Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-26 - RESOLUTIONS - MASTER CASE 13-084 (2)RESOLUTION NO. 13-74 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: SECTION 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; ' i. At the City Council meeting of November 26, 2013, the City Council received City staffs 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: , a. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; 2 ' 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: 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 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. 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. W-.1wo-Ar, M/ DATE: 2,//3 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: Weste, Boydston, McLean, Ferry, Kellar None None EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 13-74 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MAP OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CHANGES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 71 ne •1 / \ -. - f7 I 1 Im ' ♦ r ;�. l , l ♦♦v 4 "' l 1 F FROM PI TO MI QE �f/9. IC. pp-• „� t 1� y� / 1" FROM OSTOM3 R A3 1 1"♦,rf! /� W •� l* 0 .y i 3 FROM PI TO M3 11iJoN 1 ,G 1.`� / i l '! .: x `" ' I 1 , f.\ 9 FROM PI MQ FROM OS TOMS 5. �%♦ OA i �+ 'D b . j' - S !- a �" .R�f mai MPI W MS '.• ..:! A FPWOMPITOM2 \ f fit:. -• - I aLis 0.E m y � a Paced rl TOM3 '� IC PPOM UPSTO CH A3)`\ •�. - - y/ .q \ 9-��""• /••'. -� •.'y •..' F it 1� I { _10 FROM CN M URS 211 ♦ /,il /l '3 '. 4r \ +ti + � •� ! `'� �l ♦ R iROMPITOU0.3 la FPOM�R:,o.M. // , j�jf�F1 •,.- ��f { '€ 1 y, 1 '' L FRO 1.19 !! -%�'C "• _ � %- - � _ —F ss Gaordcnroun9 CNMUn llS � >-� � rim' ad lR FROMURITOWN FROMMRNTOUM 11�.. ./ / �`N 17 416 -� :♦ '3' / ' \ {_ L iROMMSTOCC I9 iROMM1TOPl 110 (lr] R `.\ r, ♦ n / 1 30 FaO ✓. n F.MRURMw ).y .wvww )i FRCMCATOH 610 U IFRWOPTOM Mi FROM3T005 UR I 2M ♦di M GPOM C[T009 Q3) y I� (l f. • ., M FROMR -C M I QI r••'KK1 f t _ ^ M FROM URC TO GS M iROM UP9R105 ].19 \ ♦" 'h"' 1 / 1 y Ruurr Q�•y M FROM UP]i005 M FROM URiTOOi ll / \ qq • `� \ 1 --. �rSvnROARM 39 FROMOSTOPI 19. ♦ /' / �~ \ u P/OP—dGenenIPMO 35 fa�MSPTOp 9.I) ` ♦, •. � f M � IM tl .ur Cn9M 35 GPOMNWTOPI ].9] {'� ]5 iPOM BP TO PI M FROMUPS,OPI 15.09 35,g] 'i9 .p. "" M v I R..ur -r tlr i5 iAW TO PI 39 1` ���- ME M L� Proposed Land Use Designations L --J �,,,� Southwest y a R. E - 2840-005-052 1 * R.S P/I UR1 .96 Existing single family 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 Existingchurch 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. - EMS 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. 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 PR URS and 1.50 Two properties adjacent to 2812-008 013 (URS) and 2812 - Canyon Road UR.2 the LA County Probation 008-032 (UR2) near Shadow Camps are classified as Valley Lane Public/histitutional. 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. 10* Villa Metro MH R(PD) CN and UR5 and CN 6.70 The approved Villa Metro 2849-027-009, 28491027-010, site on and URS 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. 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 MON 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 MON. The requested change is to make the site consistent with remainder of the site with a MON classification. 14* South side of CC OS MXC 1.19 An existing privately 2844-001-074 and 2844-001-075 Soledad owned vacant parcel that is Canyon classified as Open Space. Road, east of The proposed classification Sierra for the site is Mixed Use Highway Commercial. 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 URl 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 NDN consistent with the Street remainder of the Smiser Ranch as designated in the City's General Plan 17* North side of RVH(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 comer 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 M M 20 Adjacent to the Santa Clarita Activities Center BP —CA—County 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 Ui 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 —CTC Parks. 22 South side 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 0 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 M M M The railroad corridor through the City, primarily in the Fair Oaks annexation area Various P/I 7 -76.3 5 11 At the time of the adoption of the General Plan, the railroad tracks within the City were classified as P/1. The railroad tracks through the Fair Oaks annexation area are not consistent with this and this modification would make this consistent throughout the City. 2836-002-910, 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 INITL4,L 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: 2l Master Case 13-084 GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002 Page 3 of 35 4. t 't. 1. A�F S^SY- 1 Southwest comer of Lost Canyon Road and Sand P/I UR1 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 classificationreflectsadjacent 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 --UR-3 Number 4 below. 4 Luther Drive and Mandan Street P/I' An existingpdvate school is classified as (2803-029-032) residenfiaCfhough they are typically in the; Pubhc%Insritufional zones. Bee 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 poitiom 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 ofthe.Santa Clara River. The proposed classification would be to UR2 as the adjacent residential properties. L-1 Master Case 13-084 GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002 Page 4 of 35 M U P� �;'x_,.'2",4 "e' �Ctl�)�1'—'t' . ., d'" .�. ,[ "p�rtl�r'�CF 9 : ,:�j 7 Bouquet Canyon Road near Shadow Valley Lane P/I UR5 and Two properties adjacent to the LA County (2812-008-013 (UR5) and 2812-008-032 (UR2)) UR2 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 Anexisting privately. owned vacant (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$oledad Canyon Road at Prima CN/UR5 URS/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;desigt ated area does not worm 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 N R 11 Greenbrier Estates near Golden Valley Road BP^ Do to odd lot lines, a portion of the units in UR5 (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 I7R3 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 Flan as the Zoning map is consistent with the request. 13 and Canyon) ad 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 Southside of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Sierra OS MXC An existing privately.ownedvacant 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 ` i 9 ilOQi ....�.. J�� y � �� .F??:;,�,& o-/. ,k"T�, •.,..ee:3 . ,.:' .� y A}J� '1Af$+ u•Y:. '+r "'" 'z e i . x+ fx X•.Y Y,.. _� _ y� HcstRnni ='`^ yt,.t�V, r c ���..}2�.[{..^ 16 Eastern side of Wiley Canyon Road south of URI MXN `,. This area is part of the Smiser Ranch Wabuska Street (2825-012-011) Iproperties and was designated URI. The ' designation proposed gnation is MXN consistent with the remainder of the Smiser Ranch. 17 North side of Golden Valley Road, west of Sierra v UR3 ThFlighwaye site contains approved Tract 67674 (2836-01 (2836-013-129 and 2833-013-149) which is approved for nine units and is not 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 URS CC Existing commercial buildings are classified (U36-001-029,283 6-001-030, and 2836-.001-031), UR5 which is the game 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 (2810-041-900) part of the Northpark annexation, and the proposed change is to the P/I classification. 