982ccre
Ordinance No. 98.20
Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. 98-20
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (PREZONE 98 -002)
FOR THE NORTH VALENCIA 2 AREA,
2,116 ACRES LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING
CITY LIMITS NORTH OF NEWHALL RANCH ROAD, EAST AND WEST OF MCBEAN
PARKWAY, AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF COPPER HILL DRIVE/RYE CANYON ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated prezoning of
approximately 2,116 acres of land, located adjacent to and outside the existing City limits,
north of Newhall Ranch Road, east and west of McBean Parkway, and north and south of
Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita adopted the City of Santa Clarita General Plan
on June 26, 1991 by City Council Resolution 91-98 and adopted the City of Santa Clarita
Unified. Development Code, including the City's zoning designations, on November 24, 1992,
effective December 24, 1992; and
WHEREAS, such prezoning, for the area mapped in Exhibit A, described in Exhibit B,
and zones as shown on Exhibit C, 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 Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public
hearing on November 3, 1998, pursuant to applicable law, to consider the prezone for the City
of Santa Clarita, and adopted Resolution No. P98-32, 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. 98-002 and the Negative Declaration
prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita set November 24, 1998 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 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, if any, for, and/or against
the proposed prezone; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said prezone was duly heard and considered; and
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
adopted.Resolution 98-137, approving the Negative Declaration prepared for this prezone with,
Ordinance No. 98.20
Page 2
the finding that the Negative Declaration was in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
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 zones A-2-5, RPD -5000-8.6U,
RPD -5000-5U, RPD -5000-7.8U, RPD -5000-16U, C-3 and MPD to City of Santa
Clarita zones BP, CC, CN, RH, RMH, RS, RL, RE in conformance with the City's
General Plan.
B. 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 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 the proposed Prezone No. 98-002 prezoning consists of 2,116 acres of land
located in the North Valencia area adjacent to, and outside of the existing City
limits, north of Newhall Ranch Road, east and west of McBean Parkway, and
north and south of Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road as mapped in Exhibit A
and described in Exhibit B (Legal Description).
B. That the subject property is a proper location for the BP, CC, CN, RH, RMH, RS,
RL and RE zones, as identified in Exhibit C (City Zone Map), consistent with the
location of the BP, CC, CN, RH, RMH, RS, RL and RE designations on the City's
General Plan Land Use Map.
C. That the proposed zone change is consistent with the objectives of the City's
Unified Development Code, the General Plan and development policies of the
City.
D. That a need for the prezone to the various City zones exists within the project
area, and that public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning
practice justify the prezoning designations.
SECTION 4. 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
Ordinance No. 98-20
Page 3'
Clarita is hereby amended to designate the following zoning on the subject property: BP, CC,
CN, RH, RAM, RS, RL and RE.
SECTION 5. 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 of the subject property to the City
of Santa Clarita, whichever occurs last.
SECTION 6. 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. 98.20
Page 4
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of '19—.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF -LOS ANGELES ) •
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, 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:\pbs\annex\982pzord
LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT MAP
PRE -ZONE98-00$
muvg
...,maw
IT07.;„ui$T
EXHIBIT B
1 LEGAL DESCRJMOv
2 ' Pre-Zoae Boundary
3 iI That portion of the Rancho San Francisco, in the Unincorporated Territory of the County
4 of Los An;eles, State of California, as shown on map recorded in Book 1, Pages 521 and
5 522 of Patents, Records of said County, described as follows:
5
7 Beginning at the center line intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and .Mcbean Parkway as
8 - said intersection is shown on map of Tract No. 44481, in the City of Santa CIarita_ as per
9 II map filed in Book 1115 Pages 28 through 48 of Maps in said Records; thence .
10 1 northeasterly and northerly along the center line of said Mcbean Parkway, and continuing
I northerly along said last mentioned center line in all its various courses and curves as
12 shown on map of Tran No. 44483, in said city, filed in Book 1119 Pages 3 through 7 of
13 said Maps, on map of Tract No. 44491, in said city, filed in Book 1119 Pages 8 through
14 14 of said Maps, on map of Tract No. 44687, in said city, filed in Book 1131 Pages 84
15 through 97 of said Maps and on trap of Tract No. 44694, in said city, filed in Book 1132
m Pages 9 through 14 of said Maps to the center line of Decoro Drive, as said center line is
17 shown on map of said Tract No. 44694; thence southwesterly along the center line of said
18 Decom Drive through all its various courses and curves to a Una which bears at right
19 angles to said center line and passes through the most westerly comer of Lot 70 of Tract
20 i No. 44696, in said city, as per map filed in Book 1139 Pages 1 through 7 of said Maps;
21 thence northeasterly 40.00 feet along said line which bears at right -angles, to the most
22 westerly comer of said Lot 70; thence northwesterly, northerly and northeasterly along
23 the southwesterly, westerly and northwesterly lines of said Tract No. 44696 through all of
24 its various courses to the most. northerly comer of Lot 7I of said Tract No. 44696, said
25 comer being also the most westerly corner of Lot 27 of Tract No. 44848, in said city, as
26 per map filed in Book 1145 Pages 89 through 96 of said Maps; thence northeasterly and
27 southeasterly along the northwesterly and northeasterly lines of said Tract No. 44848
2s through all of its various courses to the most westerly corner of Lot 57 of Tract No.
