HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - ANNEX PREZONE 98-001 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be presented 15y: Laura Stotler
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: June 15, 1998
SUBJECT: APPROVING ANNEXATION 98-001 AND PREZONE 98-001
(MASTER CASE 98-097), APPROVING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE WHITNEY RANCH ANNEXATION,
LOCATED EAST OF STATE ROUTE 14, EAST OF THE
TERMINUS OF SAN FERNANDO ROAD, ADJACENT TO THE
CITY.
RESOLUTION NOS. 98-79 and 98-90
ORDINANCE NO. 98-16
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council to conduct the public hearing, adopt Resolution No. 98-79 to approve
the Negative Declaration prepared for .the project, with the finding that the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment; introduce Ordinance
No. 98-16 approving Prezone 98-001, waive further reading, and pass to a second
reading; and, adopt Resolution No 98-90 to authorize the City Manager, or his
designee, to file an annexation application with LAFCO.
BACKGROUND
This project is a request from the applicant, ARM, to annex and prezone the 537.1
acre Whitney Ranch property to the City. The site is presently developed as a
ranch with several single-family residences, various accessory structures, oil
wells, electrical transmission lines, and an aqueduct: The site is predominately in
a natural state, with steep hillsides and over 600 oak trees. No development of
the property is proposed at this time.
Annexation to the City is regulated by the Cortese -Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985 (Revised 1994) and the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO). The LAFCO requires that the City prezone territory prior
to annexation.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 16, 1998 and the
Commission's recommendation for approval is attached to this report.
The proposed City zones are RE (Residential Estate- 2 acre minimum lot size,
approximately 373.6 acres) and OS (Open Space, approximately 163.5 acres), with
a MOCA (Mineral/Oil Conservation Area) overlay over the entire property. The
OS zone would be placed on the portion of the site located within the Angeles
National Forest. The proposed zoning is consistent with the City's General Plan.
City zoning and development regulations would apply to this property upon
completion of the annexation to the City.
An initial study and negative declaration have been prepared for this prezone
based upon the General Plan Final EIR.
The -applicant has requested that the City initiate the annexation process with
LAFCO for this property. The applicant would pay all fees associated with the
annexation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Prezoning of the property to allow for annexation would have no fiscal impact.
The cost of annexing this private ranch property is anticipated to be revenue
neutral.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 98-79, Adoption of Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 98-90, Authorization to Submit LAFCO Annexation Application
Ordinance No. 98-16, Prezone
Negative Declaration
Initial Study (In City Clerk's Reading File)
Planning Commission Staff Report
Resolution No. P98-22
Vicinity Map
Exhibit A -Legal Description
Exhibit B- Map
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER MASTER CASE NUMBER 98-097
PREZONE AND ANNEXATION OF A 537 ACRE AREA
FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY ZONING
TO CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ZONING TO ALLOW
FOR ANNEXATION OF THE SITE TO THE CITY.
PROJECT APPLICANT IS ARM, LOCATION:
EAST OF THE TERMINUS OF SAN FERNANDO ROAD,
EAST OF STATE ROUTE 14, ADJACENT
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider
Master Case Number 98-097 (Annexation 98-001, Prezone 98-001) to prezone a 537 acre area
from Los Angeles County zoning A-2-1, A-2-5, and W to City of Santa Clarita zoning RE
(Residential Estate), OS (Open Space), and Mineral/Oil Conservation Area (MOCA) overlay to
allow for annexation of the site to the City. No development is proposed as part of this
prezoning. The project location is east of the terminus of San Fernando Road, east of State
Route 14, adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. The applicant is ARM.
The hearing will be held by the Santa Clarita City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Blvd.j 1st Floor, on the 23' day of June, 1998, at or after 6:30 p.m.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter
at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office, Santa
Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite #301, Santa Clarita, CA.