20 Adjacent to the Santa Clarita Activities Center- BP . P/I This portionof the Activities Center which (2836-018-901, 2836-018-902, 2836-018-903, and 2836-018-904) includes the do g P(:was'not included in. the P/i Zone. 21 Copp kill 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 Southside Valencia Boulevard, east of Creekside SP OS The Specific Plan destgnation was placed Road (2811-025-901) on an, area that.is not part of the North . Valencia Specific Plan. U Master Case 13-084 GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002 Page 7 of 35 N 23 North side of Valencia Boulevard, west of McBean CR P/I This recently acquired this park and ride Parkway site, which is under construction, is (2861-062-160, 2861-062-900, and 2861-066-900) 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 2844013-900,2844-013-901,2844-037-900; 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/I. 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, 2844023-902, 2844-023-903, 2844-023- 904, 2844023-905, 2844023-906, 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: 2`7 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 Mideation" as indicated by the checklist on the _follovarig a es. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology / Soils [ ] Greenhouse Gas [ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water Emissions Materials Quality [ ] Land Use / Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population / Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation Mandatory Findings of Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems 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. 0-0201 1 I Master Case 13-054 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 pr osed proj t, nothing further is required. Patrick Le lair, sociate Planner Date Jason Smisko, Senior Planner Date 2� 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 [ } [ ] [ ] [X] 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? e) Other [ } [ } [ } [ } 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? , 30 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] 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 [ ] [) [ ] IN 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 [ j [ j [ j [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 [ ] [ ] [ ] IN 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? 11 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 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 City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? h) Other V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 115064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [ ] paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred [ ] 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: [] [] [x] [ ] [ l [x] [] [] [x] [] [] Cx] Master Case 13-084 GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002 Page 15 of 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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. 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? 3L� 11 r 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 [ ] [ ] 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] a [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] [] I IN [] [] [] IN [] [] [] [X] 3(,o �I 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 i 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 j ] [ ] [ ] [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? 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 [] [] I [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? 1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] [ ] j ] [X] 1 �I 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] project post -construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials [ J { ] { J {X] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful [ ] [ } [ ] [X] increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? v) Storm water discharges that would significantly [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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.) vi Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the proposed project include provisions I [] [] [X] 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 [] community (including a low-income or minority community)? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or [ ] 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 [ ] 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 [ ] 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 [ ) 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 [] inefficient manner? 3� 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 [] groundbome vibration or groundbome 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, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] I necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? ■u I l 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 [J 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? [] [J [X] [] [J [XJ 'i! 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] IN 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] IN HZ 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 [ ] [ ] [ J [X] applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ] [ J [ ] [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 [ J [ ] [ ] [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 [ J [ J [ ] [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 [ ] [ ] [ ] (XJ 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." 4l i 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 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 mere 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. 45 Master Case 13-084 GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002 Page 27 of 35 II. AGRICULTURE a. -e.) No Impact — 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(8). 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 Impart: 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 tum 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). l HLI) L Master Case 13-084 GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002 Page 28 of 35 M 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 M Master Case 13-084 GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002 Page 29 of 35 r 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 farther 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 ENHSSIONS 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 r 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.) o I Nmpact — 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 HI Master Case 13-084 GPA 13-001 and ZC 13-002 Page 31 of 35 50 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. -I.) 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. 50 i 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, groundbome 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 52 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 futher 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 52 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/1) 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. SACDICURRDM1201A13.094 GPA and ZC for Maps\IS General Plan Mapping Clean-up.doc 5� ' 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 LOCA'T'ION OF THE PROJECT: Various locations Citywide DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Modifications are being proposed to the Zoning and General Plan Laird 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 CalifomiaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarite [X] City Council [ ] Planning 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 [ ] AreAttached [ ] Are Not Attached Jeff W. Hoean, AICP -,7 Prepared by: Uy Patrick Leclair. Associate Planner (Signature) (NameiTitle) Approved by: Y ^M k,, -�" '[-'� 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: SACMCURRENn1200\13.084 GPA and ZC for Maps\CEQA\13-084 Neg Dmdoc