29 44849, in said city, as per map filed in Book 1139 Pages 32 through 40 of said Maps;
30 thence northeasterly and southeasterly along the northwesterly and northeasterly lines of
l said Tract No. 44849, to the most easterly comer of Lot 58 of said Tract No. 44849; said
2 !I corner being also the most southerly comer of Lot 130 of Tract No. 46389-02, in the
3 Unincorporated Territory of the County of Los Angeles, as per map filed in Hook 1213
a II Pages 11 :rough 24; thence northeasterly, northwesterly and northerly along the
5 generally easterly line of said Tract No. 46389-02, through all of its various courses, to
5 the most northeasterly comer of Lot 131 of said Tract No, 46389-02, said northeasterly
7 corner being also the most southerly comer of Lot 47 of Tract No. 46389-07, in said
s II county, as per map filed in Book 1220 Pages 1 through S; thence northerly, easterly;
9 northerly and northwesterly along the generally easterly line of said Tract No. 46389-07
10 I through all of its various courses to the most northerly comer of Lot 48 of said Tract No.
11 46389-07, said northerly comer being also the most easterly comer of Lot 58 of Tract No.
12 �I 46389-08, in said county, as per map filed in Book.1220 Pages 9 through IS; thence
13 'I northwesterly and northerly along the generally easterly line of said Lot 58 to the most
14 northeasterly comer of said Lot 58, said comer being also the most southerly comer of
15 Lot 36 of Tract No. 46389-09, in said county, as per map filed in Book 1223 pages 1
16 through 7 of said Maps; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly lines of said Tract
17 No. 46389-09 to the most easterly comer of said Lot 58; thence northwesterly along the
18 northeasterly line of said Tract No. 46389-09 and its northwesterly prolongation, the
19 following 4 courses:
i -
2a 1. North 63 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds West. 32.72 feet
21 2. North 43 degrees 09 minutes 16 seconds West 343.64 feet
22 3. North 38 degrees 08 minutes 21 seconds West 246.37 feet
23 4. .forth 15 degrees 17 minutes 49 seconds West 50.91 feet to the non -
24 tangent curved easterly line of Lot 3 of Tract No. 46389-13, in said county, as .
I
25 per map filed in Book 1224 Pages 1 through 9 of said Maps, said curve being
26 concave westerly, having a radius of 318.00 feet and to which intersection a
27 radial line bears South 83 degrees 59 minutes 55 seconds East.
28 thence_ northerly, northwesterly, westerly and southwesterly along the easterly,
29 northeasterly, northerly and northwesterly lines of said Lot 3. through all of its various
30 courses and curves, to the southwesterly terminus of that certain course shown as having
31 a bearing and distance of North 65 degrees 48 minutes 04 seconds East 549.81 feet, said
Sheet 2 of 4
I course being also a course in the northerly line of Parcel 6 of Licensed Surveyor's ytap
2 filed in Book 27 Pages 32 through 39 of Record of Survey, of said Records; thence
3 1 southwesterly, northwesterly, southerly, northwesterly and westerly along the generally
4 II nor'.herly, northwesterly and northeasterly lines of parcels 6 and 7 of said Licensed
3 Surveyor's Map to the most northerly comer of Parcel I of licensed Survevor's Map
6 filed in Book 27 Pages 27 through 31 of Record of Survey, of said Records; thence
7 southwesterly, easterly and southerly, along the generally northwesterly line of said
8, II Parcel 1 to Station No. 8 in the southerly boundary of the "Wayside Honor Farm", as
9 shown on County Surveyor's Map No. B-1638, of said Records, said Station No..8 being
10 the easterly terminus of that certain'course shown as having a bearing of North 80
11 degrees 34 minutes East and a length of 387.31 feet on said licensed Surveyor's Map
12 filed in Book 27 Pages 27 through 31 of Record of Survey and also being the most
13 northerly comer of that certain parcel of land described as Parcel 1 in deed to Lockheed
14 Aircraft Corporation, recorded in Book D468, Page 516 of said Records; thence
15 southerly, along the easterly lines of said Parcel I, through all of its various courses and
16 curves, to the northeasterly comer of that certain parcel of land described in deed to
17 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, recorded in Book D3300 Page 615 of said Records;
is thence southerly, along the easterly lines of said certain parcel of land, through all of its
19 various courses and curves, to that certain course having a beating and distance of South
20 26 degrees 31 minutes 00 seconds East 1111.16 feet in the easterly boundary of Parcel 2
21 as described in Certificate of Compliance No.101,363, recorded Tune 22,1995 as
22 InstrumenCNo. 95-993884 of said Records; thence leaving said certain parcel of land and
23 along the boundary of said Parcel 2, South 26 degrees 31 minutes East 1111.16 feet to a
24 non -tangent curve, concave southeasterly and having a radius of 1800.00 feet, said curve
25 being the northwesterly line of Cooper Hill Drive,100 feet wide, as shown oa map of
26 j Tract No. 5211I. in said city, as per map filed in Book 1218 Pages 1 through 15 of said
27 Maps, thence southwesterly and westerly, continuing along the southeasterly and
23 southerly boundary lines of said Parcel 2, through all of its various courses and curves, to
29 the northwesterly comer of Parcel 3 as described 6 said Certificate of Compliance No.
