HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - UDC ZONING MAP 121 PARCELS (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
411:310"
DEPARTMENT:
Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
November 26, 2013
Jason Smisko
MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE ZONING MAP ON 121 PARCELS OF
LAND, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 351 ACRES, IN THE
CITY (MC 13-084)
Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
(1) Adopt a resolution adopting the Negative Declaration for Master Case 13-084,
approving General Plan Amendment 13-001 to update the General Plan Land Use
Map; and
(2) Introduce and pass to second reading an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, TO
APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 13-002, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA."
BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2011, the City of Santa Clarita adopted a new General Plan (One Valley One
Vision) along with a new General Plan Land Use Map. On June 11, 2013, the City of Santa
Clarita adopted a new Unified Development Code (UDC) that complies with the policies
established in the new General Plan, as well as a Zoning Map consistent with the approved
General Plan Map. Furthermore, during the time these two,documents were being adopted, the
City completed seven annexations, encompassing nearly 7,000,acres and 25,000 residents.
Ordinance passed to
Second reading
As a result of these three actions, staff conducted a final analysis on the over 61,000 parcels
located within the City to ensure the classification of each parcel accurately represents the use on
the land. The results of this review indicated that 121 parcels, a total of 351 acres, contained an
inconsistent designation. Of these parcels, 37 are held in private ownership and 84 are in public
ownership by either the City of Santa Clarita or the Southern California Regional Rail Authority
(SCRRA). Therefore, staff initiated Master Case (MC) 13-084 to modify the General Plan Land
Use Map and the UDC Zoning Map. The attached matrix (Proposed Land Use Designations)
describes each of the mapping proposed changes.
• General Plan Land Use Map Proposed Changes
Staff has identified 351 acres that will require a General Plan Amendment to modify the
City's General Plan Land Use Map. A map showing these proposed changes is attached.
(Map #1)
• UDC Zoning Map Proposed Changes
Of the 351 General Plan acres noted above, staff has identified 337 acres that will require
a Zone Change to modify the UDC Zoning Map. A map showing these proposed changes
is attached. (Map #2)
There is a difference between the acres needing to be changed on the General Plan Land Use
Map and the UDC Zoning Map. This is because of the 14 -acre The Master's College Master
Plan parcel that was given a proper UDC Zoning Map designation, but was assigned an
inconsistent General Plan Land Use designation.
Planning Commission
At the Planning Commission meeting of October 15, 2013, MC 13-084 was presented to the
City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission, and the Commission voted 4-0 to adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council amend its General Plan Land Use Map and UDC Zoning
Map.
Environmental Status
A draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this proposed project and was available for a
public review period beginning at 12:00 p.m. on September 24, 2013 and ending on October 15,
2013. During this public review period, a copy of the Negative Declaration, and all supporting
documents, was available at the Permit Center located on the first floor of City Hall. A copy of
the draft Negative Declaration was also posted at the Santa Clarita Library, Valencia Branch,
during the public review period noted above.
Public Participation and Comment
All property owners have been notified in writing of the proposed zoning change affecting them,
and of the dates of the public meetings related to this project.
On September 24, 2013, a Notice of Public Hearing and a legal notice advertising the Planning
Commission public hearing and draft Negative Declaration were placed in The Signal. Further-
more, on November 5, 2013, a Notice of Public Hearing, including a legal notice advertising the
City Council public hearing and draft Negative Declaration, were placed in The Signal.
To date, the Community Development Department has not received any written correspondence
on the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other actions as determined by City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with MC 13-084.
ATTACHMENTS
Notice of Public Hearing
Ordinance -
Resolution
Negative Declaration
Initial Study
Proposed Land Use Designations Matrix
Map #1 - Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Changes - Updated
Map #2 - Proposed Zoning Map Changes - Updated
PC Resolution available in the City Clerk's Reading File
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APPLICATION: Master Case No. 13-084
Zone Change 13-002
General Plan Amendment 13-001
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
PROJECT LOCATION: Various locations throughout the City
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City is requesting to modify the general plan and zoning
categories for approximately 121 properties located throughout the City. The majority of the
properties are publicly owned. The requested modifications are needed to address mapping errors,
annexations conformance issues, and changes to land uses on properties recently acquired by the
City. No development is proposed with this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On October 15, 2013, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to
recommend that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and
approve the proposed project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION was prepared for the proposed
project and was posted for public review from September 24 to October 15, 2013. A copy of the
Negative Declaration and all supporting documents is available at the Permit Center located in the
City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. A copy of the
Negative Declaration without supporting documents is available at the Santa Clarita Public Library,
Valencia Branch.
The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following
date:
DATE: Tuesday, November 26, 2013
TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers
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 hearings described in this notice, or written
correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings.
For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner at the City of
Santa Clarita Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone:
(661) 255-4330. Website: www.santa-clarita.com/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920
Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Jason Smisko, Senior Planner.
Email: jsmisko@santa-clarita.com.
Armin Chaparyan,
Interim City Clerk
Dated: November 5, 2013
Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall, Santa Clarita Public Library (Valencia Branch)
Published: The Signal, November 5, 2013
ORDINANCE NO. 13 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 13-002,
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
a. On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted the Santa Clarita General Plan, by
adoption of Resolution No. 11-63. The General Plan includes the state mandated
elements required by the State of California;
b. On June 11, 2013, the City Council adopted the update to the Santa Clarita
Unified Development Code (UDC), by adoption of Ordinance No. 13-08. The
UDC includes the Zoning Map for the City. The document was updated to
implement the General Plan among other updates;
C. The City of Santa Clarita's proposed project consists of General Plan Amendment
13-001 (with Exhibit A to this ordinance), and Zone Change 13-002 (Exhibit A of
this ordinance) to update the Land Use Map of the City's General Plan and the
City's Zoning Map, as outlined in the UDC, to make minor refinements,
corrections, and clarifications;
d. The City of Santa Clarita initiated the update to the General Plan Land Use Map
and Zoning Map on June 17, 2013;
e. On September 20, 2013, City staff sent notices to the 23 private land owners
whose properties were proposed to be changed as part of this project;
f The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this project
commencing on October 15, 2013, at 6:00 pm, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita;
g. At the hearing described above, the Planning Commission considered the staff
report, staff presentation, applicant presentation, and public testimony on the
proposal, and unanimously (4-0) approved Resolution P13-011, recommending
the City Council approve Master Case (MC) 13-084;
I
h. The City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing in accordance with the City's
noticing requirements. The project was advertised in The Signal newspaper on
November 5, 2013. The public hearing was held November 26, 2013, at City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 pm;
At the City Council meeting on November 26, 2013, the City Council received
City staff s presentation summarizing the proposed project, opened the public
hearing, and received public testimony regarding the project, and staff received
comments and questions from the City Council regarding the project;
At the City Council meeting on November 26, 2013, the City Council adopted
a resolution certifying the Negative Declaration prepared for the project
(MC 13-084), and approved General Plan Amendment 13-0001; and
k. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based for MC 13-084
project file is with the Community Development Department; the record
specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR ZONE CHANGE 13-002. Based on the
above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, oral and
written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other trans-
mittals from City staff to the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the City
Council, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan;
The project contains an amendment to the City's General plan, and therefore the
project would be consistent with the General Plan as amended. There are no
aspects to the proposed projects that impact the contents or impede on any of the
goals and objectives of the City's General Plan.
b. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone, and complies with
all other applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code;
The project contains a Zone Change request that, along with the General Plan
Amendment, would make the existing uses of the parcels in conformance with the
Unified Development Code.
C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the
public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially
detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the
vicinity and zone in which the property is located;
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning Maps to reflect the
existing use of the underlying parcels. No construction is proposed with this
project. This project will not result in any hazards or detriments to the public.
d. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the
proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the
following:
i. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable
for the proposed use;
ii. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient
width, and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of
traffic such proposal would generate;
iii. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.) are
readily available; and
iv. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste
collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment,
and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site.
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning Maps to reflect the
existing use of the underlying parcels. No construction is proposed with this
project. There is no impact to traffic, public protection services and the provision
of utilities.
SECTION 3. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR ZONE CHANGE 13-002. Based on
the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, oral
and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other trans-
mittals from City staff to the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the City
Council, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the Zoning Map, as it pertains to
the area under consideration;
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning Maps to reflect the
existing use of the underlying parcels. As these uses were contemplated in the
City's General Plan and in the Unified Development Code, it is appropriate to
have their land uses and zoning designations be consistent with their actual uses.
b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within such area;
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning Maps to reflect the
existing use of the underlying parcels. The change of zone classification is
needed to address and to correct reflect the use of the land.