If you wish to challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Dated: May 29, 1998
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: June 2, 1998
Corres/whtny.gb
RESOLUTION NO. 98-79
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MASTER CASE NO. 98-097 FOR
THE ANNEXATION (ANNEX 98-001) AND PREZONE (PZ 98-001) OF THE 537 ACRE
UNINHABITED AREA KNOWN AS WHITNEY RANCH,
LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS,
GENERALLY EAST OF STATE ROUTE 14,
EAST OF THE TERMINUS OF SAN FERNANDO 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. 98-001 to zone the 537.1 acre project site,
also known as Whitney Ranch, RE (Residential Estate), OS (Open Space) and
MOCA (Mineral/Oil Conservation Area) overlay in conformance with the City's
General Plan RE, OS and MOCA overlay land use designations to allow for the
future annexation of Whitney Ranch to the City of Santa Clarita; and
B. That the General Plan land use designation for the annexation area is currently
RE (Residential Estate), OS (Open Space) and MOCA (Mineral/Oil Conservation
Area) overlay; and
C. That the Whitney Ranch annexation area is presently developed with one single-
family dwelling, accessory structures, several oil wells, overhead electrical
transmission lines, and a City of Los Angeles aqueduct. The site is
predominately in a natural state and contains over 600 oak trees. Approximately
163.5 acres of the project site is located within the Angeles National Forest. No
development is proposed at this time. The proposed zoning reflects the existing
and planned uses on-site; and
D. 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
E. That the Initial Study found that the proposed prezone would not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment based on CEQA Section 21083.3
and a proposed Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on May 26, 1998
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
F. 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
Resolution No. 98-79
Page 2
resources protected by the California Department of Fish and Game, and that
a finding of de Minimus impact on such resources was appropriate.
G. That the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public
hearing on June 16, 1998, pursuant to applicable law, to consider the prezone and
annexation to the City of Santa Clarita, and adopted Resolution No. P98-22, with
the finding that the Negative Declaration was in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommending that the City Council
approve Master Case No. 98-097 (the annexation and prezone) and the Negative
Declaration prepared for the project; and
H. That the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public hearing on
June 23, 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 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, attached hereto as Exhibit A and
by this reference incorporated herein, 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. 98-79
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
s:\cd\annex\981envr
RESOLUTION NO. 98-90
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARPPA, CALIFORNIA,
REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
(MASTER CASE NO. 98-097 — WHITNEY RANCH ANNEXATION)
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the
Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (Revised 1994), Division 3,
commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for annexation; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited, and a description of the
boundaries is set forth in Exhibit A and a map of the boundaries is set forth in Exhibit B,
attached and by this reference incorporated; and
WHEREAS, the short form designation of the proposal is Annexation No. 98-001 (Master
Case No. 98-097); and
WHEREAS, this proposal is inconsistent with the City of Santa Clarita's Sphere of
Influence as designated by the Local Agency Formation Commission on November 15, 1989, and
would require amending thereof pursuant to this proposal; and
WHEREAS, no terms or conditions are requested by the City or the property owner for
this proposed annexation at this time; and
WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation are as follows: 1) to respond to the
property owner's request for City services and; 2) to expand and provide a logical extension of
the City's physical boundary and urban service area; and 3) to promote sound planning and land
use practices in the affected territory; and
WHEREAS, a majority of owners of land within project area have given their written
consent to the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has considered all evidence,
oral and documentary, and is advised of the foregoing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Santa
Clarita, California, does hereby determine and find as follows:
SECTION 1. This Resolution of Application is hereby adopted by the City Council, and
the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County is hereby requested to initiate
proceedings for the annexation of that territory described in Exhibit A and mapped in Exhibit
B, incorporated by this reference, according to the terms and conditions stated above, if any,
without notice and hearing by the commission and the City, and in the manner provided by the
Resolution 98-90
Page 2
Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (Revised 1994).
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Manager, or his
designee, is authorized to file the application with LAFCO on behalf of the City Council.
SECTION 3.. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Clerk of the City
of Santa Clarita to forward a certified copy of this Resolution with applicable fees and other
information as required by Section 56383 of the Government Code to the Executive Officer of
the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and certify
this record to be a full, true, correct copy of the action taken.
Resolution 98-90
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, CMC, 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
19_by the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK annex\981apres
Exhibit A
Legal Description for Annexation No. 98-001 to the City of Santa Clarita
Whitney Ranch Annexation
Exhibit B
Zoning Map for Annexation No. 98-001 to the City of Santa Cla_rita
Whitney Ranch Annexation
Ordinance No. 98-16
Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. 98-16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (PREZONE 98 -001)
FOR WHITNEY RANCH (ANNEX 98-001 AND PREZONE 98-001),
THE 537.1 ACRE AREA LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING
CITY LIMITS EAST OF STATE ROUTE 14, EXTENDING EAST OF THE TERMINUS
OF SAN FERNANDO ROAD AND INTO A PORTION
OF THE ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated prezoning of
approximately 537.1 acres of inhabited land (Whitney Ranch), located adjacent to and outside
the existing City limits, east of State Route 14 and east of the terminus of San Fernando Road .