30 101,363, recorded June 22, 1995 as Instrument No. 95.993884 of said Records, thence
31 southerly, southeasterly and easterly, along the westerly, southwesterly and southerly
Sheet 3 of 4
lines of said Parcel 3 to the southerly terminus of that certain curve in said southerly Iine
2 described as being concave southwesterly, having a radius of 27,00 feet and a length of
3 43.43 feet, said terininus being on the curved westerly line of Rye Canyon Road. 100 feet
a ;I wide, as shown on Parcel vfap, in said city, as per map filed in Book 5 Page 37 of Parcel
5 Maps, of said Records, said curve being concave westerly, having a radius of 1750.00
6 feet and being an angle point in the boundary of the City of Santa Clarita as per document
7 II recorded December 15, 1987 as Instrument No. 87-1983300, as shown on map of said
a Tract No. 52111; thence southeasterly along said boundary of the City of Santa Clarita to
9 the curved easterly line of said Rye Canyon Road: said curve being concave westerly and
10 having a radius of 1850.00 feet; thence northerly, easterly and southeasterly along said
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
29
30
31
city boundary, and along the westerly and northerly lines of Parcel 1 of said Parcel Map
filed in Book 5 Page 27 of Parcel Maps, through all of its various courses to the
southwesterly line of Newhall Ranch Road, 180 feet wide, as shown on map of said Tract
No. 52111; thence southeasterly, continuing along said city boundary and along the
southwesterly line of. said Newhall Ranch Road to the most easterly comer of Parcel
Map No. 12009, in said county, as per map filed in Book 182 Pages 47 through 54 of said
Parcel Maps; thence leaving said southwesterly line, at right angles, northeasterly 90.00
feet, to the center line of said Newhall Ranch Road as shown on said Tract No. 52111:
thence southeasterly along the center line of said Newhall Ranch Road, through all of its
various courses and curves to the center line of said Mcbean Parkway; thence
northeasterly 24.10 feet along the center line of said Mebean Parkway to the center line
of Newhall Ranch Road, as shown on said Tract No. 44481 and the Point of Beginning.
Prepared under the direction of:
Robert C. Olson, PLS 5490
PSOMAS
Sheet 4 of 4
Date: /O, DS7 e
EXHIBIT C
NORTH .VALENCIA No. 2 PREZONE
Master Case No. 98.183
Prezone No. 98.002
I
�.MION
.o
'' � 4 ` EXISTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA BOUNDARY
=� PROPOSED ZONING BOUNDARIES
PROPOSED CITY nF QAWTA, f9T An PA ONINC
BP- Business Park RMH- Residential Medium High
CN- Neighborhood Commercial RS. Residential Suburban
CC- Community Commercial RL- Residential Low
RH- Residential High RE- Residential Estate
19
N -
Not
to Scale
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[ X ] Proposed [ ] Final
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MASTER CASE NO: 98-183, Prezone 98-002
PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: North Valencia 2 Prezone
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita.
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: North of Newhall Ranch Road, East and West of McBean
Parkway, East and West of Copper Hill Drive, adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita (see
attached map).
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Prezone 2,116 acres of developed and vacant adjacent to
the City of Santa Clarita in accordance with the City's General Plan land use designations for
this area. Proposed City Zones include BP, CC, CN, RH, RMH, RS, RL, and RE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
------------=------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF LAMBERT
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
Prepared by: // G&b 1 ; � / '/ Laura Stotler. Associate Planner
`(Signature) (Name/Title)
Approved by: Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
ignature) (Name/Title)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Review Period From October 13, 1998 To November 23, 1998
Public Notice Given On October 13, 1998 By:
[X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
Page 2\\CITYEALL2\DEPT\PHS\ANNEX\982PZNGO. DOC
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Master Case No. 98-183
Prezone No. 98-002
DATE: November 3, 1998
TO: Chair4son Hoback and Members of the Planning Commission
41
FROM: JefA y Lambert, AICD, Director of Planning and Building Services
CASE PLANNER: Lail Stotler, AICP, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: North of Newhall Ranch Road, east and west of McBean Parkway, and
north and south of Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road within
unincorporated Los Angeles County, adjacent to the City of Santa
Clarita.
REQUEST: Prezone of 2,116 acres from County of Los Angeles zoning to the City of
Santa Clarita zoning consistent with the City's General Plan land use
designations to allow for future annexation of this area to the City.
BACKGROUND
The City has initiated the North Valencia 2 prezone pursuant to a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Valencia Company that was authorized by the City Council in
July 1998. The Valencia Company has submitted a request for the North Valencia 2 Specific
Plan that would include approximately 527.6 acres of the 2,116 acres within the prezone area.
The North Valencia 2 Specific Plan submittal is presently under review by City staff. The City
seeks to prezone this 2,116 -acre area in accordance with the City's General Plan while staff is
still reviewing the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan submittal. The reason for this is that an
early prezone will allow the City an opportunity to process an annexation request with the
Local Government Formation Commission (LAFCO) concurrently with processing of the
Specific Plan. This will reduce the time it takes to process the annexation in the hope that this
area would annex to the City before the 2000 Census.
A fiscal impact analysis for the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan will be prepared prior to
consideration of an annexation application to LAFCO.
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the environmental impact report (EIA) for the North
Valencia 2 Specific Plan circulating for public review which ends on December 4, 1998. A public
scoping meeting to identify issues that should be addresses in this EIR is scheduled for Monday,
November 9,1998 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the Century.Room.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is a request for annexation and prezone of 2,116 acres in the North Valencia area.