C. That the particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone
classification within such area:
i. That placement of the proposed zone at such location will be in the interest
of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good
zoning practice;
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning Maps to reflect
the existing use of the underlying parcels. As these uses were contem-
plated in the City's General Plan and in the Unified Development Code, it
is appropriate to have their land uses and zoning designations be consistent
with their actual uses.
ii. That the proposed zone change is consistent with the adopted General Plan
for the area, unless a General Plan Amendment is filed concurrently and
approved with said zone change;
The project contains an amendment to the City's General Plan and there-
fore the project would be consistent with the General Plan as amended.
SECTION 4. The City Council approves the request to re -designate 121 parcels within
the City of Santa Clarita as shown on the Zone Change Map (Exhibit A).
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its
passage and adoption.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 2013.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Armine Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance No. 13- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first
reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of November, 2013. That
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
on the 10th day of December, 2013, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance 13-_ and
was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806).
INTERIM CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT A OF ORDINANCE NO. 13-
ZONECHANGE
MAP OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
7
I�81.�1]i[ilt iLI)►�►1��lk3'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA TO ADOPT
THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR MASTER CASE 13-084;
AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 13-001,
AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. FINDINGS OF FACT. Now, therefore, the City Council does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted the Santa Clarita General Plan by
adoption of Resolution No. 11-63. The General Plan includes the state mandated
elements required by the State of California;
b. On June 11, 2013, the City Council adopted the update to the Santa Clarita
Unified Development Code (UDC), by adoption of Ordinance No. 13-08. The
UDC includes the Zoning Map for the City. The document was updated to
implement the General Plan among other updates;
C. The City of Santa Clarita's proposed project consists of the General Plan
Amendment 13-001 (Exhibit A of this resolution) and Zone Change 13-002 (with
Exhibit A to the ordinance): To update the Land Use Map of the City's General
Plan and the City's Zoning Map to make minor refinements, corrections, and
clarifications;
d. The City of Santa Clarita initiated the update to the General Plan Land Use Map
and Zoning Map on June 17, 2013;
e. On September 20, 2013, City staff sent notices to the 23 private land owners
whose properties were proposed to be changed as part of this project;
f. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this project
commencing on October 15, 2013, at 6:00 pm, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita;
g. At the hearing described above, the Planning Commission considered the staff
report, staff presentation, applicant presentation, and public testimony on the
proposal, and unanimously (4-0) approved Resolution P13-011, recommending
the City Council approve Master Case (MC) 13-084;
h. The City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing in accordance with the City's
noticing requirements. The project was advertised in The Signal newspaper on
November 5, 2013. The public hearing was held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 pm;
At the City Council meeting of November 26, 2013, the City Council received
City staff s presentation summarizing the proposed project, opened the public
hearing, and received public testimony regarding the project, and staff received
comments and questions from the City Council regarding the project; and
j. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based for the
MC 13-084 project file is with the Community Development Department; the
record specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS.
Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected govern-
mental agencies and the public, and all comments received have been considered.
The Negative Declaration was advertised on September 24, 2013, and posted on
September 24, 2013, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was
open from September 24, 2013 through October 15, 2013;
C. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on
the environment. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of
the City of Santa Clarita;
d. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the decision of the City Council is made is the MC 13-084 project
file, located within the Community Development Department and is in the
custody of the Director of Community Development; and
e. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds that the
Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with
CEQA.
SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
13-001. Based on the above findings of facts and recitals and the entire record, including,
without limitation, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings,
reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, and upon studies and
investigations made by the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
2
a. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan;
The project contains an amendment to the City's General Plan, and therefore the
project would be consistent with the General Plan as amended. There are no
aspects to the proposed projects that impact the contents or impede upon any of
the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan.
b. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone, and complies with
all other applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code;
The project contains a Zone Change request that, along with the General Plan
Amendment, would make the existing uses of the parcels in conformance with the
Unified Development Code.
C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitude a hazard to
the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially
detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the
vicinity and zone in which the property is located;
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning Maps to reflect the
existing use of the underlying parcels. No construction is proposed with this
project. This project will not result in any hazards or detriment to the public.
d. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the propo-
sal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the
following:
The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable
for the proposed use;
The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient
width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of
traffic such proposal would generate;
iii. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.) are
readily available; and
iv. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste
collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment,
and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site.
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning Maps to reflect the
existing use of the underlying parcels. No construction is proposed with this
project. There is no impact to traffic, public protection services, and the provision
of utilities.
N
SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
13-001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without
limitation, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports
and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, and upon studies and investigations
made by the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
a. The proposed General Plan Amendment meets all of the findings per Section
17.06.130.
All findings per Section 17.06.130 have been met by this proposed project and are
described in this Resolution in Section 3, a through d.
b. Properties which benefit from increased density or intensity of development
resulting from the General Plan Amendment shall fully mitigate their increased
sewer impact at the time that development occurs on the properties.
This project reflects existing land uses, and does not propose any construction of
development. There are no properties gaining or benefitting from increased
density or intensity of development from the General Plan Amendment. Any
future development on these properties will have to mitigate any increased sewer
impact.
C. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with other elements of the
City's General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5.
These amendments will be reflective of a new General Plan adopted by the City
Council in 2011, where all of the General Plan elements were developed
simultaneously and found to be consistent with the each other. This General Plan
Amendment remains consistent with the other elements of the General Plan. This
General Plan Amendment project modifies the land use categories to accurately
reflect the existing land uses.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration prepared for the
project, and approves General Plan Amendment 13-001, with Exhibit A.
15
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify
this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of November, 2013.
MAYOR
I:ti11113.` 6
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Armine Chaparyan, Interim 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 26th day of November 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 13 -
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
11
CITY OF SANTA CLARiTA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO: Master Case 13-084
PERMIT/PROJECT
NAME:
General Plan Amendment 13-001 and Zone Change 13-002
APPLICANT:
City of Santa Clarity
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT:
Various locations Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT: Modifications are being proposed to the Zoning and General Plan Land Use
maps to address refinements on approximately 121 parcels of land in the City. Of these parcels, approximately
37 parcels are held in private ownership, with approximately 84 parcels being owned by either the City or the
railroad. Staff has identified approximately 337.2 acres that will require a Zone Change to modify the City's
zoning map and approximately 351.09 acres that will require a General Plan Amendment to modify the City's
General Plan land use map.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the
requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council [ ] Planting Commission [ ] Director of Planning and Building Services ,
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 W. Hogan, AICP "I
Prepared by:I//I/ PatrickLeclair Associate Planner
(Signature) � (Name/Title)
Approved by: \—kA_ �� '[ Jason Smisko, Senior Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
Public Review Period From September 24, 2013 To October 15, 2013
Public Notice Given On September 24 2013
[Xj Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
S:\CI\CURRENM013\13-084 6PA an C for Maps CEQA\13-084 Nog Dec. doe
N
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title/Master Case Number: Master Case 13-084
General Plan Amendment 13-001
Zone Change 13-002
Lead Agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact person and phone number: Jason Smisko
Senior Planner
(661)255-4330
Project location: Locations are Citywide described below
Applicant's name and address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
General Plan designation: Various updates described below
Zoning: Various updates described below
Description of project and setting: On June 14, 2011, the City of Santa Clarita adopted a new
General Plan for the City of Santa Clarita, along with a new
General Plan land use map. On June 11, 2013, the City of
Santa Clarita adopted a new Unified Development Code that
complies with the policies established in the new General
Plan, as well as a Zoning Map consistent with the approved
General Plan map. In addition, since June 2012, the City has
completed seven annexations encompassing nearly 7,000
acres and 25,000 residents. Following adoption of the land
use and zoning maps and their corresponding plan
documents, a number of mapping refinements have been
identified. Staff is proposing to make modifications to both
the General Plan and Zoning maps to address these
refinements on approximately 121 parcels of land in the City.
Of these parcels, approximately 37 parcels are held in private
ownership, with approximately 84 parcels being owned by
either the City or the railroad. Staff has identified
approximately 337.2 acres that will require a Zone Change to
modify the City's zoning map and approximately 351.09
20
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 2 of 35
acres that will require a General Plan Amendment to modify
the City's General Plan land use map. A General Plan land
use map (attached to the end of this report as "Exhibit A")
and a City zoning map (attached to the end of this report as
"Exhibit B") have been prepared to indicate the location of
all of the proposed refinements, with each refinement given a
number to correspond to the chart attached below. In
addition, the chart below describes each of the mapping
refinements proposed at this time:
21
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 3 of 35
�
" osed
1
Southwest comer of Lost Canyon Road and Sand
P/I
URI
Existing SFR is classified PI which is the
Canyon Road
same as the school to the west. Proposed
(2840-005-052)
residential classification reflects adjacent
residential uses to the east.
2
East side of Bouquet Canyon Road at Alamogordo
OS
UR2
Existing Church classified Open Space
Road
which is the same as the adjacent Central
(2849-003-002)
Park and Bouquet Creek. The proposed
classification reflects adjacent residential
uses to the east.