and into a portion of the Angeles National Forest; 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, as described in Exhibit A and mapped in Exhibit B, would
become effective upon annexation and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated within and
made a part of the City's Unified Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public
hearing on June 16, 1998, pursuant to applicable law, to consider the prezone for the City of
Santa Clarita, and adopted Resolution No. P98-22, with the finding that the Negative
Declaration was in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and
recommending that the City Council approve Annexation No 98-001, Prezone No. 98-001 and
the Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita set June 23, 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 annexation and prezone; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said annexation and prezone was duly heard and
considered; and
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
adopted Resolution 98-79 approving the Negative Declaration prepared for this annexation and
prezone with the finding that the Negative Declaration was in compliance with the California
Ordinance No. 98.16
Paget
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 A-2-1, A-2-5, and W zoning to
City of Santa Clarita RE (Residential Estate), OS (Open Space) and MOCA
(Mineral/Oil Conservation Area) overlay 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 Annexation No. 98-001 prezoning consists of 537.1 acres of
uninhabited land located adjacent to, and outside of the existing City limits; east
of State Route 14,- extending east of the terminus of San Fernando Road and into
a portion of the Angeles National Forest, as identified in Exhibit A (Legal
Description).
B. That the subject property is a proper location for the RE, OS, and MOCA overlay
zones, as identified in Exhibit B (Annexation and Zoning Map), consistent with
the location of the RE, OS and MOCA overlay 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
Clarita is hereby amended to designate the subject property RE, OS and MOCA overlay.
Ordinance No. 98-16
Page
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 (proposed Annexation No. 98 -001 -
Whitney Ranch) 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: 98.16
Page 4
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of '19—.
MAYOR
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
annex\981pzord
Exhibit A
Legal Description for Annexation No. 98-001 to the City of Santa Clarita
Whitney Ranch Annexation
Exhibit B
Zoning Map for Annexation No. 98-001 to the City of Santa Clarita
Whitney Ranch Annexation
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[ ] Proposed [k Final
NO: 98-097
PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Annex 98.001, PZ 98_001 (Whitney Ranch Annexation)
APPLICAiNT: ARM
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: East of State Route 14, east of the terminus of San Fe
Road, adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita rnando
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Prezone and annexation of 537.1 acres in Whitney Canyon
to the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed zones (RE, OS, and hIOCA overlay) are consistent
with the City's General Plan. No development is proposed.
nasect 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
[Y] Are Not Required— [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
JEFF LAMBERT
-------- __________==___=________=
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
Prepared by,
(Signature) Laura Stotler Associate Planner
(N amuiTitle)
Approved by: \_ Fred Follstad Associate Planner
--------
bonature) (Name/Title)
Public lic Review Period From. VIav 26 1998
Public Notice Given On Vlav 26 1998 By: To June 23. 1998
[Y] Legal Advertisement [Y] Posting of Properties [Xj Written Notice
CERTIFICA-PTONT nAMV.
P390 1\\CITYHWZ,\DEPT\PES\ANNE;(\981NECD. DCC
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 98-097
ANNEXATION NO. 98-001
PREZONE NO. 98-001
DATE: June 1 , 1998
T0: Ch ' erson Hoback, and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jeff Lambert, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Services
CASE PLANNER: La Stotler, AICP, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: ARM
LOCATION: Whitney Canyon, east of the terminus of San Fernando Road, east of State
Route 14, adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita.
REQUEST: A request for the prezone and annexation of 537.1 acres to City zones RE,
OS and MOCA overlay consistent with the City's General Plan to allow for
annexation.
BACKGROUND
Watt Land proposed development of this property to the County of Los Angeles in 1990. The
request included 913 residential units, 27 acres of commercial uses, and an amendment to the
Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan to allow Commercial and Urban Residential uses. At that
time the County Regional Planning Commission noted that up to 220 units and five acres of
commercial land uses could be found consistent with the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan
based on the Non -urban and Hillside Management designations on the property. The County
closed the entitlement request in 1995 with'no further action.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is a request for annexation and prezone of a 537 -acre property known as Whitney
Canyon Ranch. Approximately 373.5 acres would be zoned Residential Estate (RE), 163.5 acres
would be Open Space (OS), and the entire site would have a Mineral/Oil Conservation Area
(MOCA) overlay, consistent with the City's General Plan land use designations. No
development is proposed as part of this request. This area is presently developed with a single-
family residence and outbuildings, several oil wells, City of Los Angeles Aqueduct Two, and two
City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power electrical transmission line corridors,
although a majority of the property remains in a natural state. The site is mostly undeveloped
hillside and contains over 600 oak trees. Approximately 163.5 acres of the site are located
within the jurisdiction of the Angeles National Forest.