This area includes the unincorporated areas known locally as North Park, East Creek, Decoro
South, Decoro Highlands, West Creek and portions of the Valencia Industrial Center. No
development is proposed as part of this request.
The area to be prezoned includes vacant land as well as existing residential uses in the North
Park area. It also includes existing commercial uses and industrial development in the
northern portion of the Valencia Industrial Center. San Francisquito Creek bisects the prezone
area and is identified as a Significant Ecological Area in the City's General Plan. The Decoro
Highlands project, approved by the County; is presently under construction and will have 190
single family and 268 multi -family residential units. The West Creek project, with 2,500
residential units, is located within the prezone area and is under consideration by Los Angeles
Regional Planning.
The proposed City zones are BP (Business Park), CC (Community Commercial), CN
(Neighborhood Commercial), RH (Residential High), RMH (Residential Medium High), RS
(Residential Suburban), RL (Residential Low), and RE (Residential Estate) consistent with the
City's General Plan land use designations. A prezone map is attached to this staff report.
These zoning.designations would only be effective upon annexation to the City of Santa Clarita
and would not affect existing land uses or existing County approvals within the area.
Once a property is prezoned, an application for annexation may be filed with the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) upon direction from the City Council. Itis likely that portions
of this prezone area would annex to the City through several different annexation proceedings.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING
The area to be prezoned is in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The existing County of Los
Angeles Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan land use designations for the prezone area are Ul
(Urban 1), U2. (Urban 2), U3 (Urban 3), U4 (Urban 4), C (Commercial), W
(Floodway/Floodplain), SEA (Significant Ecological Area), P (Public Service Facilities). M
(Industry) and HM (Hillside Management).
The existing.County of Los Angeles Zoning for the prezone area is A-2-5!(Heavy Agricultural,
5 acre minimum lot size), RPD -5000-8.6U (Residential Planned Development, 5000 square foot
minimum lot size, 8.6 DU/ac), RPD -5000-16U (Residential Planned Development, 5000 square
foot minimum lot size, 16 DU/ac), RPD -5000-5U (Residential Planned Development, 5000
square foot minimum lot size, 5 DU/ac), RPD -5000-7.8U (Residential Planned Development,
5000 square foot minimum lot size, 7.8 DU/ac), (C-3 (Unlimited. Commercial), and MPD
(Manufacturing -Industrial Planned Development). A map showing the existing Countyzoning
is attached to this report.
The Santa Clarita General Plan designations; proposed zones and existing land uses on and
surrounding the project site are as follows:
BP- Business Park (0.5-1.5-1 FAR) RS- Residential Suburban (3.46.6 DU/ac)
CC- Community Commercial (0.25-0.5:1 FAR) RL- Residential Low (1.1-3.3 DU/ac) .
CN- Neighborhood Commercial (0.15-0.5:1 FAR) RE- Residential Estate (0-0.5 DU/ac)
RH- Residential High .(25.1-32 DU/Acre) U/C Under Construction
RMH- Residential Medium High (15.1-25 DU/ac) SEA- Significant Ecological Area
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made by the City to evaluate
the impacts of this prezone project. It was determined that the proposed project could not have
a significant effect on the environment because no development is proposed at this time and the
zones requested are consistent with the City's General Plan for which an EIR was prepared and
certified (SCH#90010683). The Negative Declaration was prepared by staff and circulated for
public review and comment on October 13, 1998. As of the date of preparing this staff report,
no comments on the environmental assessment were received.
INTERDEPARTMENT / INTERAGENCY REVIEW
This project has been circulated for review within the City and to outside agencies. State law
prohibits the conditioning of zone changes, which includes prezones. Subsequent requests to
develop this property would be subject to conditions of approval:
ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The City's General Plan text identifies the proposed prezone area for urban uses and identifies
San Francisquito Creek as a significant ecological area with important. habitat and biological
resources. The. proposed prezone could be found to be consistent with the following goals and
policies of the General Plan:
General Plan
. Zonine
Land Use
Project site
BP, RE, RS, RH,
BP, RE, RS, RH Existing residences, MWD Aqueduct,
RMH, CC, CN
RMH, CC, CN
So.Cal. Edison Transmission lines,
Valencia High School, Vacant land, SEA
Proposed West Creek Project, Decoro
Highlands, Existing commercial/industrial
North
RE
LA County
Tesoro Del Valle project, Ranches,
Vacant land
South
SP, BP
SP, BP
North Valencia Specific Plan (U/C), Valencia
Industrial Center, SEA
West
BP
11P
Lockheed, Vacant land
East
RS, RL
RS, RL
Existing residential
BP- Business Park (0.5-1.5-1 FAR) RS- Residential Suburban (3.46.6 DU/ac)
CC- Community Commercial (0.25-0.5:1 FAR) RL- Residential Low (1.1-3.3 DU/ac) .
CN- Neighborhood Commercial (0.15-0.5:1 FAR) RE- Residential Estate (0-0.5 DU/ac)
RH- Residential High .(25.1-32 DU/Acre) U/C Under Construction
RMH- Residential Medium High (15.1-25 DU/ac) SEA- Significant Ecological Area
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made by the City to evaluate
the impacts of this prezone project. It was determined that the proposed project could not have
a significant effect on the environment because no development is proposed at this time and the
zones requested are consistent with the City's General Plan for which an EIR was prepared and
certified (SCH#90010683). The Negative Declaration was prepared by staff and circulated for
public review and comment on October 13, 1998. As of the date of preparing this staff report,
no comments on the environmental assessment were received.