3
Luther Drive and Mandan Street
P/I
UR3
An existing church is classified as
(2803-029-031)
Public/Institutional though they are
typically in adjacent residential zones. See
Number 4 below.
4
Luther Drive and Mandan Street
UR3
P/I
An existing private school is classified as
(2803-029-032)
residential though they are typically in the
Public/Institutional zones. See Number 3
above.
5
South Side of Magic Mountain Parkway Near
P/I
CR
The project site consists of vacant land and
Tourney Road
is not owned by a public entity. The
(2861-002-040, 2861-002-106, and 2861-061-005)
proposed classification would be consistent
with the parcels to the west.
6
Hilse Lane and Walnut Street
UR 2 and
UR2
A portion of four existing SFR parcels with
(2859-002-037, 2859-003-047,2859-003-048, and
OS
an Open Space designation in proximity to
2859-003-049)
the South Fork of the Santa Clara River.
The proposed classification would be to
UR2 as the adjacent residential properties.
N
N
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 4 of 35
7
Bouquet Canyon Road near Shadow Valley LaneP/I
UR5 and
Two properties adjacent to the LA County
(2812-008-013 (UR5) and 2812-008-032 (UR2))
UR 2
probation camps that are classified as
Public/Institutional. The proposed
classifications are UR2 and UR5 which
would be consistent with adjacent privately
owned parcels.
8
Avenue Stanford, south of Rye Canyon Road
OS
BP
An existing privately owned vacant parcel
(2866-007-080)
that is classified as Open Space. The
proposed classification for the site is
Business Park as it part of the Valencia
Industrial Park.
9
Soledad Canyon Road west of Camp Plenty Road
P/I
UR3
The railroad tracks were realigned in this
(2836-002-047 and 2836-003-017)
area and the Public/Institutional
classification remained on the previous
alignment. The proposed action would be
to modify the P/I classification to follow
existing railroad tracks and the abandoned
right-of-way to UR3 in conformance with
the approved project.
10
Villa Metro site on Soledad Canyon Road at Prima
CN/UR5
UR5/CN
The approved Villa Metro project included
Drive (formerly Gladding Way)
provisions for a neighborhood commercial
(2849-027-008, 2849-027-009, 2849-027-010,
element. Since adoption of the General
2849-027-011, 2849-027-013, 2849-027-014, 2849-
Plan, the final map for the site indicates that
027-020, and 2849-027-021)
the CN designated area does not conform
with the approved map. The proposed
classification refinement would correspond
to the approved map.
U
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 5 of 35
11
Greenbrier Estates near Golden Valley Road
BP
UR5
Do to odd lot lines, a portion of the units in
(2849-024-010 and 2849-024-041)
Greenbrier Estates has a Business Park
Designation. The proposed change would
correct the designations for the existing
mobilehome park.
12
Master's College along future Dockweiler Drive
P/I
UR3
This relates to the residential portion of the
(2833-014-015)
Master's College Master Plan that was
approved previously. The UR3 category
was inadvertently not included on the
approved General Plan. The requested
change is only to the General Plan as the
Zoning map is consistent with the request.
13
Sand Canyon Road north of Soledad Canyon Road
UR2
MXN
The project site was part of previous
(2839-005-035)
approval and a portion of the site was
classified as UR2 with the remainder of the
site classified as MXN. The requested
changes are to make the site consistent with
remainder of the site with a MXN
classification.
14
South side of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Sierra
OS
MXC
An existing privately owned vacant parcel
Highway
that is classified as Open Space. The
(2844-001-074 and 2844-001-075)
proposed classification for the site is Mixed
Use Commercial.
15
Near the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and
CN
UR3
This mobilehome park expanded, with
Langside Drive
approvals from the City, approximately ten
(2805-021-003 and 2805-021-004)
years ago. Proposed classification reflects
adjacent residential zoning for the rest of
the park.
N
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 6 of 35
16
Eastern side of Wiley Canyon Road south of
URI
MXN
This area is part of the Smiser Ranch
Wabuska Street
properties and was designated URI. The
(2825-012-011)
proposed designation is MXN consistent
with the remainder of the Smiser Ranch.
17
North side of Golden Valley Road, west of Sierra
MXN
UR3
The site contains approved Tract 67674
Highway
which is approved for nine units and is not
(2836-013-129 and 2833-013-149)
consistent with the MXN designation The
project is consistent with the development
to the west and therefore theUR3
designation is proposed.
18
West side of Sierra Highway north of Jakes Way
UR5
CC
Existing commercial buildings are classified
(2836-001-029, 2836-001-030, and 2836-001-031)
UR5 which is the same as the surrounding
residential uses. Proposed classification of
CC reflects uses on the site.
19
Northwest corner of McBean Parkway and
UR2
P/I
This public use site that was acquired as
Summerhill Lane
part of the Northpark annexation, and the
(2810-041-900)
proposed change is to the P/I classification.
20
Adjacent to the Santa Clarita Activities Center
BP
P/I
This portion of the Activities Center which
(2836-018-901, 2836-018-902, 2836-018-903, and
includes the dog park, was not included in
2836-018-904)
the P/I Zone.
21
Copperhill Drive east of Haskell Canyon Road
UR2
OS
This park was acquired as part of the North
(3244-151-900)
Copperhill annexation, and the proposed
change is to the Open Space classification.
22
South side Valencia Boulevard, east of Creekside
SP
OS
The Specific Plan designation was placed
Road
on an area that is not part of the North
(2811-025-901)
Valencia Specific Plan.
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 7 of 35
23
North side of Valencia Boulevard, west of McBean
Parkway
(2861-062-160, 2861-062-900, and 2861-066-900)
CR
P/I
odi6cation
This recently acquired this park and ride
site, which is under construction, is
proposed to change to the P/I classification.
24
Various Location through the City
Various
OS
Since the adoption of the General Plan and
(2827-026-904, 2827-026-905, 2833-023-900, 2840-
Zoning Map, the City has continued to
003-903,2840-005-906,2840-006-902,2840-007-
acquire open space parcels throughout the
900, 2840-007-902, 2840-007-903, 2844-001-914,
City. These modifications would classify
2844-013-900,2844-013-901,2844-037-900,2859-
them to open space.
001-904,2859-025-020,2859-026-030,2860-014-
900, 2860-018-900, 2860-026-900, 2861-003-900,
2861-050-900,2866-007-902, and 2866-007-907)
25
The railroad corridor primarily in the Fair Oaks
Various
P/I
At the time of the adoption of the General
annexation area
Plan, the railroad tracks within the City are
(2836-002-908, 2836-002-909, 2836-002-910, 2836-
classified P/L The railroad tracks through
002-911, 2836-003-900,2836-003-901, 2836-003-
the Fair Oaks annexation area are not
903,2836-003-904,2836-003-905, 2836-003-906,
consistent with this and this modification
2836-003-908,2836-003-909,2836-003-910,2840-
would make this consistent throughout the
003-900,2840-003-901,2840-003-902,2840-004-
City.
812, 2840-004-815, 2840-004-816, 2840-004-901,
2840-004-902,2840-004-903,2840-004-904,2840-
004-905,2840-004-906,2840-004-907,2840-004-
908,2840-004-909,2840-004-910,2840-004-911,
2840-004-912,2840-004-913,2840-005-902,2840-
005-903,2840-005-904,2844-022-900,2844-022-
903,2844-022-904,2844-022-905,2844-022-906,
2844-022-907,2844-022-908,2844-023-900,2844-
023-901,2844-023-902,2844-023-903,2844-023-
904,2844-023-905,2844-023-906,2844-023-907,
and 2844-023-908)
N
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 8 of 35
Surrounding land uses: N/A
Other public agencies whose N/A
approval is required:
Z`
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 9 of 35
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Less than Significant with
Mitation" as indicated by the checklist on the followin ages.
�[ ] Aesthetics
I
Agriculture Resources [ ]
Air Quality
[ ] Biological Resources [ ]
i
Cultural Resources [ ]
Geology / Soils
[ ] Greenhouse Gas [ ]
Hazards & Hazardous [ ]
Hydrology / Water
Emissions
I
Materials
Quality
i[ ] Land Use / Planning [ ]
Mineral Resources [ ]
Noise
[ ] Population / Housing [ ]
Public Services [ ]
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
[_I...... Transportation / Traffic (]
Utilities / Service Stems [l__
Significance _
B. 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 revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 10 of 35
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
Aprosed proj t, nothing further is required.
2311 3
Patrick Le lair,T:�'
itePlanner Date
��J_ I' '>
Jason Smisko, Senior Planner Date
wl�
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 11 of 35
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
c) Other [] [] [] I
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
3D
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 12 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of [ ] [] [] [X]
forest land to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
concentrations?
31
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 13 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [ ] [ ] [] [XI
number of people?
f) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any [ ] [ ] [] [X]
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees?
