Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-13 - RESOLUTIONS - NEGDEC MC 96-206 (2)RESOLUTION NO. 98-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR MASTER CASE NO. 96-206 FOR THE INHABITED AREA LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMIT, GENERALLY NORTH AND EAST OF ABELIA ROAD, IN THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF CANYON COUNTRY 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. 96-002 to bring the project area into conformance with the City's General Plan land use designations of RS, pursuant to approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96-01, to allow for the future annexation of the area to the City of Santa Clarita; and B. That the General Plan land use designation for the subject site is currently Residential Estate (RE); and C. That a General Plan Amendment is necessary to change the land use designation from Residential Estate to Residential Suburban in order to reflect the existing single family density constructed 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 proposal would be consistent with the City's adopted General Plan and final EIR (SCH# 90010683 -certified and adopted June 1991); 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 October 27, 1997, 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 resources protected by the California Department of Fish and Game, and that a finding of da minima impact on such resources was appropriate. G. That the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public hearing on December 2, 1997, pursuant to applicable law, to consider the prezone and general plan amendment for the City of Santa Clarita, and adopted Resolution No. P97-24, with the finding that the Negative Declaration was in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and RESOLUTION NO. 98-7 Page 2 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-02 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 January 13, 1998, pursuant to applicable law, to consider the prezone and general plan amendment. 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 General Plan Amendment will change the land use designation to one which reflects the density on-site and the surrounding area. 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. RESOLUTION NO. 95-7 Page 3 PASSED,_ APPROVED AND ADOPTED this—! 3th day of January , 19 98. 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 U day of i a n u a r y 19_2_13_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Smyth,K'ajic, Darcy, Heidt NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boyer '/% X CITY CLERK s: \cd\annex\96-02enw.cdm CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final ------------ MASTER CASE -NO: Master Case No. 96-206 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Pre -Zone & Annexation No's. 1996-02, General Plan Amendment No. 96-001 APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The project is located north and east of Abelia Road, adjacent to the Pine Tree Annexation. Thomas Bros. Page 4462. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: A request to annex a 38 -acre inhabited area consisting of 70 lots and the existing street system. As a result of a density discrepancy, a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Residential Suburban is required in conjunction with the prezone/annexation. 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 JEFF LAMBE��VI1`j�, A�;�AICP PLANNING 1V1GEF Prepared by:. [ ] Are Not Attached Conal McNamara, AICP. Assistant Planner II (Name/Title) Approved by: Fred Follstad. AICP. Associate Planner (Signature) (Name/'IYtle) Public Review Period From October 27, 1997 To November 18. 1997 Public Notice Given On October 27. 1997 By: [X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: cd\advance\caca-nd.cdm Exhibit A 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSME (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA C' AR Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Ste. 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact Person & Phone Number: Conal McNamara, (805) 255-4349 Master Case or CIP Number. Master Case No. 96.206 (Prezone No. 96-002, Annexation No. 1996-02, and General Plan Amendment 96-001) Entitlement Type(s): Pre -Zoning, Annexation, General Plan Amendment Case Planner: Conal McNamara Project Location: North and east of Abatis Road, adjacent to the northeast City limits in the County of Los Angeles. Thomas Bros. Page 4462. Project Description and Setting: A request to annex a 38 -acre Inhabited residential area consisting of approximately 70 lots and the existing street system. As a result of a density discrepancy, a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Residential Estate (RE) to Residential Suburban (RS) Is required in conjunction with the prezone/annexation General Plan and Zoning Designation(s): The project site is located in the Residential Estate (RE) land use district. Project Applicant (Name, Address, Phone): City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarke, CA 91355 (805) 255.4330 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The surrounding area is characterized by existing single-family residential development to the south of Jasmine Road and west of Sunrose Place, with the remaining area vacant. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) -1- 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/ [X] Public Services Circulation [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Biological Resources [ J Recreation [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Noise [ J Aesthetics [ ] Water [ ] Hazards [ I Cultural Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Mandatory Tests of [ ] Utilities and Service Significance System [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources 2- ) a DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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. Pre 7 d By: (Signature) Approved By: / (Signature) iJ Conal McNamara, A.P. II (NamaMtie) Fred Follstad, Assoc. Planner -3- (NameMtle) 10/16/97 (Date) 10/17/97 (Date) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source # ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 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 established community (including a low4ncome or minority community►? e) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEQ? ( ) f) Other ( I 11. POPULA71ON AND HOUSING. would the Proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Create a net loss of jobs? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) d) Other ( ) III GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Will the proposal result In: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ( ) b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ( ) c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ( ) d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ( ) e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ( ) f) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) •4 - Potentially significant Impact Potentially Unless Leas than Significant Mldgadon significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact [l [I 11 VI [1 U 1XI [1 [1 11 1XI [1 [1 11 1XI [1 [1 11 1XI [1 ❑ 11 1X] [1 [] 11 PQ [1 11 VI [1 [1 11 1X1 [1 [1 ❑ 1)1 [1 ❑ 11 1X1 [1 11 1X1 [l 11 1X1 [1 [1 11 1x1 [1 [1 11 1X1 [1 ❑ ❑ 1X1 .� Potentially Elgntikarlt Impact Potentially unless leu than _ significant MtUgation signelw,n No Impact Incorporated Impact ImPM g) Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ( ) [] [] [] P(] h) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or [] (] [] [X] river? ( ) 1) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [] [] [] [x] yards or more? ( ) j) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [] [] [] [X] 25% natural grade? ( ) k) Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special [] [] [] [X] Studies Zone? ( ) I) Other ( ) [ 1 I l I1 P(I IV. WATER. would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat0ems, or [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 P9 the rade and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or properly to water related [ I [ 1 [ 1 P9 hazards such as flooding? ( ) —� c) Discharge Into surface waters or other alteration of [ 1 [ I [ 1 Pq surface water quality (e -g. temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity) ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water In any water [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] body? ( ) e) Changes In currents, or the course of direction of [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 P9 water movements? ( ) f) Charges in the quantity of ground waders, either [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl through di act additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquMar by arts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capabtiitS/► ( 1 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? I I I l I l P9 h) Impacts to groundwaller quality? ( ) Il II [1 M I) Substantial reduction In the amount of groundwater I1 I l I1 P9 otherwise available for pubic water supplies? ) j) MW ( ) [1 [1 [1 [XI V. AIR QUALITY. would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an I ] I I I l PQ existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) -5- 1 Potentially Signfcant -6- Potentially Significant Impact Unless Less than Mitigation SlgneicaM No Incorporated Impact Impact [1 [1 Impact b) Expose sensitive receptors to poilutants? ( ) [1 c) Create objectionable odors? ( ) [ ] d) Other ( ) Il A. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. would the P9 [1 proposal to= in: P4 a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?( ) [ 1 b) Hazards to safety from design features (eg. sharp I1 [1 curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible P9 [1 uses? ( ) Pq c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby I1 [1 uses? ( ) Pq d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or ofsua? [ ] [I [1 [Xl e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? I1 ( 1 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [ 1 alternative transportation (eg. bus stops, bicycle racks)( ) g) Disjointed pattern of roadway improvements ( ) [ 1 h) Other ( ) [J VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their I l habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds) ( ) b) Oak Trees ( ) [ ] c) WetWtd Habitat or blueline stream? ( ) I l d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) I l e) Other ( 1 [1 All. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? I1 ( 1 b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ J ine kart manner? ( ) -6- Potentially Significant Impact Unless Less than Mitigation SlgneicaM No Incorporated Impact Impact [1 [1 [XI [] 11 [XI [1 [1 [Xi [l [1 P9 [1 [1 [XI [I 11 Pq Il Il P9 [1 P9 [1 [1 P4 [I [1 [X] [l [I P9 [1 [I P9 [1 [1 Pq [1 [1 P9 [1 [1 Pq II U [XI [I [1 [Xl [1 11 VI -7- Potentially slgnilkant Potentially Impact Union Lasa than - elgni cam Mitigation 31gntilcam No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Result in the loss of avaiiabiiity of a known mineral [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X] resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) d) mer 1 ) [I [1 [1 [X1 IX HAZARDS. would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or released I1 I I [ 1 Pq hazardous substances (Including but not limited to oti. pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response [ 1 [ ] [ 1 [X] plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or polentlal hearth [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X] hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of pohmW [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X] health hazards (ag. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? ( ) e) incrsm"W fire hazard in areas via flammable brush, [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X] grass, or trees? ( ) I) Other ( ) (1 [] [1 PQ X. NOISE. would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) I l I l I I P4 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl vibration? ( ) C) ottner l ) [1 [1 [1 PQ XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. would the proposal have an effect om6 or rsmlt in a meed for naw or altwed geverue w services in any of the Mewing arses: a) Fire protection? ( ) I Il I PO b) Police protection? ( ) [ ] I1 [Xl [ ] C) schools? ( ) [1 [1 [] P9 d) Maintenance of pubic facilidss, including roads? [ 1 [ 1 [Xl [ 1 e) Other government services? ( ) [1 [1 [1 P4 Al. UTILITIES. would the proposal result in a need tar new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the followlq utlgtlas: _ a) Power or natural gas? ( ) 11 11 11 Pt] -7- b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water bash. ant 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 ( ) XN. 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? _8_ )y Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact [1 [1 [1 1X1 1X1 U 1X1 [I ❑ 1X1 [1 p q 1X1 [1 [1 [1 1X1 [1 [] [] VI [1 [I [I 1X1 [1 [1 [1 1X1 [1 [1 ❑ 1X1 p ❑ [I 1X1 [I [1 11 VI [1 U [I [X] [1 11 1X1 [1 11 VI )y potentlally Evaluation of Impact Potentially The proposed application will involve an annexation and General Plan - Signiflunt unless Less than Impact b) Does the project have the potential to achieve [ ] [1 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, [1 [1 environmental goals? (A short-term Impact on the single-family residential development. As the site and use are both environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, nor will the uses be incompatible with existing land uses. definitive period of time while long-term impacts will As an existing residential use in a residential land use designation, the endure well Into the future.) 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." potentlally Evaluation of Impact Slgnelcafd The proposed application will involve an annexation and General Plan Impact Amendment to bring 70 lots on 38 acres into the City. At the time the unless Less than Mitigation 31gnalcant Incorporated Impact [1 [1 [1 [1 XVIII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSES: No Impact IXI [X] �tl [X] Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact I. LAND USE AND The proposed application will involve an annexation and General Plan PLANNING Amendment to bring 70 lots on 38 acres into the City. At the time the City's General Plan was adopted, the subject site was zoned Residential Estate (RE); however, approvals and construction under County of Los Angeles jurisdiction resulted in units being constructed at a Residential Suburban (RS) density. By recognizing the subject site as having RS density, the site will be consistent with the surrounding single-family residential development. As the site and use are both residential, there will no disruption of the community's arrangement nor will the uses be incompatible with existing land uses. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING As an existing residential use in a residential land use designation, the proposed project will neither generate nor deplete population, jobs, or housing. -9- Section and Evaluation of Impact Subsections III. GEOLOGIC As a previously approved and constructed residential tract, the PROBLEMS standard engineering conditions placed on the project at the time ensured that the proposed project would not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures, changes in topography, disruptions of the soil, modification of any geologic or physical feature, increase in wind or water erosion, or exposure of people to geologic hazards. IV. WATER Due to the fact that the site is currently constructed, there will be no changes in absorption rates or drainage patterns, exposure of people or property to water related hazards, discharge into surface waters, or impacts to groundwater. V. AIR QUALITY Given the fact that no construction is proposed for the project, there will be no impact to air quality standards nor will the use expose sensitive receptors to pollutants or create objectionable odors. VI. The proposed use is to be located in a site which has already been TRANSPORTATION/ improved with respect to circulation. As such, there will be no hazards CIRCULATION to safety from design features, inadequate parking capacity or emergency access, hazards for pedestrians or bicyclists, conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation, or disjointed pattern of roadway improvements. VII. BIOLOGICAL As an existing, constructed site, there will be no impacts to biological RESOURCES resources associated with this proposal. VIII. ENERGY AND As an existing, constructed site, it will not conflict with adopted energy MINERAL conservation plans, use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful manner, RESOURCES or result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. IX. HAZARDS As an existing, constructed site, there will be no risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances, interference with emergency response plans, creation of health hazard, or increased fire hazard. X. NOISE The residential units will not exceed noise standards for the area. Further, there are no construction activities which would pose any noise impacts. Xl. PUBLIC One outcome of the annexation will be that the City will now be SERVICES responsible for police and public works services rather than the County. The additional 70 lots and the minor street system will not have a significant impact on the City's ability to provide services. The corresponding Departments within the City will budget accordingly and will be able to provide all necessary services. XII. UTILITIES As the site is located in an improved, urbanized area, the proposed use is already serviced by utilities. 10- ao Section and Subsections Evahwtion of impact XIII. AESTHETICS The project site consists of existing residential units to be annexed and are In keeping with the surrounding residential development within the City. As such, there will be no impact to scenic vista open to public view. XIV. CULTURAL As an existing, improved residential subdivision, there are no known RESOURCES cultural or archaeological resources on-site.