INTERDEPARTMENT / INTERAGENCY REVIEW
This project has been circulated for review within the City and to outside agencies. State law
prohibits the conditioning of zone changes, which includes prezones. Subsequent requests to
develop this property would be subject to conditions of approval:
ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The City's General Plan text identifies the proposed prezone area for urban uses and identifies
San Francisquito Creek as a significant ecological area with important. habitat and biological
resources. The. proposed prezone could be found to be consistent with the following goals and
policies of the General Plan:
L 7.6 Coordinate annexation activities with City growth management strategies. (L-34)
H 1.2 Evaluate. development proposals within the unincorporated portions of the
planning area to ensure that development is consistent"with both the City's and
the County's land use plan. (H-59)
ED 2.7 Seek a City Sphere of Influence consistent with the planning area of this General
Plan. (ED -25)
OS 4.16 Seek park sites and open space areas -having areas of natural scenic beauty which
can be conserved and enjoyed by the public, as well as areas having recreational
opportunities. (OS -29)
(L- Land Use Element, H- Housing Element, ED- Economic Development and
Community Revitalization Element, OS- Open Space and Conservation Element)
Therefore, staff feels that the Commission could find the proposed annexation and prezone to
be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Unified Development Code Consistency
This proposed prezone is consistent with the City's Unified Development Code because the
proposed zones are consistent with the City's General Plan. Under the present proposal, no
physical changes to the site are proposed. Future development of the site would be subject to
the City's Unified Development Code upon completion of an annexation of the property to the
City. Should a North Valencia 2 Specific Plan be adopted subsequently, then the area included
in that plan would be subject to the standards outlined in that Specific Plan, as well.
Therefore, staff feels that the Commission could find the proposed prezone to be consistent with
objectives of the Unified Development Code and development policies of the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. P98-32, recommending that the City Council approve Prezone 98-002.
JJL:LHS:Iep
sApbs\annex\982pzsr
ATTACHMENTS
North Valencia 2 (Proposed) City Zone Map
North Valencia 2 County Zoning Map
m
� r-
era{�
RMH 1
Ci Ci r ��. .•��
itv Zone
Pre zone 9M2
M=er Cue 98-183
Pre Zone 98-002
Muter Case 98-183
RESOLUTION NO. P98-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE PREZONE NO. 98-002 FOR THE NORTH VALENCIA 2 AREA LOCATED
GENERALLY NORTH OF NEWHALL RANCH ROAD, EAST AND WEST OF MCBEAN
PARKWAY, AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF COPPER HILL DRIVE/RYE CANYON ROAD,
ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita proposed and initiated prezoning of certain
property located in the North Valencia area, as described in Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit
B, to allow for future annexation of all or a portion of this area to the City of Santa Clarita; and
WHEREAS, such zoning would become effective upon annexation, as described
in Exhibit C 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 3,
1998, at the hour of 7:00.PM in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
First Floor, 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 zonesA-2-5 (Heavy Agricultural, 5 acre minimum lot
size), RPD -5000-8.6 U (Residential Planned Development, 5000 square
foot minimum lot size, 8.6 DU/ac), RPD -5000-5U (Residential Planned
Developments 5000 square foot minimum lot size, 5 DU/ac), RPD -5000-
7.8U (Residential Planned Development, 5000 square foot minimum lot
size, 7.8 DU/ac), RPD -5000-16U (Residential Planned Development, 5000
square foot minimum lot size, 16 DU/ac), C-3 (Unlimited Commercial)
and MPD (Manufacturing -Industrial Planned Development) to City of
Santa Clarita zones BP (Business Park, 0.5-1.5:1 FAR), CC (Community
Commercial, 0.25-0.5:1 FAR), CN (Neighborhood Commercial, 0.15-0.5:1
FAR), RH (Residential High, 25.1-32 DU/ac), RMH (Residential Medium
High, 15.1-25 DU/ac), RS (Residential Suburban, 3.4-6.6 DU/ac), RL
(Residential Low,1.1-3.3 DU/ac), and RE (Residential Estate, 0-0.5 DU/ac)
to allow for future annexation of all or a portion of this area to the City
of Santa Clarita; and
b. That the City of Santa Clarita General Plan land •use designations for the
Resolution P98.32
Page 2
subject property are BP, CC, CN, RH, RMH, RS,. RL, and RE; and
C. That the prezone has been reviewed for consistency with the City's
General Plan including the Open Space Element and Housing Element.
d. 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 for consideration by the
Planning Commission was from October 13,* 1998, to November 3, 1998;
and
e. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections
65090, 65391, and 65854. 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 BP, CC, CN,
RH, RMH, RS, RL, and RE.
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 BP, CC, CN, RH, RMH, RS, RL and RE
does exist within the area of the subject property and is consistent with
the City's General Plan; and
b. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning
practice justifies the prezone classification of BP, CC, CN, RH, RMH, RS,
RL and RE based upon existing land uses and geographical features; and
C. That the project site consists of 2,116 acres of land contiguous to
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 13, 1998, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
Resolution P98.32
Page 3
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. 98-002.
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends to the City Council
that it approve the request to prezone the project site to City of Santa Clarita zones BP, CC,
CN, RH, RMH, RS, RL and R.S.