3z
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 14 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
h) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to 115 064.5 ?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
outside of formal cemeteries?
e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
733
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 15 of 35
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] [] [X]
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- [ ] [ ] [] [X]
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Change in topography or ground surface relief [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
features?
g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
yards or more?
3A
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 16 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [ ] [ ]
10% natural grade?
i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ] [ ]
unique geologic or physical feature?
j) Other I I
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS- Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on [ ] [ ]
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the [ ] [ ]
emissions of greenhouse gasses?
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ]
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ]
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving explosion or the
release of hazardous materials into the environment
(including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ]
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ]
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
35
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 17 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ]
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, []
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [ ]
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ]
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential ( ]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil pipelines)?
j) Other
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
[X]
[1 [1 [X1
3(0
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 18 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
and direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
I) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
3�
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 19 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
1) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the
following ways:
i) Potential impact of project construction and [ ]
project post -construction activity on storm water
runoff?
ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials [ ]
storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or
equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage,
delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor
work areas?
iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in [ ]
the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful [ ]
increases in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
v) Storm water discharges that would significantly [ ]
impair or contribute to the impairment of the
beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that
provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian
corridors, wetlands, etc.)
A Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage [ ]
systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions [ ]
for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials
both during construction and after project
occupancy?
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 20 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
community (including a low-income or minority
community)?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally [ ] [ ] [] [X]
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
inefficient manner?
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 21 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XII. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels [ ]
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive []
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise [ ]
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [ ]
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ]
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ]
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ]
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, [ ]
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
4D
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 22 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project
result in:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
XV. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and [ ]
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the [ ]
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
[] [] [X]
[] [] [X]
[] [] [X]
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 23 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non -motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
program, including, but not limited to level of
service standard and travel demand measures, or
other standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
H2
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 24 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 25 of 35
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) 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 MINIMUS' 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."
4_ l
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 26 of 35
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections I Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS a. -d.) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is located within
Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is bound by the
San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susana
Mountains to the southwest, and the mountains of the Los Padres and
Angeles National Forests to the north. The surrounding natural
mountains and ridgelines, some of which extend into the City,
provide a visual backdrop for much of the City. Other scenic
resources within or visible from the City include the Santa Clara
River corridor, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons and
natural drainages in portions of the City.
The City's General Plan was adopted in June 14, 2011, and included
the certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing
the possible environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the General Plan. The UDC and zoning map
prepared in accordance with the General Plan was approved on June
11, 2013, and became effective on July 11, 2013.
The changes proposed to the zoning and General Plan maps at this
time were initiated based on the various annexations that were
completed by the City over the past two years. The proposed
designations will not change the current operations of the projects
proposed for modification at this time. The changes are intended to
more correctly match the current use of the properties to ensure
consistency with the provisions of the UDC and the General Plan.
Various properties have been proposed to be both included in, and
excluded from Open Space designations. However, the current uses
of these properties are either permanent open space that were
designated as another land use that is not consistent with the Open
Space designation, or another land use that should not have been
designated Open Space. Therefore, changing these properties from
their Open Space designations will not impact the existing uses of the
properties and will not have an impact on any aesthetics, aesthetic
resources such as oak trees or protected ridgelines, or other scenic
resources.
Therefore, no impact to aesthetics is anticipated and no further
analysis is required as a result of the proposed modifications to the
zoning map or General Plan land use map.
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 27 of 35
II. AGRICULTURE a. -e.) No Imnact — The proposed amendments to the General Plan
RESOURCES land use map and zoning map will not affect any farmland identified
by the California Resources Agency, farmland designated under a
Williamson Act Contract, and will not convert any farmland to non-
agricultural use. Further, the amendments will not impact any forest
lands, or any timberland zoned Timberland Production by the
Government Code Section 51104(g). However, no areas identified as
Important Farmland areas identified in the General Plan EIR are
located within the City's boundary, or its recently annexed areas.
Should any important farmland areas be annexed to the City and
considered for development, further analysis under CEQA would
need to be completed. However, no resources are located within the
City's jurisdiction and will therefore be no impacts to agriculture
resources.
Therefore, no impact to agricultural, farmland, or forest resources is
anticipated as a result of the proposed modifications to the zoning
map or General Plan land use map and no further analysis is required.
III. AIR QUALITY a. -e.) No Imnact: The City of Santa Clarita is within the South
Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San
Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the
Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in the SCAB is
managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD).
The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an
area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are
exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires
triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifies
region -wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards.
These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for
stationary -source polluters; facilitation of new transportation
technologies, such as low -emission vehicles; and capital
improvements, such as park-and-ride facilities and public transit
improvements.
The most recently adopted plan is the 2007 AQMP, adopted on June
1, 2007. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This plan is designed to implement the
California Clean Air Act an in turn implement the Federal Clean Air
Act administered by the EPA. The AQMP accommodates population
growth and transportation projections based on the predictions made
by the _ Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 28 of 35
�1
Thus, projects that are consistent with employment and population
forecasts are consistent with the AQMD.
The proposed amendments to the City's zoning map and the General
Plan land use map will not alter any of the aforementioned measures
in that the proposed amendments will address the implementation of
the General Plan, modifying the zoning and land use designations to
various properties consistent with the existing land uses on the
properties proposed for modification. No construction or
development activity is proposed with these proposed mapping
modifications. Future development would be subject to further
analysis under CEQA to ensure that all air quality standards are being
met.
Therefore, no impact to air quality is anticipated with the proposed
modifications to the zoning and General Plan land use maps and no
further analysis is required.
IV. BIOLOGICAL
a. -g.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the zoning map
RESOURCES
and the General Plan land use map, in and of themselves do not
include the modification of any habitat and would not otherwise
affect any candidate, sensitive or special status species identified by
the Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Further, the proposed UDC amendments will not have any
direct adverse impact on any riparian habitat, wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No development activity is
proposed at this time as a result of the proposed mapping
modifications. These modifications will serve to revise land use
designations that are applicable to the existing uses on the various
properties proposed for modification at this time. Therefore, no
impacts to any biological resources are anticipated with this project.
Further, no changes to any area identified as a Significant Ecological
Area (SEA) will be adjusted, and therefore not be impacted, as a
result of the proposed modifications to the zoning and General Plan
land use maps.
Therefore, no impact to biological resources is anticipated with the
proposed modifications to the zoning and General Plan land use maps
and no further analysis is required.
V. CULTURAL
a. -d.) No Impact — The General Plan identifies resources of historic
RESOURCES
significance to the City of Santa Clarita, as well as resources that
have historical significance to the State of California. To further
protect these resources, as well as provide for regulations for the
treatment of historical structures in the City, the City Council has
adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance on January 8, 2013. The
�1
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 29 of 35
proposed modifications to the zoning and General Plan land use map
do not include properties that are identified as historic under the
City's General Plan or Historic Preservation Ordinance. No
modifications to historic resources are proposed with these mapping
modifications. Further, the proposed modifications to the zoning and
General Plan land use map will not have any further impact on
cultural resources in the City of Santa Clarita as they will not alter
any unique geological feature, paleontological resource, any human
remains or affect any historical or archeological resource. The
proposed modifications will keep consistent with the existing uses on
the various properties throughout the City proposed for modification
at this time and will not further authorize any development at this
time. Any future development is speculative at this time and would
require further analysis under CEQA prior to project approval.
Therefore, no impact to archeological, historical, or cultural resource
would be caused by the proposed modifications to the zoning and
General Plan land use maps and no further analysis is required.
VI. GEOLOGY AND
aA.) No Impact — Southern California has numerous active and
SOILS
potentially active faults that could affect the City. As stated in the
City's General Plan, the City is susceptible to geologic hazards in the
event of a major earthquake (magnitude 8.3) along the San Andreas
Fault. This could result in ground failure and liquefaction. However,
the proposed modifications to the zoning and General Plan land use
maps would not change the requirements of future development to
follow all state and City building codes/regulations. Although no
construction is proposed at this time, any future construction would
be required to address the geologic and/or soils conditions on their
project site prior to the issuance of any permits on the project site.
Therefore, no further impact related to geology and soils is
anticipated as a result of the proposed modifications to the zoning
and General Plan land use maps and no further analysis is required.
VII. GREENHOUSE
a. -b.) No Impact — "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their
GAS EMISSIONS
role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human
activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred
to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an
increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere. The principal
greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane,
and nitrous oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor
vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 30 of 35
largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half
of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are
the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-
fourth of total emissions.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at
least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG
statues and executive orders (EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32,
Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO S-20-06
and EO S-01-07.
AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one
of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that
California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to
maintain California's reputation as a "national and international
leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship."
Most notably AB 32 mandates that by 2020, California's GHG
emissions be reduced to 1990 levels.