- 1 -
The proposed Whitney Ranch annexation would be considered an uninhabited annexation since
fewer than twelve registered voters reside in the area. Once a property has been prezoned, an
application for annexation may be filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
upon direction from the City Council.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING
The zoning of the project site is presently designated Non -urban 2 (1.0 du/ac), Hillside
Management and Angeles National Forest in the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Area
Wide Plan. The site is presently zoned Los Angeles County zone A-2.1 (Heavy Agricultural, 1 -
acre minimum lot size), A-2-5 (Heavy Agricultural, 5 -acre minimum lot size), and W (Watershed
Management). The applicant is proposing to zone the project site consistent with the City's
General Plan designations of RE (Residential Estate, 0.5 du/ac), OS (Open Space) and MOCA
(Mineral/Oil Conservation Area) overlay. The Santa Clarita General Plan designations,
proposed zones and land uses on and surrounding the project site are as follows:
General Plan Zonin Land Use
Project site RE, OS, MOCA RE, OS, MOCA Existing single family residence, Oil wells,
Angeles National Forest, LA Aqueduct Two,
LADWP Transmission lines, Vacant land.
North RE, MOCA, VSR, LA County
OS
South RE, MOCA LA County
West CC, RM, MOCA CC (PD)
East OS LA County
Placerita Canyon, State park, Movie ranch,
Vacant land.
Elsmere Canyon, LADWP Transmission lines,
Proposed land fill, Vacant land
SR 14, Vacant land, Carl's Junior
Angeles National Forest, Vacant land
CC (PD)- Community Commercial, Planned Development
RM- Residential Moderate (midpoint lldu/ac)
VSR- Visitor Serving Resort
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 May 26, 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. Comments
have been received from the Wm. S. Hart School District that requests mitigation for the
-2-
prezone. State law prohibits the conditioning of zone changes, which includes prezones. Since
the City is prohibited from conditioning this prezone, subsequent requests to develop this
property would be subject to conditions to mitigate school impacts.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The City's General Plan text identifies Whitney Canyon as an important habitat and biological
resource area within the text of the Open Space and Conservation Element (OS -8). Additionally,
the proposed project could be found to be consistent with the following goals and policies of the
General Plan:
L 2.13 Encourage the preservation of the Angeles National Forest and the Los Padres
National Forest as an open space reserve close to the urban interface, and as an
important wildlife habitat and corridor. (L-28)
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 4.11 Encourage open space linkage opportunities throughout the City and adjacent
park and forest areas. (OS -29)
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. All existing natural resources, including the oak
trees, -would remain. 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.
-3-
The City's OS and MOCA designations for the Angeles National Forest area are consistent with
the open space and resource protection aims of the U.S. Forest Service for the Whitney Canyon
area. Although this area would be incorporated into the City, the approval authority for
development within the Angeles National Forest would remain with the U.S. Forest Service.
Therefore, staff feels that the Commission could find the proposed annexation and 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. P98-33, Master Case No. 98-097 recommending approval of the
Whitney Ranch annexation and prezone.
JJL:LHS:Iep
s:\pbs\annex\981sr1
ATTACHMENTS
Whitney Ranch Prezone Map
Draft Prezone Ordinance No 98-16
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. P98 -22a JJ
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE.ANNEXATION 98-001 (WHITNEY RANCH)
AND PREZONE NO. 98-001 FOR THE AREA LOCATED
EAST OF THE TERMINUS OF SAN FERNANDO ROAD, EAST OF STATE ROUTE 14,
ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS
WHEREAS, the property owners have proposed and initiated prezoning of certain
property located in the Whitney Ranch area prior to its annexation to the City of Santa Clarita
(proposed Annexation No. 98-001); and
WHEREAS, such zoning would become effective upon annexation, as described
in Exhibit A and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated within and made part of Title
17 of the City's Unified Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission set June 16, 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 A-2-1, A-2-5, and W zones to City of Santa Clarita RE (Residential
Estate), OS (Open Space), and MOCA (Mineral/Oil Conservation Area)
overlay zones to allow for annexation of the site to the City of Santa
Clarita; and
b. That the City of Santa Clarita General Plan land use designations for the
subject property are RE (Residential Estate), OS (Open Space) and MOCA
(Mineral/Oil.Conservation Area) overlay; and
C. The Initial Study has. been circulated for review and comment by affected
governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any,
have been considered. The public review period was from May 26, 1998,
to June 16, 1998; and
d. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections
65090, 65391, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of
California were duly followed.
Resolution P98.22
Page 2
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 Residential
Estate, Open Space; and MOCA Overlay.
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 RE, OS, and MOCA overlay 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 RE, OS, and MOCA overlay
based upon existing land uses and geographical features; and
C. That the project site consists of 537.1 acres of land separated from
contiguous corporate limits of the City of Santa Clarita by State Route 14.
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and
considered the Initial Study prepared for the project and fords 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 May 26, 1998, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
C. The -Planning Commission, based upon the findings. set forth above,
hereby finds the negative declaration for this project to have been
prepared in compliance with CEQA, and recommends to the City Council
that it adopt the Negative Declaration for Prezone No. 98-001 and
Annexation No. 98-001.
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 RE, OS, and
MOCA overlay.
Resolution P98-22
Page 3
PASSED,
ATTEST:
APPROVED AND
1998.
Ken Pulskamp
Secretary, Planning Commission
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) .
ADOPTED this
Darla Hoback, Chairperson
Planning Commission
day of
I, , 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 16th day of June, 1998 by the
following vote of the Planning.Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY CLERK
sApbs\annex\981preso
VICINITY MAP
MC -98-097
ANNEX 98-001, PREZONE 98-001
(WHITNEY RANCH ANNEXATION)
PLACERITA
SUBJECT SITE
SAN FERNeerr%^
Exhibit A
Legal Description for Annexation No. 98-001 to the City of Santa Clarita
Whitney Ranch Annexation
Those portions of Sections 6,7,8 and 12 in Township 3 North, Range 15 West, S.B.M., in
the County of Los Angeles, State of California, according to the official plat of said Iand
on file in the District Land Office on February 2, 1992, described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the center line of the Antelope Valley Freeway, as
described in the FiraI Order of Condemnation recorded July 26,1971 as Instrument No.
2206, in the office of the county recorder of said county, with the north line of the south
half of Government Lot 6 in said Section 6;
thence Easterly along said north line and along the north line of the south half of the
north half of the south half of said Section 6 to the northeast corner of the south half of
the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 6;
thence southerly, along the easterly line of said south half of the northwest quarter of the
southeast quarter, to the southeast corner thereof;
thence easterly, along the north line of the south half of the south half of said Section 6 to
the northeast comer thereof;
thence south, along the east line of said Section 6, to the southeast comer thereof, being
also the northwest comer of the northwest quarter of said Section 8;
thence easterly, southerly and westerly, along the northerly, easterly and southerly line of
said northwest quarter of Section 8, to the southwest comer of said northwest quarter;
being also the east quarter comer of said Section 7;
thence continuing westerly, along the south line of the north half of said Section 7, to the
southwest comer of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 7;
thence northerly, along the westerly line thereof, to the northwest comer of said southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 7;
thence westerly, along the south line of the north half of the south half of the north half of
said Section 7, to the east line of Lot 2 of said Section 7;
thence north, along the east line of said Lot 2, to a point distant South 1 degree 45 -
minutes 10 seconds West, along said east line, 254 feet from the northeast corner of the
southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 7;
thence leaving said east line, north 83 degrees 25 minutes 55 seconds west, 1232.88 feet
to a'—' inch by 2 inch stake set on the west line of said Section 7, distant south on said
:vest line 130.85 feet from the northwest corner of the southwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of said Section, being also the southeast corner of the north 3 acres of Lot 2 in
said Section 12;
thence westerly, along the south line of said south 3 acres, and its westerly prolongation,
to its intersection with the centerline of the Antelope Valley Freeway, hereinabove
described;
thence northeasterly, along said centerline to the point of beginning.
Whitney Canyon Annexation and Prezone
MC# 98-097, ANNEX 98-001, PZ 98-001
��EHISFING CITY BOUNDARY
SCALE: I 1"1000'
d
O
7
.w 3100'1
IUY'U4'54-W 1320'
605' 330'305'
bI V
m Ib
m
n
RE (MOCA) �
n � Ila
ro
N
QI ;1E Ito
cq
� Z
i OFFrCa OF TNa CITE SWUM
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INDEX OF
raarAxn Or:sCALK-* ANNEXATION NO. � .�i
saa Aan►a
AREA: TO THR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
/se.n AC
Ftun WITrr Tiff CIO. RMORBIM I ARID 2848 PCS. 14, 17, 18
O
Z
LEGEND:
EXISTING, CITY BOUNDARY — -- —
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY — --
RE- Proposed Residential Estate Zone 2 -acre minimum lot size
MOCA- Proposed Mineral/Oil Conservation Area Overlay Zone
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT old
(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 #98-097,
Entitlement Type(s): Annex #98-01, Prezone #98-01
Case Planner: Laura Stotler
Project Location (Thomas Bros.): Los Angeles/Ventura Counties Street Guide and Directory, 1996
Edition, Page 4641, Sections 2D, 2E, 3C, 3D, and 3E.
Project Description and Setting: Prezone and annexation of Whitney Ranch located on 537 acres at
the terminus of San Fernando Road (State Route 126) east of State Route 14 to the City of Santa
Clarita. The property is located in a canyon developed with one single-family dwelling. The majority of
the property is in a natural state, contains a blue line stream, some wetlands, and springs and has many
oak trees. Oil wells exist on the property. The easternmost 163 acres are within the boundary of the
Angeles National Forest.
No development of Whitney Canyon is proposed at this time. The applicant requests 1) to prezone the
property to City of Santa Clarita zones consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan to allow for
future annexation of the property and 2) to have the City of Santa Clarita initiate an application for
annexation with the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
General Plan and Zoning Designation(s): The property is designated N2 (Non -Urban), HM (Hillside
Management), and NF (Angeles National Forest) on the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Area
Plan and zoned Los Angeles County zones A-2-1, A-2-5 and W. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan
designates the property RE (Residential Estate), OS (Open Space) and MOCA (Mineral/Oil Conservation
Area). The property is to be prezoned to City of Santa Clarita zones RE, OS, and MOCA overlay
Project Applicant (Name, Address, Phone): City of Santa Clarita, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite
300, Santa Clarita, CA, 91355, (805) 286-4136.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:The site is bounded on the west by State Route 14 (Antelope
Valley Fwy), on the east by the Angeles National Forest, on the north by Placerita Canyon and tothe
south by Elsmere Canyon.
Other public agencies whose approval is required
(e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): LAFCO
ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked
one Impact that is a "Potentially
following pages.
below would be affected by this project, involving at least
Significant Impact' as Indicated by .the checklist on the
[]
Land Use and Planning
[]
Transportation/
Circulation
[]
Public Services
[ ]
Population and Housing
[ j
Biological Resources
[]
Geological Problems
[7
Noise
[]
Recreation
[ 7
Water
[]
Aesthetics
[ ]
Air Quality
H
Hazards
[]
Cultural Resources
[]
Mandatory Tests of
Significance
[]
Utilities and Service
System
L]
Energy and Mineral
Resources
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] 1 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 analysls 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:
(Signature)
Approved By:
(Signature)
Laura Stotler, Associate Planner
Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
May 26, 1998
May 26, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
a)
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
Potentially
substructures? ( )
b)
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [ ]
[ ] 11 [X]
Significant
overcovering of the soil? ( )
c)
Change in topography or ground surface relief [ ]
(] I ] [X]
Impact
features? ( )
d)
The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ]
Potentially
unless
Less than
e)
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, [ ]
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
I)
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards [ ]
Impact
Incorporate
Impact
Impact
ground failure, or similar hazards? ( )
d
I.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[ 1
(Source # )
b)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
IX]
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
c)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the city?
d)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
I I
I 1
11
IXl
established community (Including a low-income or
minority community)?
e)
Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)? ( )
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[Xj
f)
Other ( )
[]
[]
I]
(X(
II.
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Proposal:
a)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
[ ]
[]
[X]
[ ]
population projections? ( )
b)
Create a net loss of jobs? ( )
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
c)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
[ ]
[ ]
I ]
[X]
housing? ( )
d)
Other ( )
[]
(]
(]
IXI
III
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Will the proposal result in:
a)
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
substructures? ( )
b)
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [ ]
[ ] 11 [X]
overcovering of the soil? ( )
c)
Change in topography or ground surface relief [ ]
(] I ] [X]
features? ( )
d)
The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ]
[ ] [ ] IX]
unique geologic or physical features? ( )
e)
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, [ ]
[ ] I ] [X]
either on or off the site? ( )
I)
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards [ ]
[ ] [ 1 [X]
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards? ( )
g) Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ( 1
h) Other modification of awash, channel,creek, or
river? ( )
1) 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? ( )
I) 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? ( )
I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
1
j) Other
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ( )
11
Leu than
significant
Impact
[l
it
No
Impact
1X1
1X1
1X1
1X1
1X1
1X1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Unless
Significant
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporate
d
it
it
11
Leu than
significant
Impact
[l
it
No
Impact
1X1
1X1
1X1
1X1
1X1
1X1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Unless Less than
significant
Mitigation significant
No
Impact
Incorporate Impact
Impact
d
b)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) []
[] []
[X]
c)
Create objectionable odors? ( ) [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X1
d)
Other ( ) []
[] []
[X]
VI
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?( ) [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[XI
curves or dangerous Intersections) or incompatible
uses? ( )
c)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
uses? ( )
d)
Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
e)
Hazard, or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? []
[ ] [ ]
[X]
f)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [ ]
[ 1 I I
[X]
alternative transportation (e.g. bus stops, bicycle
racks)( )
g)
Disjointed pattern of roadway Improvements ( ) [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
h)
Other ( ) I1
L1 I1
[X]
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? ( ) [ ]
[ } [ ]
[X]
d)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
e)
Other ( ) []
[] []
[X]
Vlll.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
b)
Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
Inefficient manner? ( )
c)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ]
I 1 L 7
[X]
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less than
significant Mitigation significant
Impact Incorporate Impact
d
U
No
Impact
( ) II
IX
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including but not limited to I ] I 1
I I
IXl
all, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( )
b)
Possible interference with an emergency response [ ] [ 1
I1
IXI
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c)
The creation of any health hazard or potential [ ] [ ]
[ ]
[XJ
health hazard? { )
d)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ] [ I
[ ]
[X]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines,
gas lines, oil pipelines)? ( )
e)
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable [ ] [ ]
[ ]
IXI
brush, grass, or trees? ( )
f)
Other ( ) II II
II
IXI
X.
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a)
Increases In existing noise levels? ( ) [ ] I J
[ ]
[XI
b)
Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [ ] [ J
I ]
[X]
vibration? ( )
c)
Other ( ) JJ []
[I
IX1
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? ( ) [ ] I I
IXI
I I
b)
Police protection? ( ) [ ] J J
[X]
I I
c)
Schools? ( ) [] 11
11
[Xl
d)
Maintenance of pubic facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ]
[X]
[ ]
e)
Other government services?
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? ( ) I []
[]
IXI
b)
Communications systems? ( ) [ ] [ ]
[ ]
IXI
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
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
ofa 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
Potentially
I1
Significant
[] []
Impact
1X1
Potentially --unless
Less than
Significant Mitigation
Significant No
Impact Incorporate
Impact Impact
d
[] [1
[] 1X)
1x1
I1 I]
I1
[X]
[] []
[]
1X1
[l []
[l
1x1
[l [1
I1
1x1
11 11 11 [xl
11 11 . 11 1X1
11 11 11 1X1
11 11 11 1X1
[ 1 [ 1 11 1X1
11 11 11 [Xl
11 [1 11 [xl
[ ] [ 7 [
1 1X1
[] I]
[] [X]
[] [I
[] 1x1
11 11 11 [xl
11 11 . 11 1X1
11 11 11 1X1
11 11 11 1X1
[ 1 [ 1 11 1X1
11 11 11 [Xl
11 [1 11 [xl
'
Potentially
'
Significant
Impact
Potentially unless Lessthan
Significant Mitigation Significant
No
Impact Incorporate Impact
Impact
d
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well Into the future.)
c) Does the project have impacts which are
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
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
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
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:
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impact
I. LAND USE AND
The proposed prezone to RE, OS and MOCA overlay is consistent with
PLANNING
the designations of the City's General Plan. Since the zoning would be
consistent with the City's General Plan and no development is proposed
on the property, the proposed prezone would be consistent with existing
land uses in the City. The Los Angeles County General Plan
designations for the site are Hillside Management and Non -urban 2 and
the zoning is Agriculture and Watershed (A-2-1, A-2-5 and W).
Approximately 163.5 acres of the site are located within the jurisdiction
of the Angeles National Forest. This area is proposed to be zoned
Open Space with a Mineral Oil/Conservation Area overlay (OS and
MOCA). Although this 163.5 -acre area could be incorporated into the
City, the approval authority for development within the Angeles National
Forest would remain with the U.S. Forest Service. The City's OS and
MOCA overlay designation for the Angeles National Forest area is
compatible with aims of the U.S. Forest Service for the Whitney
Canyon area. This property is not within a designated Significant
Ecological Area. The proposed prezone and annexation would not
disrupt or divide the physical arrangement or an established community
because there is no established community adjacent to Whitney
Canyon. Impacts upon Land Use and Planning are anticipated to be
less than significant.
If. POPULATION AND
The City of Santa Clarita General Plan serves as the basis for local
HOUSING
population projections in the Santa Clarita General Plan Planning area.
The proposed prezone is not anticipated to lead to growth that will
cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections
because the zones proposed are consistent with the General Plan. The
prezone will not lead to a loss of jobs or displace existing housing
because no development is proposed. Impacts from the prezone upon
Population and Housing are anticipated to be less than significant.
Ill. GEOLOGIC
This prezone will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in
PROBLEMS
geologic substructures, disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil, changes in topography or ground surface relief
features or the destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features because no earth movement is proposed.
The prezone will not result in any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils either on or off the site, nor expose people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or
similar hazards. The prezone will not result in a change in deposition,
erosion or siltation, modify a wash, channel, creek or river. No Alquist-
Priolo Special Study Zones exist on the property. No impacts upon
Geologic Problems are anticipated because no development is
proposed as part of the prezone project.
IV. WATER
The proposed prezone will not change the absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff, nor will it expose
people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because no
development is proposed. Because no development is proposed, this
prezone request will not discharge additional debris or water into
surface waters or result in an alteration to surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity). This proposed prezone
will not result in changes in currents, or the course of direction of water
movements, change in the amount of surface water in any water body,
nor affect groundwater in any way because the prezone will result in no
physical changes to the property. No impacts upon Water are
anticipated.
V. AIR QUALITY
Although the Santa Clarita Valley is located within a non -attainment
area for air quality, this prezone request does not include provisions for
site development at this time. Therefore, no impacts to Air'Quality are
anticipated.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/
The project site takes access from San Fernando Road, also known as
CIRCULATION
State Route 126. The project is located adjacent to State Route 14, the
Antelope Valley Freeway. No development is proposed as this time.
Therefore, the proposed prezone would not increase vehicle trips or
traffic congestion, result in hazards to safety from design features or
incompatible uses, result in inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses, result in insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite,
result in hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists, conflict with
adopted policies supporting alternative transportation or result in a
disjointed pattern of roadway improvements. Therefore, no impacts to
trans ortation/circulation are anticipated.
VII. BIOLOGICAL
The project site is within an area that is primarily in a natural state.
RESOURCES
Over 600 oak trees have been identified on the project site. The project
site does contain a blue line stream and wetland areas. Known
endangered threatened and rare species and habitats are known to
exist in the area, including possible habitat for the California
gnatcatcher, Arroyo toad, and Piersons morning glory. No vegetation or
animal life would be removed or altered as a result of the proposed
rezone. No impacts to Biological Resources are anticipated.
Section and
Evaluation of Impact
Subsections
VIII. ENERGY AND
The project is located within an area identified by the State of California as
MINERAL
a Mineral/Oil Conservation Area (MOCA). For this reason, the City's
RESOURCES
General Plan has likewise identified this area as a mineral and oil resource
area by giving this area a MOCA land use designation. The proposed
prezone includes a MOCA overlay zone over the site, which is consistent
with the General Plan. The project contains several powerline easements
for the Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power that will not be
affected by the proposed prezone. No impact to energy and mineral
resources is anticipated.
IX. HAZARDS
This prezone will not result in a risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation) because it does not involve any construction. This
is the same reason that the proposed prezone would not interfere with an
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, nor create any
health hazard or potential health hazard. Although there are power lines
across portions of the project site, these lines would not expose people to a
health hazard because no development would occur at this time. The
prezone will not increase fire hazard in this area. Therefore, this project will
have no impacts upon Hazards.
X. NOISE
The proposed prezone does not include any development activity.
Therefore, this project would not result in any increase in the existing noise
levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels or vibration. No impact
to Noise is anticipated.
XI. PUBLIC
The proposed project not have an effect on, or result in an incremental need
SERVICES
for new or altered governmental services including fire protection, police
protection, schools, maintenance of public facilities (including roads) or
other governmental services because no development is proposed at this
time. Part of the project proposal is an authorization for the City to apply to
LAFCO for annexation. An annexation would result in an incremental
increase in the governmental responsibilities for the City including roadway
maintenance for approximately 100 feet San Fernando Road that presently
exists. The City would also provide police protection in this area upon
annexation. The need for a measurable increase in governmental services
would occur upon subsequent development of the site, which would be
subject to a separate approval and environmental review process. Impacts
from a prezone to Public Services are anticipated to be less than significant.
XII. UTILITIES
The proposed prezone would not result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to power, natural gas, communications
systems, local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or
septic tanks, storm water drainage, solid waste disposal, and local or
regional water supplies because no physical changes are proposed on the
site as part of the prezone. No impact to Utilities is anticipated as a result
of this project.
XIII. AESTHETICS
This proposed prezone would not affect a scenic vista open to public view,
have a negative aesthetic effect or create a new source of light and glare.
No impact to Aesthetics is anticipated as a result of this project.
XIV. CULTURAL This proposed prezone would not disturb paleontological resources,
RESOURCES archaeological resources, or cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values because no physical changes would occur on
the site as part of this prezone proposal. For these reasons, the prezone
would not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the project area or
affect a recognized historical site. No impacts to Cultural Resources are
anticipated.
S:1pbs\annex19811S