Resolution P98-32
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND
.1998.
ATTEST:
Jeff Lambert
Secretary, Planning Commission
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) •
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
ADOPTED this
Darla Hoback, Chairperson
Planning Commission
day of
1, , 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 3rd day of November, 1998 by the
following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY CLERK
s:\pbs\annex\982preso
9
EXHIBITS, "A', "B" AND "C" FOR RESOLUTION P98.32
THE EXHIBITS FOR RESOLUTION P98-32 ARE THE SAME AS THE EXHIBITS
FOR ORDINANCE 98-20, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THIS AGENDA PACKET.
EXHIBIT "A" (A LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT MAP FOR PREZONE 98-002),
EXHIBIT "B" (THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE PREZONE AREA), AND
EXHIBIT "C" (THE MAP SHOWING THE PREZONES) ARE HEREBY INCLUDED
BY REFERENCE.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. Ste. 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact Person & Phone Number: Laura Stotler, (805) 255-4330
Master Case or CIP Number: MC #98-183
Entitlement Type(s): Prezone #98-002
Case Planner: Laura Stotler
Project Location (Thomas Bros.): Las AngelesNentura Counties Street Guide and Directory, 1998
Edition, Page 4460- C6, C7; D6, D7, E4, E5, E6, E7, F4, F5, F6, F7, G4, G5, G6, & H4. Page 4550- E1 &
F1. This project is generally located north of Newhall Ranch Road, east and west of McBean Parkway,
and north and south of Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon. Road within unincorporated Los Angeles County,
directly adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. This area' includes the unincorporated areas locally known as
North Park, East Creek, Decoro South, Decoro Highlands, West Creek and portions of the Valencia
Industrial Center.
Project Description and Setting: Prezone of 2,116 acres in the North Valencia area from County of Los
Angeles Zoning to City of Santa Clarita Zones BP (Business Park), CC (Community Commercial), CN
(Neighborhood Commercial), RH (Residential High), RMH (Residential Medium High), RS (Residential
Suburban), RL (Residential Low), and RE (Residential Estate) consistent with the City s General Plan land
use designations. A prezone is requested to allow for future annexations of this area into the City of Santa
Clarita. NO DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS PREZONE REQUEST. Please see the
attached City Zone Map, and County Zone Map. The area contains a mix of vacant land and residential,
commercial, industrial and public uses.
General Plan and Zoning Designation(s):
Existing County of Los Angeles Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan Land Use Designations (Map dated
2/23/93): U1 (Urban 1, 1.1 to 3.3 DU/Ac.), U2 (Urban 2 (3.4 to 6.6 DU/Ac.). U3 (Urban 3, 6.7 to 15
DU/Ac.), U4 (Urban 4, 15 to 40 DU/Ac), C (Commercial), W (Floodway/Floodplain), SEA (Significant
Ecological Area), P (Public Service Facilities), M (Industry), HM (Hillside Management).
County of Los Angeles Zoning: A-2-5 (Heavy Agricultural, 5 acre minimum lot size), RPD -5000-8.6 U
(Residential Planned Development, 5000 square foot minimum lot size, 8.6 DU/Ac), C-3 (Unlimited
Commercial), RPD -5000-16U (16 DU/Ac.), RPD -5000-5U (5 DU/Ac.), RPD-5000-7.SU (7.8 DU/Ac.), MPD
(Manufacturing -Industrial Planned).
City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Proposed Zoning (Prezones): BP (Business Park, 0.5-1.5:1
FAR), CC (Community Commercial, 0.25-0.5:1 FAR), CN (Neighborhood Commercial, 0.15-0.5:1 FAR),
RH (Residential High, 25.1-32 DU/Ac.), RMH (Residential Medium High,.15.1.25 DU/Ac.), RS (Residential
Suburban, 3.4-6.6 DU/Ac.), RL (Residential Low, 1.1.3.3 DU/Ac.), and RE (Residential Estate, 0-0.5
DU/Ac.)
Project Applicant (Name, Address, Phone): City of Santa Clarita, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300,
Santa Clarita, CA, 91355, (805) 255.4330.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the north of the prezone property ties vacant land, large lot
ranches, and the proposed Tesoro Del Valle project. To the south of the prezone property lies the City of
Santa Clarita, the Valencia Industrial Center and the North Valencia Specific Plan area. To the east lies
the City of Santa Clarita and the existing developed areas of Northbridge and North Valencia. To the west
lies the planned West Creek Development, the Valencia Industrial Center and the Lockheed facility.
Other public agencies whose approval is required
(e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The prezone would become effective
as zoning for the property upon completion of annexation to the City of Santa Clarita. Annexation
proceedings are subject to approval from the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County
(LAFCO). .
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Transportation/ [ ] Public Services
Circulation
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Geological Problems [ ] Noise [ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Water [ ] Hazards [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Air Quality [ ] Mandatory Tests of [ ] Utilities and Service
Significance System
[) Energy and Mineral
Resources
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this Initial evaluation:
[ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[X] 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 effects) 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 EIR
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:
a
(Signature) Laura Stotler, Associate Planner 10/13/1998
Approved By:
�C
(Signature) Fred Follstad, Associate Planner 10113/1998
0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentlally
' Significant
Impact
-
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
No
Impact Incorporate Impact
Impact
d
I.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. would the proposal;
a)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
[ ] [ ] [X]
[ ]
(City of Santa Clarita General Plan)
b)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
[ ] [ J [X]
[ I
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
c)
Be incompatible with existing land use In the city?