On August 28, 2012, the City of Santa Clarita adopted a Climate
Action Plan (CAP) in compliance with the General Plan policy. The
CAP used the baseline year of 2005 in comparison to the impacts
associated with the General Plan land use designations to establish
the mitigation measures required to reduce the greenhouse gas
emissions. The CAP determined that projects in compliance with the
General Plan are consistent with the CAP. The proposed
modifications to the zoning and General Plan land use maps would
not further impact any provision of the CAP, or any other regulations
affecting Greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed modifications
affect zoning and General Plan land use map designations and will
not authorize any development or construction -related activity.
Therefore, no further impact related to greenhouse gas emissions is
anticipated as a result of the proposed modifications to the zoning
and General Plan land use maps and no further analysis is required.
VIII. HAZARDS AND a. -i.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the zoning and
HAZARDOUS General Plan land use maps would not directly expose people to
MATERIALS health hazards or hazardous materials, interfere with any emergency
response plans, or any land use within 2 miles of an airport, airfield,
or otherwise impact any airport land use plan. The proposed
mapping modifications will not allow any development or
construction -related activity that would locate any persons or
structures within proximity to any hazards or hazardous materials.
no further impact related to hazards and hazardous
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 31 of 35
1-0
materials is anticipated as a result of the proposed modifications to
the zoning and General Plan maps and no further analysis is required.
IX. HYDROLOGY
a.-1.) No Impact — The City of Santa Clarita has an interconnected
AND WATER
system of waterways that lead to the Santa Clara River. Development
QUALITY
in the City is required to reduce the alteration of flows, impeding
flows, and further changing flows of water that would impact
properties and resources both up and/or down -stream. Prior to the
installation of any improvements, developers must demonstrate that
the improvements will not have an impact on the path or velocity of
water flow off of the site. Further, development in the City must
comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) having the responsibility to ensure that water is properly
treated prior to leaving a project site and discharging into any
stormwater drainage facility. The proposed amendments to the UDC
are not changing any development standards that would impact these
requirements.
The proposed modifications to the zoning and General Plan land use
maps will modify land uses to be consistent with the existing land
uses located on the project sites and will not authorize any additional
development -related activities that would impact any hydrology or
other water quality regulations. Further, the mapping modifications
will not result in direct impacts on hydrology and water quality. The
proposed amendments are not anticipated to impact any 100 -year
flood hazard area, tsunami, drainage pattern, or runoff of Stormwater
Management systems. Any construction related activity within the
City would comply with the zoning codes in place at the time that
revisions are requested, including any additional CEQA review if
required.
Therefore, no further impact to hydrology and water quality is
anticipated as a result of the proposed modifications to the zoning
and General Plan land use maps and no further analysis is required.
X. LAND USE AND
a. -c.) No Impact — No established community would be disrupted or
PLANNING
physically divided due to the proposed amendments, and therefore,
no impact is anticipated.
The proposed modifications to the zoning and General Plan maps
will not entitle any development and will not encourage future
development activities. The changes are meant to change various
property designations to land use categories that will be consistent
with the existing land uses that exist on the properties as well as keep
consistent with the land use designations applied to various public
facilities upon annexation to the City.
1-0
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 32 of 35
51
The proposed mapping modifications do not affect current City
standards regarding habitat conservation plans, natural community
preservation plans, and/ or the policies of agencies with jurisdiction
over resources and resource areas within the City since no
development is proposed at this time. All future development would
be subject to the standards and regulations established by the City at
the time development is proposed.
Therefore, no impact to land use and planning is anticipated as a
result of the proposed zoning and General Plan land use maps and no
further analysis is required.
XI. MINERAL AND
a. -c.) No Impact — Gold mining and oil production historically have
ENERGY
been the principal mineral extraction activities in and around the
RESOURCES
Santa Clarita Valley. Other minerals found in the planning area
include construction aggregate, titanium, and tuff. Mineral resources
and extraction areas are shown in Exhibit CO -2 of the City's General
Plan. The proposed modifications to the zoning and General plan and
use maps do not impact any mineral or energy resources in the City
and further will not impact any property designated under a Mineral
Oil and Conservation Area (MOCA) overlay zone as established in
the General Plan and Unified Development Code. Further, the
proposed mapping modifications will not entitle any development in
the City. Future development applications would be subject to the
land use regulations and CEQA guidelines in place at the time
development is proposed.
Therefore, no impact to mineral and energy resources is anticipated
as a result of the proposed zoning and General Plan mapping
modifications and no further analysis is required.
XII. NOISE
a. -f.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the zoning and
General Plan land use maps not expose persons to the generation of a
significant increase in noise levels, groundborne vibration, or
increase ambient noise. The proposed mapping modifications will
change the land use designations on properties within the City to be
consistent with the existing land uses on the properties and will not
entitle any development at this time. Since there is no construction
activity proposed with these mapping modifications, no impact to
noise or noise levels is anticipated with the proposed project.
However, all future development will be subject to CEQA and would
be required to analyze possible project specific noise impacts and
incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to reduce any identified
impacts.
51
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 33 of 35
5Z-
Therefore, no impact to noise is anticipated as a result of the
proposed zoning and General Plan land use maps and no further
analysis is required.
XIII. POPULATION
a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC would not
AND HOUSING
induce substantial population growth in the Santa Clarita Valley
beyond what was considered in the General Plan. The proposed
modifications to the zoning and General Plan land use map do not
entitle any new development. Further the modifications are meant to
change land use designations s to be consistent with their current land
uses and to change publicly owned land that was recently annexed to
the City to land use designations that are consistent with the manner
in which other similar public properties are designated in the City.
No property development standards are proposed for modification at
this time and will therefore not impact any development, residential
or otherwise. The proposed UDC amendments would not alter the
City's population projections and would be consistent with the City's
General Plan.
Therefore, no further impact to population and housing is anticipated
as a result of the proposed modifications to the zoning and General
Plan land use maps and no further analysis is required.
XIV. PUBLIC
a)i.-iv No Impact — The proposed mapping modifications will not
SERVICES
directly increase the need for additional fire, police, schools, or
libraries. However, any future development would be subject to any
applicable development fees, which are established to compensate for
growth. Since, the proposed mapping modifications are not
anticipated to have a direct impact on fire protection services, and
future development would remain subject to development fees, the
modifications would have no impact to services in the City.
Therefore, no further impact to public services is anticipated as a
result of the proposed modifications to the zoning and General Plan
land use maps and no further analysis is required.
XV. RECREATION
a. -b.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the zoning and
General Plan land use maps will not have any impact on recreational
amenities within the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed
amendments to the Code include various map revisions as a result of
recent annexations and minor clarifications to the zoning and General
Plan land use maps. The proposed modifications do not include any
development activities at this time and all subsequent approvals
would be required to comply with the Open Space and Conservation
Element in the City's General Plan and would be subject to the City's
5Z-
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 34 of 35
53
park impact fees.
Therefore, no further impact to recreation is anticipated as a result of
the proposed modifications to the zoning and General Plan land use
maps and no further analysis is required.
XVI.
a. -g.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the zoning and
TRANSPORTATION /
General Plan land use maps are regulatory in nature and are not
TRAFFIC
anticipated to have direct developmental impacts that alter traffic
load or capacity on street systems. The proposed modifications will
designate the railroad -owned properties recently annexed to the City
used for rail transportation through the City as Public/Institutional
(P/I) to be consistent with the remaining rail corridor in the City. This
will not impact the use of the transportation line, and will make the
rail line consistent throughout the City. No other changes to traffic,
transportation, or the transportation network in the City are proposed
at this time. Further, no new development is proposed at this time,
and therefore no further study is required regarding traffic and
transportation.
Therefore, no further impact to traffic and transportation is
anticipated as a result of the proposed modifications to the zoning
and General Plan land use maps and no further analysis is required.
XVII. UTILITIES
a. -g.) No Impact — The proposed mapping modifications do not
AND SERVICE
include any new development at this time. The proposed mapping
SYSTEMS
modifications include various changes as a result of recent
annexations and minor corrections to the zoning and General Plan
land use maps. The majority of the property being affected is publicly
owned and will not impact the current operations of these properties.
These mapping modifications will not be entitling any new
development and will therefore not increase the needs for any new
utility facilities, including any water facilities. Any subsequent
development would be required to comply with the City's General
Plan and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and all applicable utility purveyors. Compliance with these
requirements would ensure all federal, state and local statutes and
imposed regulations are met.
Therefore, no further impact to utilities and service systems is
anticipated as a result of the proposed modifications to the zoning
and General Plan land use maps and no further analysis is required.
XVIII. MANDATORY
a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed mapping modifications will not
FINDINGS OF
have a significant impact on the environment that would lead to a
53
Master Case 13-084
GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002
Page 35 of 35
SIGNIFICANCE
substantial reduction in habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or reduce
or restrict the number of rare, threatened or endangered species.
While minor zoning and land use map modifications affect properties
with the Open Space (OS) designation, these changes are proposed to
make the land use designations consistent with the existing use of
these properties. Further, properties that have been purchased by the
City for preservation as open space, are proposed to be designated as
OS at this time to ensure they remain open space into the future.