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
d)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
[ ] [ ] [ J
[X]
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
e)
Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)? ( )
[ J [ ] [ ]
[X]
I)
Other ( )
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
It.
POPULATION AND HOUSING. would the Proposal:
a)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
[ ] [ ] [ ]
IX]
population projections? ( )
b)
Create a net loss of jobs?.( )
[ ] [ ] I ]
IXI
c)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
housing? ( )
d)
Other ( )
[] [] []
[X]
III
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS., will the proposal result In:
a)
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
(] [ ] [ J
[x]
substructures? ( )
b)
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
overcovering of the soil? ( )
c)
Change in topography or ground surface relief
[ ] [ ] [ I
[X]
features? ( )
d)
The destruction, covering or modification of any
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
unique geologic or physical features? ( )
e)
Any Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either
[ ] [ ] [ ]
VI
on or off the site? ( )
Q
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
[ ] I I I I
[ ]
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure, or similar hazards? ( )
g)
Changes In deposition, erosion or siltation? ( )
(] [ I [ ]
[X]
h) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or
river? ( )
I) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
yards or more? ( ) .
j) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than
25% natural grade? ( )
k) Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone? ( )
1) Other—Wall over 6 feet adjacent to the public right-
of-way_ ( )
IV WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) . Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( )
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of
water movements? ( )
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
1) Substantial reduction In the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public watersupplies?
J) other ( )
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c) Create objectionable odors? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially unless Less Nan
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporate Impact
d
No
Impact
IX]
IX1
(X]
IX1
(X]
IX1
(X]
(X]
VI
IX]
IX1
IXI
IX1
VI
(X]
[l [] 11 IX1
[] [1
11 VI
[] [1
11 [XI
Potentially
.
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No '
Impact
Incorporate
Impact ,Impact
d
d)
Other( ) []
[]
[] [X]
VI
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wouldthe
proposal result In: -
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?( ) [ ]
[ ]
I I IX]
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses? ( )
c)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
uses? ( )
d)
Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? I7
I 1
I I [X]
e)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
f)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [ ]
[ ] '
[ ] [X]
alternative transportation (e.g. bus stops, bicycle
racks)( )
g)
Disjointed pattern of roadway Improvements ( ) [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
h)
Other ( ) []
[]
[] IXI
VII.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.. Would the proposal result in Impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their []
[]
[] [X]
habitats (Including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)
b)
Oak Trees ( ) [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
c)
Wetland habitat or blueline stream? ( ) [ ]
[ I
I ] , [X]
d)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) [ ] •
I ]
[ ] [X]
e)
Other ( ) [ ]
[ ]
[ l [X]
VIII.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
b)
Use nonrenewable resources In a wasteful and I I
I I
I1 [X]
Inefficient manner? ( )
c)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State? ( )
d)
Other ( ) []
[]
[] (X]
Potentially
Significant -
Impact
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation • Significant No
Impact Incorporate Impact Impact
d
IX
HAZARDS. Would the proposal Involve:
a).
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including but not limited to I1 I l
I1 [X]
oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( )
b)
Possible interference with an emergency response [ ] [ ]
(] [X]
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
hazard? ( )
d)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines,
gas lines, oil pipelines)? ( )
e) -
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
grass, or trees? ( )
f)
Other ( ) I) [ ]
[ I (X]
X.
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a)
Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) [] []
I IX]
b)
Exposure of people to severe noise levels or I ] [ ]
[ ] (X]
vibration? ( )
c)
Other ( ) [] []
[] [X]
XI
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? ( ) [ ] [ 1
[ ] [X]
b)
Police protection? ( ) [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
c)
Schools? ( ) [ 1 []
[ ] [X]
d)
Maintenance of pubic facilities, Including roads? [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
e)
Other government services? ( ) [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
XII.
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? ( ) [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
b)
Communications systems? ( ) [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
c)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution [ ] (]
[ ] [X]
facilities? ( )
d)
Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) - Local or regional water supplies? ( )
h) Other ( )
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista open to public view? ( )
b) . Have a negative aesthetic effect? ( )
c) Create light or glare? ( )
d) Other ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological or archaeological
resources? ( )
b) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
c) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
d) Affect a recognized historical site? ( )
e) Other ( )
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) 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 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
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.)
Potentially
P9
Significant
Impact
[Xl
Potentially Unless Less than
1X1
Significant Mitigation Signlficant
No
Impact Incorporate Impact
Impact
d
[] [l [I
P9
[1 [1 []
[X1
[1 [1 []
1X1
[Xl
[] [] [ 1
P9
[1 [] []
[Xl
[] I1 []
1X1
I1 11 11 VI
11 11 11 . [X1
[] []
11 [X]
[] []
11 P9
11 11 11 [Xl .
11 111 11 P9
Potentially
Significant -
Impact
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation - Significant
Impact Incorporate Impact
d
c) 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.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which [ ] [ ] [ ]
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINUMUS" FINDING
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."
XVIII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSES:
No
Impact
[XI
[X] '
[X]
Section and
Subsections
Evaluation of Impact
I. LAND USE AND
The proposed prezones are consistent with the City's General Plan for the
PLANNING
project area that covers 2,116 acres. No changes are proposed to the City's
General Plan land use designations for this area. The purpose of this
prezone is to identify the City zones that are consistent with the City's
General Plan.