XIX. DEPARTMENT
a.) No Impact — The legislative intent of the Department of Fish and
OF FISH AND GAME
Game `De Minimus' Finding is "to extend the current user -based
`DE MINIMUS'
funding system by allocating the transactional costs of wildlife
FINDING
protection and management to those who would consume those
resources through urbanization and development..." (AB 3158,
Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, effective January 1, 1991, Section
1(c)). However, the proposed modifications to the zoning and
general plan land use maps would not entitle any new development.
And future development proposal seeking discretionary approval
would remain subject to CEQA and the CDFG Code. Therefore, the
project's impacts on fish and wildlife are de minimus.
SACD\CURRENII!2013\13-084 GPA and ZC for Maps\IS General Plan Mapping Clean-up.doc
5q
Proposed Land Use
Designations
Map
Number
Location
Previous
City
GP/Zoning
Existing
GP/Zoning
Proposed
GP/Zoning
Acreage
of Parcels
Reason for Modification
Assessor's Parcel Number(s)
1*
Southwest
RS
P/I
I;R1
.96
Existing single family
2840-005-052
comer of
residence is classified as
Lost Canyon
P/I which is the same as
Road and
the schools to the west.
Sand Canyon
Proposed URI
Road
classification reflects the
adjacent residential uses to
the east.
2*
East side of
RS
Os
UR2
4.03
Existing church is
2849-003-002
Bouquet
classified as Open Space
Canyon Road
which is the same as the
at
adjacent Central Park and
Alamogordo
Bouquet Creek. The
Road
proposed UR2
classification reflects the
adjacent residential uses to
the east.
P
3*
Luther Drive
RM
P/I
UR3
3.12
An existing church is
2803-029-031
and Mandan
classified as
Street
Public/Institutional though
this type of use is typically
in adjacent residential and
commercial zones. The
proposed UR3 designation
is consistent with the
residential uses to the east.
See Number 4 below.
4*
Luther Drive
RM
UR3
P/I
2.44
An existing private school
2803-029-032
and Mandan
is classified as residential
Street
though this type of use is
typically in the
Public/Institutional zones.
See Number 3 above.
5*
South Side of
CTC and
P/I
CR
3.30
The site is currently vacant
2861-002-040, 2861-002-106 and
Magic
BP
land and not owned by a
2861-061-005
Mountain
public entity or utility. The
Parkway near
proposed classification
Tourney
would be consistent with
Road
the parcels to the west.
M
6*
Hilse Lane
RS
UR2 and
UR2
.79
A portion of four existing
2859-002-037, 2859-003-047,
and Walnut
OS
single family residential
2859-003-048 and 2859-003-049
Street
parcels that currently have
an Open Space
designation. These parcels
are in close proximity to
the South Fork of the Santa
Clara River. The proposed
classification would be to
UR2 as the adjacent
residential properties.
7*
Bouquet
LA County
P/I
UR5 and
1.50
Two properties adjacent to
2812-008-013 (UR5) and 2812-
Canyon Road
UR2
the LA County Probation
008-032 (UR2)
near Shadow
Camps are classified as
Valley Lane
Public/Institutional. The
proposed classifications are
UR2 and UR5 which
would be consistent with
adjacent privately owned
parcels.
8*
Avenue
BP
OS
BP
5.52
An existing privately
2866-007-080
Stanford,
owned vacant parcel that is
south of Rye
classified as Open Space.
Canyon Road
The proposed classification
for the site is Business Park
as it part of the Valencia
Industrial Park.
9*
Soledad
RM
P/I
UR3
4.97
The railroad tracks were
2836-002-047 and 2836-003-017
Canyon Road
realigned in this area and
west of
the Public/Institutional
Camp Plenty
classification remained on
Road
the previous alignment.
The proposed action would
be to modify the P/I
classification to follow
existing railroad tracks and
the abandoned right-of-
way to UR3 in
conformance with the
approved tract map.
4
I
10*
Villa Metro
RMH(PD)
CN and
UR5 and CN
6.70
The approved Villa Metro
2849-027-009, 2849-027-010,
site on
and
UR5
project included provisions
2849-027-011, 2849-027-020,
Soledad
CN(PD)
for a neighborhood
and 2849-027-021 to UR5, 2849 -
Canyon Road
commercial element.
027-013 and 2849-027-014 to CN
Since adoption of the
General Plan, the final map
for the site indicates that
the CN designated areas
does not conform with the
approved map. The
proposed classification
refinement would
correspond to the recorded
map,
11*
Greenbrier
IC, MHP
BP
UR5
1.87
Due to odd lot lines, a
2849-024-010 and 2849-024-041
Estates near
and
portion of the units in
Golden
RM(PD)
Greenbrier Estates has a
Valley Road
Business Park Designation.
The proposed change
would correct the
designations for the
existing mobilehome park.
SS
12*
Master's
RM
P/I
UR3
13.89
This refinement relates to
2833-014-015
College
the residential portion of
along future
the Master's College
Dockweiler
Master Plan that was
Drive
approved previously. The
UR3 category was
inadvertently not included
on the approved General
Plan. The requested change
is only to the General Plan
as the Zoning map is
already zoned correctly.
13*
Sand Canyon
RS
UR2
MXN
9.92
The project site was part of
2839-005-035
Road north
an expired approval and a
of Soledad
portion of the site was
Canyon Road
classified as UR2 with the
remainder of the site
classified as MXN. The
requested change is to
make the site consistent
with remainder of the site
with a MXN classification.
8 •
14*
South side of
Soledad
Canyon
Road, east of
Sierra
Highway
CC
OS
MXC
1.19
An existing privately
owned vacant parcel that is
classified as Open Space.
The proposed classification
for the site is Mixed Use
Commercial.
2844-001-074 and 2844-001-075
15*
Near the
CN(PD)
CN
UR3
1.85
This mobilehome park
2805-021-003 and 2805-021-004
intersection
expanded, with approvals
of Soledad
from the City,
Canyon Road
approximately ten years
and Langside
ago. The proposed UR3
Drive
classification reflects the
adjacent residential zoning
for the rest of the
mobilehome park.
16*
Eastern side
RL
URI
MXN
2.93
This area is part of the
2825-012-011
of Wiley
Smiser Ranch properties
Canyon Road
and was designated URI.
south of
The proposed designation
Wabuska
is MXN consistent with the
Street
remainder of the Smiser
Ranch as designated in the
City's General Plan
17*
North side of
RMH(PD)
MXN
UR3
4.16
The site contains approved
2836-013-129 and 2833-013-149
Golden
Tract 67674 which is
Valley Road,
approved for nine units and
west of
is not consistent with the
Sierra
MXN designation The
Highway
approved project is
consistent with the
development to the west
and therefore the UR3
designation is proposed.
18*
West side of
CC
UR5
CC
1.10
Existing commercial
2836-001-029, 2836-001-030 and
Sierra
buildings are classified
2836-001-031
Highway
UR5 which is the same as
north of
the surrounding residential
Jakes Way
uses, The proposed
classification of CC
reflects the existing uses on
the site.
19
Northwest
RS
UR2
P/I
3.89
This public use site that
2810-041-900
corner of
was acquired as part of the
McBean
Northpark annexation, and
Parkway and
the proposed change is to
Summerhill
the P/I classification.
Lane
M
N
20
Adjacent to
the Santa
Clarita
Activities
Center
BP
BP
P/I
37.86
This portion of the
Activities Center, which
includes the dog park, was
not included in the P/I
Zone with the remainder of
the Sport Complex site.
2836-018-901, 2836-018-902,
2836-018-903 and 2836-018-904
21
Copperhill
LA County
UR2
OS
7.98
This park was. acquired as
3244-151-900
Drive east of
part of the North
Haskell
Copperhill annexation, and
Canyon Road
the proposed change is to
the Open Space
classification consistent
with the rest of the City
Parks.
22
South side
CTC
SP
OS
4.89
The Specific Plan
2811-025-901
Valencia
designation was placed on
Boulevard,
an area that is not part of
east of
the North Valencia
Creekside
Specific Plan.
Road
C]
23
North side of
CTC and
CR
P/I
8.10
This recently acquired this
2861-062-160, 2861-062-900 and
Valencia
RM
park and ride site, which is
2861-066-900
Boulevard,
under construction, is
west of
proposed to change to the
McBean
P/I classification.
Parkway
24
Various
Various
Various
OS
141.79
Since the adoption of the
2827-026-904, 2827-026-905,
locations
General Plan and Zoning
2833-023-900, 2840-003-903,
through the
Map, the City has
2840-005-906, 2840-006-902,
City
continued to acquire open
2840-007-900, 2840-007-902,
space parcels throughout
2840-007-903,2844-001-914,
the City. These
2844-013-900,2844-013-901,
modifications would
2844-037-900, 2859-001-904,
classify them to open space
2859-025-020, 2859-026-030,
consistent with the rest of
2860-014-900, 2860-018-900,
the City.