The following are the various General Plan and zoning designations for the
County and for the City for the prezone area:
Existing County of Los Angeles Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan Land
Use Designations (Map dated 2/23/93): U1 (Urban 1, 1.1 to 3.3 DU/Ac.),
U2 (Urban 2 (3.4 to 6.6 DU/Ac.), U3 (Urban 3, 6.7 to 15 DU/Ac.); U4 (Urban
4, 15 to 40 DU/Ac), C. (Commercial), W (Floodway/Floodplain), SEA
(Significant Ecological Area), P (Public Service Facilities), M (Industry), HM
(Hillside Management).
County of Los Angeles Zoning: A-2-5 (Heavy Agricultural, 5 acre minimum
lot size), RPD -5000-8.6 U (Residential Planned Development, 5000 square
foot minimum lot size, 8.6 DU/Ac), C-3 (Unlimited Commercial), RPD -5000-
16U (16 DU/Ac.), RPD -5000-5U (5 DU/Ac.), RPD -5000-7.8U (7.8 DU/Ac.),
MPD (Manufacturing-fndustrial Planned).
City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Proposed Zoning (Prezones): BP
(Business Park, 0.5-1.5:1 FAR), CC (Community Commercial, 0.25.0.5:1
FAR , CN Nei hborhood Commercial, 0.15-0.5:1 FAR), RH Residential
Section and
Evaluation of Impact
Subsections
High, 25.1-32 DU/Ac.), RMH (Residential Medium High, 15.1-25 DU/Ac.), RS
(Residential Suburban, 3.4-6.6 DU/Ac.), RL .(Residential Low, 1.1-3.3
DU/Ac.), and RE (Residential Estate, 0-0.5 DU/Ac.).
Please see the attached maps that show the existing County of Los Angeles
Zones, the County of Los Angeles General Plan land use designation and
the City of Santa Ciarita Proposed Zones.
The prezones would become effective upon annexation of the area, or any
portion of the area, to the City. An EIR was prepared and certified for the
adoption of the City's General Plan (adopted June 26, 1991, Resolution 91-
98, SCH # 90010683). The project area includes the areas known locally as
North Park, East Creek, Decoro South, West Creek, Decoro Highlands, and
portions of the Valencia Industrial Center.
The proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact
upon land use and planning because the zones proposed are consistent with
the City's General Plan for which and EIR has been prepared and certified,
no General Plan amendments are proposed as part of this action, no
development is proposed as part of this prezone entitlement and any existing
uses and development approvals granted by the County within the prezone
area would not be affected by this prezone action.
II: POPULATION AND
The proposed project involves a prezone that will be consistent with the City
HOUSING
of Santa Ciarita General Pian land use designations. No development is
proposed as part of this prezone. The prezones would only become
effective upon annexation of the area, or portions of the area, to the City of
Santa Ciarita. The proposed project is anticipated to have a less than
significant impact upon population and housing because the zones proposed
are consistent with the City's existing General Plan and no development
entitlements are associated with this prezone.
III. GEOLOGIC
The proposed prezone is anticipated to have a less than significant impact
PROBLEMS
upon geologic problems because the prezone involves no.development
approvals. A prezone is a legal change to permitted land uses and will not
create physical impacts.
IV. WATER
The proposed prezone will not result in a significant impact to water
resources because the zones proposed are consistent with the City's
General Plan.
V. AIR QUALITY
The proposed prezone would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants or
create objectionable odors. Therefore, the prezone is anticipated to have a
less than significant impact upon air quality.
Section and
Subsections
Evaluation of Impact
VI.
The proposed prezone would have a less than significant impacts upon
TRANSPORTATIOW
traffic and circulation because no development is proposed as part of this
CIRCULATION
project and the proposed zones are consistent with the City's General Plan.
VII. BIOLOGICAL
The proposed prezone would have a less than significant impact upon
RESOURCES
biological resources because no development is proposed as part of this
project and the proposed zones are consistent with the City's General Plan.
Section and
Evaluation of Impact
Subsections
VIII. ENERGY AND
The proposed project will not conflict with an adopted energy conservation
MINERAL
plan, use a nonrenewable resource, or result in the loss of a mineral
RESOURCES
resource. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than
significant impact upon energy or mineral resources.
IX. HAZARDS
The proposed project will not create a health hazard or potential health
hazard. No permanent or temporary hazards are anticipated as a result of a
zone change.
X. NOISE
No significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the
proposed prezone.
XI. PUBLIC
The proposed prezone is anticipated to have a less than significant impact
SERVICES
upon public services because no physical development would occur through
this approval, nor would the zoning become effective until a separate,
annexation process is completed.
XII. UTILITIES
The proposed prezone will not impact utilities.
XIII. AESTHETICS
The proposed prezone is anticipated to have a less than significant impact
upon aesthetics because no development is proposed as part of this project.
XIV. CULTURAL
The proposed prezone is anticipated to have a less than significant impact
RESOURCES
upon cultural resources because no development is proposed as part of this
project.
S:10bsladvanceW82pz1s
500' Radius Ma
' - Pre Zone 98-002
Muter Case 98.183
Zone Ma
Pre Zone 98-002
Master Cue 98-183
Countv Zonin
Matter Case 98-183