2860-026-900, 2861-003-900,
2861-050-900,2866-007-902 and
2866-007-907
10
a
25 [ The
corridor
through the
City,
primarily in
the Fair Oaks
annexation
area
Various I Various I P/I 176.35
oil
At the time of the adoption
of the General Plan, the
railroad tracks within the
City were classified as P/l.
The railroad tracks through
the Fair Oaks annexation
area are not consistent with
this and this modification
would make this consistent
throughout the City.
2836-002-908,2836-002-909,
2836-002-910,2836-002-911,
2836-003-900,2836-003-901,
2836-003-903,2836-003-904,
2836-003-905,2836-003-906,
2836-003-908,2836-003-909,
2836-003-910,2840-003-900,
2840-003-901,2840-003-902,
2840-004-812,2840-004-815,
2840-004-816,2840-004-901,
2840-004-902,2840-004-903,
2840-004-904,2840-004-905,
2840-004-906,2840-004-907,
2840-004-908, 2840-004-909,
2840-004-910,2840-004-911,
2840-004-912,2840-004-913,
2840-005-902,2840-005-903,
2840-005-904,2844-022-900,
2844-022-903,2844-022-904,
2844-022-905, 2844-022-906,
2844-022-907, 2844-022-908,
2844-023-900,2844-023-901,
2844-023-902,2844-023-903,
2844-023-904,2844-023-905,
2844-023-906,2844-023-907 and
2844-023-908
•
11
fill�t! " ! ,? } \ �"'� , '"\ r .• l \ �.
_ ff%!\♦ `r\F' = r Y_J. 4
� r )„ �I_t
tf/��F�. ;P_ __ \ •t.fi \�;' /'-���� \! I' �`S�'`l'--.�.-=a�( �.`' rsr !ice/� � _,`\ i.l r '
In
/ __'_'.,i/ 0.F ., �'. (� 4 \ r f' _-� / \ , ,��•_( \ rp: a {` , y _ . ! • 'A 1 t T
hE/t f� \ �/� /Ilr''�.
\'./fr Ir. + \" � ��/.�, �hii( ♦1 It •r.r. i'.� ``'rr �\�t::il'l-:\L;(i
7.
79 1* -Z
.., —1t✓ ♦ �. _ �. — 44 `�1f��\ {j I C fir- f ���//• 4\.� ♦ .`i� ..\C - / \, _ . / !,-t hv,�
c : \'moi ;��__ �s -� �sst,,.�f+��bt l +t , •�° ;E tt f . I l^.-il It , t' r:. I w J % L/ �'� : 7 +\ t
- t! . "'�, .:mY \"'Ilbix 7„�ii r t t -.1 / \i�'/f\ f r' "'� l ! -. _•� \ fi 1 \ �� I\_�\ ` �'� `�
`A .` ._ ': ,ice•_ \ � ` \cf� �.�• ,--Z—E �`,t I / _�. •r
.:♦� - .t`.. �\ i �a �/ 7T f.\.�f l\tt i \ /\' �, r ,� \ .,t. l a1� \ 11-�\• 1 1 tf 'ih /
E'♦+•\/, .� \'. ♦ `�\ • k�> �t r\�441t -4 sP 1{{�'�� :+1,`��t_t/ t-+y-_� '�•.� I� �\ 1�:�;`{ �. a�r Vic-. t-,
\ /\ <\.',r 11 ,. ♦i �,� SrfJ �.4O FIs f. ff C� ffi �lf L\!% _ Kir. � �t� 1
- r -
r r]1 4:. ! -\Jr' ,3
,E' F \ r ♦\ .r //+. tiji 1 Il,•j r t ,..s• rl - r l't\ .�hl - '�J` ;tf. ' \ • '" V' J ✓'/-
/ '� r/L, l�rii7 a,_i. !.l'y' p'�,.�` _ LIIi.-\'' ♦ri _ '`\-IfH �/ I• �' l,�A-.. --.
_/ IN ,.\ ., , .' rl i.[ Ix i'`S 11lr.r ,a- (F��1s ti✓ 1_�
� ♦ r✓;r` , - rl ' - �J . �c R �E4 e t\ t e � � 1r > I Yy� .•^' ,♦ r
I
ID Proposed2onin Chan a
Acres
1 FROM PI TO URI
0.96
2 FROM 05 TO UR2
4.03
3 FROM PI TO UR3
3.12
6 FROMUR3TOPI
244
5 FROM PI TO CR
330
6 FROM 05 TO UR2
0.A
7 FROM PI TO UR5
115
7 FROM PI TO UR2
035
8 FROM OS TO BP
552
9 FROM PI TO UR3
497
10 FROM URS TO CN
437
10 FROM CN TO UR5
233
11 FROM BP TO UR5
187
12 FROM PI TO UR3
1389
13 FROM UR2 TO M% -N
992
14 FROM OS TO M% -C
L19
IS FROM CN TO UR3
L85
16 FROM UR1TO W -N
2.93
17 FROM MXNTO UR4
416
18 FROMURSTOCC
LID
19 FROMUR2TOPI
389
20 FROM BP TO PI
3786
21 FROM UR2 TO OS
7.98
22 FROM SP TO OS
4.89
23 FROM CR TO PI
810
24 FROM BP TO OS
39.24
24 FROMUR2TOOS
232
24 FROM CC TO 05
0.27
24 FROM W -C TO 05
0.18
24 FROM URS TO OS
20.78
24 FROM UR4 TO OS
L29
24 FROM URI TO OS
17.66
?A FROMUFUTOOS
12.96
24 FROMURITOOS
47.08
25 FROM OS TO PI
19.69
25 1 FROM SP TO PI
9.17
25 FROM NU4 TO PI
I2.97
25 FROM BP TO PI
15.49
25 FROM URS TO PI
25.80
25 FROM TO PI
3.22
Tole/
3SL09
t _ 'T.
11 I � �' � \\, r5r� � \'✓ F \�a 21 ,� _ i 1, r \ _ u I I, / �.` - 1 \ d �1 '1 .�. � �
� :i�.za�J'I - — _ I\ �.-�: � .: ♦ t / r�� � f ./ _ 1 _ y {i
!ice"� Ir\ t �\. I r �\ l _„: stLr ri4\st�\�, -'t t p♦ /� / \
IL
\ii\
/
4,1 _.. r1 _ +` i!tli[� \\�zk'ii/i t ..� ` �•.. 1 ' i = �/i",�i"� \ '+.� �� � �i`.�.rL �
) �t� 11,�"��f/• t i� i li7"F\�\ r \ s\ \, t' r r _._ ^1 �. %f'.�� :l \\ \ ! \.�. � �.
4fy�
��!-Irk/ ! .� rr<'/ �'/ S� \ ♦� '1 f a `r-- . _ / :\ tkl-
`QIP `\ii i� �:.\ �-.. _ -'L �".D ff>a("_ fr •�. � }f r'`•, r i `♦
AA
t• J t t� ��! 1 tCl ��` 4 t 1 -moi t �\d" 7'..n�i ;• f i __., �._-, C
r-
A a 1
,•. r / i w..auo or..ae ries Q.n..swe.
i \
/'. � '. � ow'aoe nwc-o�... �'SNTOt l7wRrnt
1�. ♦ o+.e _ Proposed General Plan
\ = Changes
•+ j IF e -' osar
„t w . i ca...e+ M un..o
« ua•eew
one ^NN
•
•
.:•.I !`' i ` \'�\\ v�=(% l�:fl}\ 1 —} I—" �. \` r a "1-.l, / Ilj. i r" a •`_~ !
{l \ •F.`x.t` rf> !a\ \ , Jti1 i�1 `l .tel l�! tyt �' � �i"'rI�_Jp.:'r - \.,y .,-F,_ �'
! �`, r :\~'{.1 "rI �o } 1 ��/.� E� \ j.%.'!f j •ri' ,'rte
!1
n 1•�•
Anes
1
FROM PI TO URI
t
2
FROM OS TO UR2
403
3
FROM PI TO UR3
312
4
FROM UR3 TO PI
244'
5
FROM PI TO CR
330
6
FROM OS TO UR2
079
11
�—
_ e .1l/i.;:
f.- /il
� - \ \<. \v ; ` ,'Cts �"... ]�,v � _, , !+fr,,. i•t //� 1 --
R]
Proposed ZoniChange
Anes
1
FROM PI TO URI
096
2
FROM OS TO UR2
403
3
FROM PI TO UR3
312
4
FROM UR3 TO PI
244'
5
FROM PI TO CR
330
6
FROM OS TO UR2
079
7
FROM PI TOURS
115
7
IFROMPITOUR2
035
8
FROM OS TO SP
552
9
FROM PI TO UR3
497
10
FROM URS TO CN
437
10
FROM CN TO UR5
2.33
LL
FROM SP TO UR5
187
12
FROM PI TO UR3
1389
13
FROM UR2 TO M% -N
992
14 FROM OS TO W -C
L19
15
FROM CN TO UR3
L85
16
1 FROM URITO MK -N
2.93
17
FROM WN TO UR4
416
18
FROMURSTOCC
L30
19
FROM UR2 TO PI
389
20
FROM SP TO PI
3786
21
FROM UR2TO O5
7.98
22
FROM SP TO OS
4.89
23
FROM CR TO PI
8.10
24
FROM BP TO OS
39.24
24
FROMUR2TOO5
2.32
24 FROM CC TO O5
0.27
2A FROMM%-CTOOS
0.18
24 FROM URS TO OS
20.78
24
FROM UR4 TO OS
L29
24
FROM URI TO OS
17.66
24
FROMUR2TOO5
12.56
24
FROM URI TO OS
47.08
26
FROM OS TO PI
19.69
------ 1---.• 1 9171
,.q.. v �•'-. \may-; 1 \' F ` IL ��� f/1 121
�'. ,rirrr,f ..�, �'°'°°a f•.: .:t t•r !11•I! 0 � :_rt .r^.
%
q a\/ `rd1. 11 �� \`i'� _ J(1\\ i) ".• v 1�i ,i ;tr�� /r I, �, ❑ r 1. �,� rx.
�/i �,r A,�d \ tc \ _ f' l I 3 ❑ , ! \ ! _ i$- 4`
,NN
�•!f .i' Ls d.i� \\\si>\\\v'� 1 -\ _ �� _ _ s•. 'ila Vql v'//: 1 ` �..
A r 1 \ nasi \?
!�•� i FI r.y \\ 3\/,
�ldf•r Iv/f !f!\^i _ \ �b�'vY �I ��/ \ti r 1. i a ✓'!'" _—_
{ ((�r � � 1 e i7!/•. iA'L rJf' ".a \ \�' t !! ,/ ( J 'i; '"'�,• J S\ l
Lj
epi .� i r� ., ! '(• \ d 'd �
a ,
9
7d;
rw.
eF.rr. w�
\
9
7d;
rw.
eF.rr. w�
1■ %
Iwe.. aala.e>r�
m cc
M wv...oaw
lid
mow.,
E3wa�
"•'SSN' cC
Proposed Generali
Changes
W rr..\.+rvwv
N
RESOLUTION NO. P13-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT AND APPROVE
MASTER CASE NO. 13-084 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 13-001 AND ZONE
CHANGE 13-002), AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted the Santa Clarita General Plan, by
adoption of Resolution No. 11-63. The General Plan includes the state mandated
elements required by the State of California;
b. On June 11, 2013, the City Council adopted the update to the Santa Clarita
Unified Development Code (UDC), by adoption of Ordinance No. 13-08. The
UDC includes the zoning map for the City. The document was updated to
implement the General Plan among other updates;
C. The City of Santa Clarita's proposed project consists of the General Plan
Amendment 13-001 (Exhibit A) and Zone Change 13-002 (ExhibitB): To update
the Land Use Map of the City's General Plan and the City's Zoning Map to make
minor refinements, corrections and clarifications;
d. The City of Santa Clarita initiated the update to the General Plan Land Use Map
and Zoning Map on June 17, 2013;
e. On September 20, 2013, City staff sent notices to the 23 private land owners
whose properties were proposed to be changed as part of this project;
f. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearing on October 15, 2013
in accordance with the City's noticing requirements. The project was advertised
in The Signal newspaper on September 24, 2013. The hearing was held at City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m.;
g. At the October 15, 2013, the Planning Commission received City staffs
presentation summarizing the proposed project, opened the public hearing, and
received public testimony regarding the project and staff received comments and
Master Case 13-084
Resolution P13 -II
October 15, 2013
Page 2 of 8
questions from the Planning Commission regarding the project and the Planning
Commission took action on the resolution of recommendation to the City Council;
h. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based for the
Master Case No. 13-084 project file is with the Community Development
Department; the record specifically is in the custody of the Director of
Community Development.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS.
Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council hereby find as follows:
a. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected
governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received have been
considered. The Negative Declaration was advertised on September 24, 2013, and
posted on September 24, 2013, in accordance with CEQA. The public review
period was open from September 24, 2013 through October 15 , 2013;
C. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on
the environment. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of
the City of Santa Clarita;
d. The documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is made is the Master Case
No. 13-084 project file, located within the Community Development Department
and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and
The Planning Commission, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds
that the Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance
with CEQA.
SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 13-001
AND ZONE CHANGE 13-002. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire
record, including, without limitation, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at
the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission,
and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows:
a. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan;
The project contains an amendment to the City's General plan and therefore the
project would be consistent with the General Plan as amended. There are no
Master Case 13-084
Resolution P13-11
October 15, 2013
Page 3 of 8
aspects to the proposed projects that neither impact the contents nor impede of
any of the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan.
b. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with
all other applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code;
The pioject contains a Zone Change request that, along with the General Plan
Amendment, would make the existing uses of the parcels in conformance with the
Unified Development Code.
C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the
public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially
detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the
vicinity and zone in which the property is located;
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning maps to reflect the
existing use of the underlying parcels. No construction is proposed with this
project. This project will not result in any hazards or detriments to the public.
d. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the
proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the
following:
i. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable
for the proposed use;
ii. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient
width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of
traffic such proposal would generate;
iii. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.)
are readily available; and
iv. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste
collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment,
and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site.
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning maps to reflect
the existing use of the underlying parcels. No construction is proposed
with this project. There is no impact to traffic, public protection services
and the provision of utilities.
Master Case 13-084
Resolution P13 -II
October 15, 2013
Page 4 of 8
SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
13-001. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for General Plan Amendment 13-001, the
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hereby find as follows:
a. The proposed General Plan amendment meets all of the findings per Section
17.06.130
All findings per Section 17.06.130 have been met by this proposed project and are
described in this Resolution in Section 3, a. through d.
b. Properties which benefit from increased density or intensity of development
resulting from the General Plan amendment shall fully mitigate their increased
sewer impact at the time that development occurs on the properties.
This project reflects existing land uses and does not propose any construction nor
development. There are not any properties gaining nor benefitting from neither
increased density nor intensity of development from this General Plan
Amendment. Any future development on these properties will have to mitigate
any increased sewer impact.
C. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with other elements of the
City's General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5.
These amendments will be reflective of a new General Plan adopted by the City
Council in 2011 where all of the General Plan elements were developed
simultaneously and to be consistent with each other. This General Plan
amendment remains consistent with the other elements of the General Plan. This
General Plan Amendment project modifies the land use categories to accurately
reflect the existing land uses
SECTION 5. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR ZONE CHANGE 13-002. Based on
the foregoing facts and findings for Zone Change 13-002, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council hereby find as follows:
a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning map as it pertains to the
area under consideration;
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning maps to reflect the
existing use of the underlying parcels. As these uses were contemplated in the
City's General Plan and in the Unified Development Code, it is appropriate to
have their land uses and zoning designations be consistent with their actual uses.
b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within such area;
Master Case 13-084
Resolution P13-11
October 15, 2013
Page 5 of 8
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning maps to reflect the
existing use of the underlying parcels. The change of zone classification is
needed to address and to correct reflect the use of the land.
C. That the particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone
classification within such area:
That placement of the proposed zone at such location will be in the
interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity
with good zoning practice;
The project will be modifying the General Plan and Zoning maps to reflect
the existing use of the underlying parcels. As these uses were
contemplated in the City's General Plan and in the Unified Development
Code, it is appropriate to have their land uses and zoning designations be
consistent with their actual uses.
ii. That the proposed zone change is consistent with the adopted General Plan
for the area unless a General Plan amendment is filed concurrently and
approved with said zone change;
The project contains an amendment to the City's General Plan and
therefore the project would be consistent with the General Plan as
amended.
SECTION 6. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approve Master Case No. 13-085, which
includes General Plan Amendment 13-001 (Exhibit A) and Zone Change 13-002 (Exhibit B).
SECTION 7. The Planning Commission Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
Master Case 13-084
Resolution P13-11
October 15, 2013
Page 6 of 8
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15`s day of October, 2013.
CHARLES HEFF AN, CHAIR
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Jeff W. Hogan, Planning Commission Secretary 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 15t1 of October, 2013, by the
following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EICHMAN, HEFFERNAN, OSTROM, TRAUTMAN
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BURKHART
SECRETARY
5�IMURRFMn'2a l M13484/PC RESOLUTION). DOC
Mester Case 13-084
Resolution P13-11
October 15, 2013
Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. P13-11
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Mester Case 13-084
Resolution P13-11
October 15, 2013
Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. P13-11
PROWWW" MEW
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE