HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 16-012 ANNEX 16-001 (2)Agenda Item: 9
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: fill ✓� ��
DATE: April 12, 2016
SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 16-012; ANNEXATION 16-001; PREZONE 16-001;
INITIAL STUDY 16-001: PREZONE AND APPLICATION TO THE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR THE WEST
CREEK/WEST HILLS ANNEXATION
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PRESENTER: David Peterson
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
1) Conduct the public hearing;
2) Adopt a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the project (Master Case 16-012) and
authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to submit an application to the Local Agency
Formation Commission requesting annexation of approximately 1,018.39 acres of land to the
City of Santa Clarita; and
3) Introduce and pass to second reading an Ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE
PREZONE 16-001 (MASTER CASE 16-012) FOR APPROXIMATELY 1,0 18.39 ACRES
OF LAND, KNOWN AS THE WEST CREEK AND WEST HILLS AREA, GENERALLY
LOCATED EAST OF THE LOCKHEED INDUSTRIAL PARK, NORTHWEST OF THE
VALENCIA 2 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND WEST OF SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK,
ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE EXISTING CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA CITY LIMITS."
BACKGROUND
On May 21, 2010, the property owners within the West Creek, West Hills, and Copper Hill/
Copperstone communities were surveyed to determine the level of support for annexation to the
City of Santa Clarita (City). Of the roughly 790 property owners surveyed, about 20%
responded, of which 92% supported annexation and 8% did not support annexation.
Page 1
Packet Pg. H
At their meeting on July 20, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P10-24,
recommending the City Council approve Master Case 10-048, initiating the annexation of the
West Creek, West Hills, Tesoro del Valle, and Copperstone communities. The City Council
directed staff to move forward with the annexation of only the Copperstone area. That
annexation was completed on June 14, 2012. The remaining communities of Tesoro del Valle,
West Hills, and West Creek were not annexed.
In 2015, Newhall Land, the developer of the West Creek and West Hills communities of the
County of Los Angeles (County), indicated to the City they were not opposed to an annexation
of those communities. Following the discussion with Newhall Land, the City also considered
including Tesoro del Valle in the proposed annexation area; however, it has since been removed
because the County is reviewing an entitlement application for Phase 2 of the project. The
applicant for Phase 2 projects having approvals from the County in place by early 2018.
In addition, City staff met with staff of the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO), staff of
the Chief Executive Officer of the County of Los Angeles, and staff of the Fifth District. None
of these organizations had any opposition to the proposed annexation.
On February 19, 2016, City staff issued survey cards to property owners within the West Creek
and West Hills areas. 1,963 survey cards were mailed out and 14% have been returned. Of the
returned cards, 68% favored annexation, 16% were against annexation, and 16% required more
information. On multiple occasions, City staff has contacted the West Creek Home Owners
Association (HOA) in an attempt to schedule a public outreach meeting during the first quarter
of 2016; however a meeting has not yet occurred. Staff will continue to reach out to the HOA.
The prezone of the proposed project was brought before the Planning Commission at their
regularly scheduled meeting on March 1, 2016. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution
P16-05, recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and
recommending the City Council approve Master Case 16-012 and Prezone 16-001.
The proposed annexation area is currently within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI). As a
result, no amendment to the SOI is necessary.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City proposes a prezone of the subject site for the purposes of annexation of approximately
1,018 acres of unincorporated territory generally located northwest of the North Valencia 2
Specific Plan area, along the northern boundary of Santa Clarita. The prezone would designate
the project area with the City's zoning and land use designations consistent with the approved
General Plan. The prezone is associated with the annexation of the project area.
The West Creek development includes approvals to not exceed 2,509 units. However, currently
Newhall Land anticipates developing 2,444 units. The project area includes 1,717 built
residences, an existing 74,000 square -foot commercial center, one elementary school, one junior
high school, and West Creek Park. The project area also includes two undeveloped commercial
centers and 727 residences that have been approved but not yet built.
Page 2
Packet Pg. 167
GENERAL PLANNING AND ZONING
The project area is contained in the City's General Plan and consists of City land use
designations that include: PI (Public Institution); CN (Neighborhood Commercial); UR2 (Urban
Residential 2); UR3 (Urban Residential 3); UR4 (Urban Residential 4); UR5 (Urban Residential
5); and OS (Open Space). Land use designations would not change as a result of this project and
are, therefore, consistent with the current land use and zoning designations. Current land use
designations are consistent with the built environment in the project area.
ANALYSIS
Prezone / General Plan Consistency/ Unified Development Code Consistency
The developed portions, as well as the entitled portions of the project area, were reviewed under
the County land use planning policies, and the development of the project area was reviewed
under the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the West Creek and West Hills
project. All mitigation measures under the previous County certified EIR would be accepted by
the City upon annexation with no changes.
The annexation area includes approximately 727 residences that have been approved but not yet
built and two undeveloped commercial center sites. The first undeveloped commercial center,
located near the intersection of Copperhill Drive and Rio Norte Drive, includes approximately
107,000 square feet of total space, comprised of 27,000 square feet of retail and an 80,000
square -foot assisted living facility. The assisted living facility includes 120 attached units. The
second undeveloped commercial center, located at the intersection of Copperhill Drive and
Camino del Arte Drive, includes approximately 57,000 square feet of retail, office, and services.
Both commercial projects have been entitled and are under review for site plan revisions by the
County. Entitlements are anticipated to be approved by the fall of 2016 and prior to recordation
of this proposed annexation.
The developed portions of the project area were built under the County development standards,
and the development of the project area was reviewed under a separate environmental document.
The undeveloped portions of the project area were reviewed under the County development
standards and would comply with these standards, unless otherwise modified by the City. There
is no new development proposed with this application to annex the area to the City of Santa
Clarita. Any future development in the area not already approved by the County of Los Angeles
would be analyzed under a separate environmental review and subject to development standards
of the City of Santa Clarita and other responsible agencies.
The West Creek and West Hills communities are included in the City's General Plan. Although
located in the County, these communities have land use designations that were established by the
General Plan. The prezone does not propose changing these existing designations.
The project is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the Land Use Element of
the General Plan:
• Objective L U 2.1: Provide adequate, suitable sites for housing, employment, business,
shopping, public facilities, public utility facilities, and community services to meet the
current needs and anticipated future growth.
Page 3
Packet Pg. 168
Policy L U 3.1.1: On the Land Use Map, designate adequate land for residential use at
various densities to provide a mix of housing opportunities for all segments of the
population, including attached, detached, senior, and mixed-use housing types, which
are consistent with the community character and meet the region's housing goals.
The project supports these policies in that: 1) The prezone is consistent with the General Plan
land use designations; 2) The prezone is consistent with the built environment and entitled but
unbuilt environment within the project area; 3) The built environment and entitled but unbuilt
environment provide for a variety of housing types and densities within the UR2, UR3, UR4,
and UR5 zones; 4) The built environment and entitled but unbuilt environment provide for
employment, business, and shopping services via an existing commercial center and two future
commercial centers; 5) The built environment provides for public services via an existing
elementary school, junior high school, and fire station; and 6) The built environment provides
for community services via the public park and river trail. Therefore, the proposed prezone is
consistent with the General Plan and the Unified Development Code.
Annexation Application to the Local Agency Formation Commission
As a part of its evaluation of an annexation, LAFCO must find that the annexing city is able to
ensure sufficient municipal services are available to serve the area under consideration. Should
Council approve the project, a project application would be submitted to LAFCO later this
month, with the intent of the annexation being completed by November 2016.
ENVIRONMENTAL
An environmental analysis evaluating the impacts of the project was conducted as part of the
project review. Included in this assessment was the review of the West Creek and West Hills
communities. All mitigation measures under the previous County -certified EIR for the West
Creek project would be accepted by the City upon annexation with no changes. Therefore, it is
determined that the proposed prezone and annexation would not have a significant effect on the
environment. The requested prezone is consistent with the General Plan, County land use
planning, and existing development and uses that currently exist in the project area. The
Negative Declaration for this project was prepared and circulated for public review and comment
beginning on February 9, 2016, and lasting through March 1, 2016.
NOTICING
All notices required by law were completed, which consisted of a one-eighth page legal
advertisement in The Signal newspaper on March 22, 2016. In addition to the required legal
advertisement, all property owners within the project area were mailed a Notice of Public
Hearing, and signage was posted around the project area on March 15, 2016, for the
community's convenience.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other actions as determined by the City Council.
0
Page 4
Packet Pg. 169
FISCAL IMPACT
The annexation of the West Creek and West Hills area would generate a neutral/no net fiscal
impact to the City of Santa Clarita.
ATTACHMENTS
Public Hearing Notice
Resolution with Exhibit
Ordinance with Exhibit
General Plan Map (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
Planning Commission Staff Report March 12016 (available in City Clerk's Reading File)
Negative Declaration (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
Los Angeles County Responses to Initial Study (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
Page 5
Packet Pg. 170
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT TITLE: Prezone and Annexation of West Creek and West Hills
APPLICATION: Master Case No. 16-012: Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
PROJECT LOCATION: The project area is generally known as West Creek and West Hills and is generally located
east of the Lockheed Industrial Park, west of San Francisquito Creek and northwest of the North Valencia 2 Specific
Plan area, along the City of Santa Clarita's northerly boundary. The project area is currently located in the
unincorporated portion of the County of Los Angeles.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Santa Clarita proposes a prezoning of the subject site for the purposes of
annexation of approximately 1,018 acres of unincorporated territory generally located northwest of the North
Valencia 2 Specific Plan area, along the northerly boundary of Santa Clarita. As a part of the annexation, the City
proposes a prezone that would designate the project area with City of Santa Clarita zoning and land use designations
consistent with the approved General Plan. The proposed prezone designations include: PI (Public Institution); CN
(Neighborhood Commercial); UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR3 (Urban Residential 3); UR4 (Urban Residential 4);
UR5 (Urban Residential 5); and OS (Open Space). The proposal also includes a Resolution of Application
requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission annex the subject area into the City of Santa Clarita.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On March 1, 2016, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approve the proposed
project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed
project and was posted for public review from February 9, 2016 to March 1, 2016. A copy of the Negative
Declaration and all supporting documents are available at the City Clerk's Office, located in the City Hall Building
at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, 91355.
The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date:
DATE: Tuesday, April 12, 2016
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 hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing.
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) 2554330. Website:
www.santa-clarita.com/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita,
CA 91355. Project Planner: David Peterson, Associate Planner. dneterson@santa-clarita.com.
Kevin Tonoian, City Clerk
Published: The Signal, March 22, 2016
9.a
Packet Pg. 171
9.b
RESOLUTION NO. 16-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 16-012)
AND REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY
1,0 18.39 ACRES OF CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY, GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE
WEST CREEK AND WEST HILLS AREA, TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese -
Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000
of the California Government Code, for an annexation of approximately 1,018.39 acres of
unincorporated county territory; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited, and a map of the boundaries is
set forth in Exhibit A, attached and by this reference incorporated; and
WHEREAS, the short form designation of the proposal is Annexation 16-001 (Master Case
16-012), which includes the areas known as West Creek and West Hills; and
WHEREAS, no terms or conditions are requested by the property owners, for this proposed
annexation at this time; and
WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation are to create a logical extension of City
boundaries and to promote the efficient provision of municipal services in the affected territory; and
WHEREAS, in February and March, 2016, the City conducted an annexation survey of the
West Creek and West Hills neighborhoods. Survey cards were mailed to 1,963 property owners in
both areas. Of those who responded, 68% supported annexation, 16% were against annexation, and
16% requested additional information; and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2016, an Initial Study was prepared for Prezone 16-001 for the
West Creek and West Hills communities. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the
Initial Study concluded that no significant adverse environmental impacts were associated with the
project and a Negative Declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the environmental document has been circulated for review and comment by
affected governmental agencies and the public for a 21 -day public review period from February 9
through March 1, 2016, and posted with the Los Angeles County Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Prezone 16-001
on March 1, 2016. At the close of the public hearing on March 1, 2016, the Planning Commission
recommended the adoption of the Negative Declaration and unanimously recommended that the City
Council approve Prezone 16-001 for the West Creek and West Hills areas. Notice of the public
hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code and State law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has considered all evidence, oral
and documentary, and is advised of the foregoing.
Packet Pg. 172
Resolution
Page No. 2
9.b
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita,
California, does hereby determine and find as follows:
SECTION 1. This Resolution is hereby adopted by the City Council, adopting a Negative
Declaration for Master Case 16-012. The Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles
County (LAFCO) is hereby requested to initiate proceedings for the annexation of that territory,
as shown in Exhibit A, according to the terms and conditions stated above, if any, with notice
and hearing by the LAFCO, and in the manner provided by the Cortese -Knox Hertzberg Local
Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. The
City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study prepared for the project, and finds
and determines as follows: The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Negative
Declaration prepared in connection with Prezone 16-001 and Annexation 16-001, pertaining to
the West Creek and West Hills annexation, has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and reflects
the independent judgment of the City Council. Based on the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment. Therefore, the City Council approved the Negative Declaration for the project as
included in the agenda packet for the April 12, 2016, City Council Meeting. The Director of
Community Development is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other
materials which constitute the record of proceedings in this matter. The documents and materials
are on file in the Department of Community Development, City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA, 91355.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Manager, or
designee, to file the application with LAFCO to annex the subject site to the City of Santa Clarita
on behalf of the City Council.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Clerk of the City of
Santa Clarita to forward a certified copy of this Resolution, with applicable fees and other
information as required by Section 56383 of the Government Code, to the Executive Officer of
LAFCO of Los Angeles County.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and certify
this record to be a frill, true, correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
, 2016.
Packet Pg. 173
Resolution
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Kevin Tonoian, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of _ _ 2016 by the
following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
9.b
Packet Pg. 174
9.b
EXHIBIT A: PROJECT BOUNDARY
SAn'I'1 ('.I,litI r\
Q)
West Creek Annexation
BOUNDARY
.
Pa*s (E=isdnp}
rISCrxKAs
IE*tstinpl
71
Parcel Out nes
Santo Clara Rt4w
FCity
of Santa Clarka Boundary
Wes, CraikAnnenatur Ana iPrwos*ai
N
Cant ears: 11M 111, Tota
County of eJrArrurs. All r"crasonrn,
A
9*CtV0fSNrta UaMMdG"n0twarrant
rs
UP
Im m o 1 i..i
St
Ma s mq af tfw dim and auum$c m
list 11[Yfar aftl artorY of cntttsloro.
V
ts�y�(2
Tea DfO
�
DN Vasa
?
Dein$ntafy
T
SAPoo
Nail$
Jufenf
V
Nov: Cr:ak V
MI(R7
A4 a0aTy' ��
VKFf
Noun rsrr
O
+ry.Elsrnsn E: f
3
dE pR
a
z
J\Lt RANCH 0,D
Q'
'tier.:
'is;ncf a
1+00
m
(J
1
JO
r�
Packet Pg. 175
9.c
ORDINANCE NO.
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE PREZONE 16-001 (MASTER CASE 16-012) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 1,018.39 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS THE WEST CREEK AND
WEST HILLS AREA, GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF THE LOCKHEED INDUSTRIAL
PARK, NORTHWEST OF THE VALENCIA 2 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND WEST OF
SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF
THE EXISTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY LIMITS"
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. In May 2010, the City of Santa Clarita (City) conducted an annexation survey of the
West Creek/West Hills and Copperstone/Copper Hill neighborhoods. Survey cards
were mailed to 790 property owners in both areas. Of those who responded, 92%
supported annexation and 8% did not support annexation. Six others requested
additional information.
b. In late 2015, Newhall Land, the developer of the project, indicated to the City that
they were in favor of the City proceeding with the annexation of the West Creek and
West Hills communities.
C. The project includes approximately 1,0 18.39 acres of land located east of the
Lockheed Industrial Park, northwest of the Valencia 2 Specific Plan area, and west
of San Francisquito Creek, along the northern boundary of the existing City of
Santa Clarita.
d. The project area has been entitled for: 2,444 residential units, of which 1,717 have
been completed; an elementary school; a junior high school; West Creek Park; and
open space.
e. In January 2016, the City began the preliminary work necessary prior to the City
Council initiating annexation proceedings, which included a Prezone (PRZ 16-001).
f. Prezone 16-001 is consistent with the zoning currently in place within the project area
and is consistent with the General Plan.
g. Prezone 16-001 is consistent with the entitled and unbuilt portions of the project area.
h. Prezone 16-001 includes the following zoning designations: PI (Public Institution);
CN (Neighborhood Commercial); UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR3 (Urban
Residential 3); UR4 (Urban Residential 4); UR5 (Urban Residential 5); and OS
(Open Space).
Packet Pg. 176
9.c
i. On February 9, 2016, an Initial Study was prepared for Prezone 16-001 for the West
Creek and West Hills communities. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the Initial Study concluded that no significant adverse environmental
impacts were associated with the project and a Negative Declaration was prepared.
On February 19, 2016, 1,963 survey cards were mailed to property owners within the
proposed annexation area. Approximately 13% of the cards were returned, with 68%
in favor of annexation, 16% against annexation, and 16% needing more information.
k. The environmental document was circulated for review and comment by affected
governmental agencies and the public for a 21 -day public review period from
February 9 through March 1, 2016, and posted with the Los Angeles County Clerk.
The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Prezone 16-001
on March 1, 2106. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration and unanimously recommended
the City Council approve Prezone 16-001 for the West Creek and West Hills areas.
Notice of public hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita
Municipal Code and State law.
m. On March 22, as required by law, a 1/8`h page advertisement was placed in The Signal
Newspaper. In addition, all property owners within the project area received a notice
of public hearing, and two signs were placed at the entrances of the project area on
March 15, 2016.
n. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on April 12, 2016,
at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. At the
hearing, the City Council considered the staff report, received public testimony on the
project, and closed the public hearing. The City Council also adopted the Negative
Declaration that was prepared for the project, and introduced and passed to a second
reading an ordinance that would prezone the proposed annexation area with zoning
designations consistent with the City of Santa Clarita Zoning Ordinance.
o. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the decision of the City Council is based in this matter are on file within the
Department of Community Development and are in the custody of the Director of
Community Development.
SECTION 2. GENERAL PIAN CONSISTF,NCY FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing
facts and findings, the City Council finds as follows:
a. The current land uses in the project area are consistent with the City's General Plan.
The project would assign residential, open space, and commercial prezoning to the
unincorporated territory, that both support and are consistent with the General Plan.
Specifically, the project is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan:
Packet Pg. 177
9.c
• Objective LU 2.1: Provide adequate, suitable sites for housing, employment,
business, shopping, public facilities, public utility facilities, and community
services to meet the current needs and anticipated future growth.
• Policy LU 3.1.1: On the Land Use Map, designate adequate land for residential
use at various densities to provide a mix of housing opportunities for all .segments
of the population, including attached, detached, senior, and mixed-use housing
types, which are consistent with the community character and meet the region's
housing goals.
The project supports these policies in that: 1) The prezone is consistent with the General
Plan land use designations; 2) The prezone is consistent with the built environment and
entitled but unbuilt environment within the project area; 3) The built environment and
entitled but unbuilt environment provide for a variety of housing types and densities
within the UR2, UR3, UR4, and UR5 zones; 4) The built environment and entitled but
unbuilt environment provide for employment, business, and shopping services via an
existing commercial center and two future commercial centers; 5) The built environment
provides for public services via an existing elementary school, junior high school, and fire
station; and 6) the built environment provides for community services via the public park
and river trail.
b. No General Plan Amendment is necessary or proposed at this time.
c. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing, and upon
studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council
further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan.
SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS. Based upon the testimony and other evidence
received at the hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the City Council and on its
behalf, the City Council finds as follows:
a. Under Section 56375(a)(3) of the Government Code, prezoning is required prior to
the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) taking action on an annexation;
the land being annexed must be prezoned by the annexing city.
b. The purpose of the proposal is to prezone the subject site with City of Santa Clarita
zoning consisting of. PI (Public Institution); CN (Neighborhood Commercial);
UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR3 (Urban Residential 3); UR4 (Urban Residential 4);
UR5 (Urban Residential 5); and OS (Open Space).
The proposed Prezone 16-001 amending the City of Santa Clarita Zoning Map is
consistent with General Plan zoning designations and existing development
entitlements for the subject site.
d. The proposed Prezone 16-001 is consistent with the objectives of the Unified
Development Code in that it implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan
and guides the future growth of the City as it meets the development policies of the
City of Santa Clarita.
Packet Pg. 178
Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and
65091 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based
upon the testimony and other evidence received, the City Council finds as follows:
a. On April 12, 2016, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration for the project
that was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The
Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council that,
based on the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR PREZONE. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
City Council finds as follows:
a. Prezoning is required under Section 56375(a)(3) of the Government Code in that, prior
to the Local Agency Formation Commission taking an action on an annexation, the
subject site must be prezoned by the annexing city.
b. Prezone 16-001, and specifically its proposed amendment of the City of Santa Clarita
Zoning Map, is consistent with existing development and/or existing development
entitlements for the subject site.
C. Prezone 16-001 is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code
in that it implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and guides the
future growth of the City as it meets the development policies of the City of Santa
Clarita.
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby introduces and passes to second reading, this
ordinance approving Prezone 16-001 as described herein and shown on the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 7. 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 day of 2016
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
9.c
Packet Pg. 179
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
1, Kevin Tonoian, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at the
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2016. That thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council on the day
of , 2016 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
9.c
Packet Pg.180
9.c
EXHIBIT A: PROPOSED PREZONE
1,
-1C
1,
Q) West Creek Annexation
PRE -ZONE
Parcv Out mes
QCity orf Santa Clarity Boundary
ClWest Creek Annexation Area (Proposed)
OVOV land Use Pol Icy(AdnpWd W no 2011)
Ic
A
P ""'a'. CDOtfIgnl laM1.7O16
C&Unty d Loc Angeles. Ali rants rdensatl.
0
the Otypt vao Carta do notwarant
ne a;nrats a tIM sra :n! ar.�rva nn
Ilaol ZY for a•r/ arton d omkslon s
ti lnwit tl�AS'llmlaldtnvl\�r�n�l enwnr.�wd
ing Legend
mercial
MX -C
i MX44
Icc
CN
CR
BP
I
Space
T O -NF
OG
C—'BLM
pecifrc Plan
NL 3P; SP
uraI Residential
NU11RR1 - 0.05 duta
NU21RR2 - 0.1 Uufa
NU31RR3 - 02 Outa
NU41RRd - 0.5 Gula
NU51RR5 - 1.0 dUta
Urban Residential
URI - 2.0 dYA
UR2 - 5.0 aura
UR3 - 11.0 Gula
- UR4 - Min. 10 Gula - mm 15 0 OW;
URS - MM 19 dWa - ma. 30.0 a4
' PUtY onst'uacma1
NEWMAv4 R�t4C14
RO
r
Packet Pg. 181
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
`' ' NTA CLAR11A
West Creek Annexation
GENERALPLAN
Parcel Outlines
aCry of Santa Clarita Boundary
13 '/'lest Creek Annexation Area (Proposed)
OMOV land Use Policy �AooPtni - 20111
"al data: Colrydgnt Jar.. 2016
County of los Angeks. AN ngl*lr resrrved.
mm 11 mpm 4"e City of S4mfl Canta due, not wanare
� me euum:y PI the data mxt a"aurnes nc
Nnilay for arty error s w wnouuna
41PNt:.t.'Sta6\1BQUyellxr•Cha'"krtw atnoun.nm
and Use Policy Legend i
ommerci a l
Mx -C
MX -I.
CC
CN
CR
Industrial
0
I
Space
O -NF
Nos
OS•BLM
Specific Plan
NL SP; SP
Ural Residential
NUTARI - D.05 "a
NU2/RR2 - D-1 dura
NU3/RR3 - D2 dura
NU4RR4 - 0.5 dura
iNL041RR5 a 1.0 dura \
Residential
URI - 2.0 dila
UR2 - 50 dura r
UR3 - 11.0 dura
UR4 - min. ID dula - max 18.O dura
UR5 - min. IQ dula - max. 30.0 du1 i /r
PI
eN �r
i
♦ � � 1e yu1 It ��y" I
='4
blldlnstiMronal
CL
�l K
NEWHP� .O #!
v A
a41j'����'f`
Agenda Item:
NEW BUSINESS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: March 1, 2016
SUBJECT: Master Case 16-012: Prezone for the West Creek and West Hills
Annexation
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: Communities of West Creek and West Hills
CASE PLANNER: David Peterson
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Open the public hearing.
2) Receive testimony from the public.
3) Close the public hearing.
4) Adopt Resolution P16-05, recommending the City Council adopt a resolution to adopt the
Negative Declaration and approve Master Case 16-012; Prezone 16-001 for the West
Creek and West Hills Annexation.
REQUEST
This is a request for a Prezone associated with the annexation of approximately 1,018 acres of
land currently located within the County of Los Angeles, generally known as the communities of
West Creek and West Hills.
BACKGROUND
On May 21, 2010, the property owners within the West Creek, West Hills and
Copperstone/Copper Hill communities were surveyed to determine the overall level of support
Page 1
for annexation. Of the roughly 790 property owners that were surveyed, about 20 percent
responded. Of those, 92 percent indicated they would support annexation and 8 percent would
not support annexation.
At their regular meeting on July 20, 2010, the PIanning Commission adopted Resolution 10-24,
recommending that the City Council approve Master Case 10-048, initiating the annexation of
the West Creek, West Hills, Tesoro del Valle, and Copperstone communities. Subsequently, the
City Council directed staff to move forward with the annexation of only the Copperstone area.
This annexation was completed on June 14, 2012. The remaining communities of Tesoro del
Valle, West Hills, and West Creek were not annexed at that time.
In 2015, the Newhall Land company, the developer of the West Creek and West Hills
communities under the County of Los Angeles, indicated to the City that they were in favor of an
annexation of those communities. Following this conversation, the City also considered
including Tesoro in the proposed annexation area. However, it has been removed because the
County of Los Angeles is currently reviewing an entitlement application for Phase 2 of the
project. The applicant for Phase 2 hopes to have approvals from the County of Los Angeles in
place by early 2018.
In late February 2016, City staff issued survey cards to property owners within the project area.
Survey cards are due to be returned by early April. Staff anticipates an overall support rate for
the current annexation that is similar to the previous survey of the project area conducted in
2010. Staff will apprise the Planning Commission as survey cards are returned.
Presently, the proposed prezone and associated annexation would only include the West Creek
and West Hills areas. Tesoro is not included in the project area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Santa Clarita proposes a prezone of the subject site for the purposes of annexation of
approximately 1,018 acres of unincorporated territory generally located northwest of the North
Valencia 2 Specific Plan area, along the northerly boundary of Santa Clarita. The prezone would
designate the project area with City of Santa Clarita zoning and land use designations consistent
with the approved General Plan.
The project area includes 1,717 built residences, a 74,000 square -foot commercial center, one
elementary school, one junior high school and West Creek Park. The project area also includes
two undeveloped commercial centers and 727 residences that have been approved but are not yet
built.
GENERAL PLANNING AND ZONING
The project area is contained in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan and consists of City land
use designations that include PI (Public Institution); CN (Neighborhood Commercial); UR2
(Urban Residential 2); UR3 (Urban Residential 3); UR4 (Urban Residential 4); UR5 (Urban
Page 2
Residential 5); and OS (Open Space). Land use designations would not change as a result of this
project and are, therefore, consistent with the current land use and zoning designations approved
by the General Plan. Further, current land use designations are consistent with the built
environment in the project area.
ANALYSIS
Prezone / Unified Development Code Consistency / General Plan Consistency
The proposed prezone designations for the annexation area match that of the land use
designations as defined by the General Plan and include PI (Public Institution); CN
(Neighborhood Commercial); UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR3 (Urban Residential 3); UR4
(Urban Residential 4); UR5 (Urban Residential 5); OS (Open Space). More specifically, the
proposed prezone area is summarized in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1
PREZONE
ACRES
PI
34.86
CN
45.66
UR2
482.51
UR3
85.95
UR4
76.48
UR5
22.18
OS
270.30
The built portions, as well as the entitled portions, of the project area were reviewed under the
Los Angeles County land use planning policies, and the development of the project area was
reviewed under the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the West Creek and West
Hills project. All mitigation measures under the previous County certified EIR would be
accepted by the City upon annexation with no changes.
As mentioned above, the annexation area also includes two undeveloped commercial center sites,
and approximately 727 residences that have been approved but not yet built. The first
commercial center, located near the intersection of Copperhill Drive and Rio Norte Drive,
includes approximately 107,000 square feet of total space, comprised of 27,000 square feet of
retail and an 80,000 square foot assisted living facility. The assisted living facility includes 120
units. The second commercial center, located at the intersection of Copperhill Drive and Camino
del Arte Drive, includes approximately 57,000 square feet of retail, office and services. Both
projects are currently under review by the County of Los Angeles. Entitlements are anticipated
to be approved by the Fall of 2016. No new development is proposed as a part of this project.
The proposed prezone designations reflect the existing development and the approved
development in the area and are consistent with the approved land use designations within the
General Plan. The densities for each of the proposed prezone designations can be summarized as
shown in Table 2 below.
Page 3
TABLE 2
PREZONE
DENSITY
PI
Floor Area Ratio: .511
CN
Floor Area Ratio: .511
UR2
5 units per acre
UR3
11 units per acre
UR4
18 units per acre
UR5
30 units per acre
OS
1 1 unit per 4 acres
The developed portions of the project area were built under the Los Angeles County
development standards and the development of the project area was reviewed under a separate
environmental document. The undeveloped portions of the project area were reviewed under the
County of Los Angeles development standards and would comply with these standards, unless
otherwise modified by the City. There is no new development proposed with this application to
annex the area to the City of Santa Clarita. Any future development in the area that was not
already approved by the County of Los Angeles, would be analyzed under a separate
environmental review and subject to development standards of the City of Santa Clarita and
other responsible agencies.
The West Creek and West Hills communities are included in the City of Santa Clarita's General
Plan. As such, these communities, although located in the County of Los Angeles, have land use
designations that were established by the General Plan. The prezone does not propose changing
these existing designations. Therefore, the proposed prezone is consistent with the General Plan
and the Unified Development Code. The project is also consistent with the existing built
environment.
ENVIRONMENTAL
An environmental analysis, evaluating the impacts of the project, was conducted as part of the
project review. Included in this assessment was the review of the West Creek and West Hills
communities. All mitigation measures under the previous County -certified EIR for the West
Creek project would be accepted by the City upon annexation with no changes. Therefore, it is
determined that the proposed prezone and annexation would not have a significant effect on the
environment. The requested prezone is consistent with the General Plan, Los Angeles County
land use planning, and existing development and uses that currently exist in the project area.
The Negative Declaration for this project was prepared and circulated for public review and
continent beginning February 9, 2016 through March 1, 2016.
NOTICING
All notices required by law were completed, which consisted of a one-eighth page legal
advertisement in The Signal newspaper on February 9, 2016. In addition to the required legal
advertisement, signage was posted around the project area on February 16, 2016, for the
community's convenience. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received no
correspondence from the community.
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
Negative Declaration and Initial Study
Resolution 16-05
EXHIBIT A: Project Boundary
EXHIBIT B: General Plan Designations
EXHIBIT C: Prezone
Page 5
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ } Final
�� �,.,..�. _____--_ — -mom:.-��:_—_-��__ ��:�•�..�
MASTER CASE NO: Master Case No, 16-012
PERMIT/PROJECT West Creek / West Hills Annexation,
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department
23920 Valencia Blvd
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT; The project area is general known as West Creek and West Hills and is generally
located east of the Lockheed Industrial Park, west of San Francisquito Creek and
northwest of the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area, along the City of Santa
Clarita's northerly boundary. The project area is currently located in the
unincorporated portion of the County of Los Angeles.
DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT: This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) for a Prezone (PRZ), and Annexation (ANX) for the West Creek
and West Hills communities including approximately 1,018 acres of land. The
project area is generally located east of the Lockheed Industrial Park, west of
San Francisquito Creek and northwest of the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan
area, along the City of Santa Clarita's northerly boundary. The project area is
currently located in the unincorporated portion of the County of Los Angeles.
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] CityCouncil [I Planning Commission [I Director of Planning and Building Services
finds that the pro)ect 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
Jason Crawford
INTERIM PLANNING MLN•At RK -
Prepared by;_� g D tvi l Pe cr onAs, uciJ
Approved by:
James Chow. Senior Planner
(Name/Title)
Public Review Period From__fthruary 9, 2016 To March 1. 2016
Public Notice Given On February 9, 2016
[X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project title/master case number: West Creek/West Hills Annexation— Master Case#16-012,
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001
Lead agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact person and phone number: David Peterson
Associate Planner
(661)255-4330
Project location: The project area is general known as West Creek and West
Hills and is generally located east of the Lockheed Industrial
Park, west of San Francisquito Creek and northwest of the
North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area, along the City of Santa
Clarita's northerly boundary. The project area is currently
located in the unincorporated portion of the County of Los
Angeles.
The proposed project area is shown on Figure 1, as provided
below.
Applicant's name and address: City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division
Community Development Department
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
General Plan designation: PI (Public Institution); CN (Neighborhood Commercial); UR2
(Urban Residential 2); UR3 (Urban Residential 3); UR4 (Urban
Residential 4); URS (Urban Residential 5); OS (Open Space)
Zoning: Existing County of Los Angeles Zoning for the project area
includes:
OS (Open Space); C -2 -PD (Commercial Planned Development 2:
Neighborhood Business); RPD -5000-2U (Residential Planned
Development); RPD -5000 -IOU (Residential Planned Development);
RPD -5000-12U (Residential Planned Development); RPD -5000-
25U (Residential Planned Development); RPD -5000-27U
(Residential Planned Development)
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
Description of project and setting:
This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a
Prezone (PRZ), and Annexation (ANX) for the West Creek and West Hills communities. The City of
Santa Clarita proposes the annexation of approximately 1,018 acres of land along the northern boundary of
the City of Santa Clarita, north of the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area.
Setting:
The proposed project consists of approximately 1,018 acres of partially developed land containing
approximately 1,717 built residences, a 74,000 square -foot commercial center, one elementary school, a
junior high school, and West Creek Park. The partially built project area also includes two undeveloped
commercial center sites, approximately 727 residences that have been approved but not yet built, and open
space areas. The project is generally located east of the Lockheed Industrial Park, west of San
Francisquito Creek and northwest of the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area, along the City of Santa
Clarita's northerly boundary. The project area is currently located in the unincorporated portion of the
County of Los Angeles.
West Creek and West Hills Neighborhood
The West Creek and West Hills neighborhood is generally located west of Tesoro del Valle Drive and
south of Copper Hill Drive and consists of approximately 1,018 acres of partially developed land. The
West Creek and West Hills neighborhood was part of Tract Map No. 52455, which was the subdivision
that created the neighborhood. This area currently consists of 1,717 completed residential units, a 74,000
square -foot retail center, the West Creek Academy elementary school, Rio Norte Junior High School, and
West Creek Park. The neighborhood also includes two undeveloped commercial center sites along Copper
Hill Drive as well as 727 residences that have been approved but not yet built.
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
Project;
The City of Santa Clarita proposes a prezoning of the subject site for the purposes annexation of
approximately 1,018 acres of unincorporated territory generally located northwest of the North Valencia 2
Specific Plan area, along the northerly boundary of Santa Clarita. As a part of the annexation, the City
proposes a prezone that would designate the project area with City of Santa Clarita zoning and land use
designations consistent with the approved General Plan.
The project area is contained in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan and consists of City land use
designations that include PI (Public Institution); CN (Neighborhood Commercial); UR2 (Urban
Residential 2); UR3 (Urban Residential 3); UR4 (Urban Residential 4); UR5 (Urban Residential 5); OS
(Open Space). Land use designations would not change as a result of this project. Further, current land
use designations are consistent with the built environment in the project area.
3
Master Case 16-011
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
The proposed prezone designations for the annexation area match that of the land use designations as
defined by the General Plan and include PI (Public Institution); CN (Neighborhood Commercial); UR2
(Urban Residential 2); UR3 (Urban Residential 3); UR4 (Urban Residential 4); UR5 (Urban Residential 5);
OS (Open Space). More specifically, the proposed prezone area is shown in Figure 3 and summarized in
Table 1.0 below.
Table 1.0
PREZONE
Prezone Area
PI34.86
_Acreages
CN
_ 45.66
UR2_
482.51
UR3 _
85.95
UR4 _
76.48
UR5
22.18
OS
270.30
The built portions as well as the entitled portions of the project area were developed under the Los Angeles
County land use planning policies and the development of the project area was reviewed under
Environmental Impact Reports prepared for the West Hills project.
61
Master Case 16.012
Annexation 16.001. Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
All mitigation measures under the previous County certified EIR would be accepted by the City upon
annexation with no changes. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MMRP) for the West
Creek Project are included in the EIR, State Clearinghouse # 1998021052.
As mentioned above, the annexation area also includes two undeveloped commercial center sites,
approximately 727 residences that have been approved but not yet built. No new development is proposed
as a part of this project.
The proposed prezone designations reflect the existing development and/or the approved development in
the area and are consistent with the approved land use designations within the General Plan. The densities
for each of the proposed prezone designations can be summarized as shown in Table 2.0 below.
Table 2.0
Prezone
_designation
_ Density
PI
Floor Area _Ratio: .5/1
CN
Floor Area Ratio: .5/1
�UR2
5 units per acre
UR3
_ 11 units per acre
UR4
18 units per acre
UR5
30 units per acre
OS
_
1 unit per 4 acres
The developed portions of the project area were built under the Los Angeles County development
standards and the development of the project area was reviewed under a separate environmental document.
The undeveloped portions of the project area were reviewed under the County of Los Angeles
development standards and would comply with these standards, unless otherwise modified by the City.
There is no new development proposed with this application to annex the area to the City of Santa Clarita,
prezone the project area. Any future development in the area,"that was not already approved by the County
of Los Angeles, would be analyzed under a separate environmental review and subject to development
standards of the City of Santa Clarita and other responsible agencies.
5
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
Surrounding land uses: Located to the northwest of the proposed project site is The
neighborhood of Tesoro del Valle and to the north the
Angeles National Forest. Located to the east is the San
Francisquito Canyon community. To the southeast of the
project site is the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area, located
within the City of Santa Clarita. To the west of the proposed
project are the Lockheed Industrial Park.
Other public agencies whose Local Agency Formation Commission
approval is required: 80 South Lake Avenue #870
Pasadena, CA 91101
6
Mader Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
FIGURE l -- PROJECT BOUNDARY
West Creek Annexation
BOUNDARY
Sdw*M (Exdslino)
Sams Clea River
-- City or swts ciwft 80 s
West Crook Amoxatton Arm (Proposed)
Q
ftfta4"&-capvftft— MIA
7M Qgdirsi 6rK.bseat �rw�x
esF y tfltbY t 1�
its a rK Ir+nao[wardAe.w.w«+...+.+o t .: �,
Y ter rw errors. ar enin{tNx. t , °' f' .iEt ""-
6
V.
4WIi1FtsW�Mllalls TSl�dt>.sit.+eb >.e.�rTar 6t 4y �
w�r
t
A
z l
tat + 1 § tg
S IV
+ i
RANCH %
j '7' rst,.at
7
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
FIGURE 2 — GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
lw;i�WK CIAFCTA
West Creek Annexation
0 GENERALPLAN
Parew Outwel
city of S.16 cw" 5..,dy
WV" Creek Artneubon Area (Proposed)
0V,WJ.,d Uw hJ111
C"Vvd Ma. 301A
AC."Y'A INAagmaLm"" M—d.
ANAW AN "Nawo'so" aw"ama
baft brow—Nom0fte.
v�m=cw,A%jmrAv4A"NAMO -W
UX -c
CC
CM
Wt
Kkniful
ep
691
0- Sp—
, /. I c"W
Mi as
OS-"
pecAfic Plan
gj4 NL Sp; SP
IRM fees Obi
MIMI -0.06&&
WA?/ W a I duh
HL13WO 02 dL"
HU50ft • t.D *.a
Nui Pteekkafial
URI 2.0 4Lda
UR2 60 dula
s.
■ URS 11.0 dtWo
■ kW4 • I", to dul. - w 18.0 dLix
tM-.k% lgdWa-rrw&30BdU:
Y"
,tA0
tc
4i t
8
-1 -2
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
FIGURE 3 -- PREZONE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
RHA
West Creek Annexation
PRE -ZONE
i
Perm OuWnae
Civ of Sennet Chita Boundary
West Creek Amm sbw Are (Proposed)
awv 1.ad u.e iaeq �rwtae rw tDtrf I I
It
I
ar � ar�Mn. as dyr.«ue,..d.
the iYrrd5rN ClwW duetaatawnaet �' i �*�.`�sa.
'�� �e Meartwary of eiedw aa/n-m-sb '' ry t'1tt .i
ri�eerb+nvamtfaaw� � rA•�;,�,�,i,tu Y'- �-�':Rx.. p � E J
r
ming Legend
GOFC
t..
040
,
i f
{
i
,
9
cc
4w
CN
CR
►al
@P
1
specs
06
+w.0
09"
PNn
NLW SP
f
Ural AssMiw"
-
NUIMI-0.06dula
NU2vA2 -0.1 dWa
+
NU3eM - &2 dL"
NUMn4 -Q6 dura
.: NUBM5 - 1.0 dols
ban ResldYlydel
URI -20 &da
.. Y
URZ-&DdWa
UR9-11.0dWa
URt•-min.10"a- max 18.0duh
<..�L""Y-,
'
UM - mn. 10 dins - n ac 30.0 du
1Al?t
RF • P,.tAIaYlYf4ht/YOnaI
-
t..
040
,
i f
{
i
,
9
Master Case 16-011
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
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 "Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
(] Aesthetics [
] Agriculture and Forestry [ j
Air Quality
Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [
] Cultural Resources [ ]
Geology /Soils
[ J Greenhouse Gas Emissions (]
Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ j
Hydrology/Water Quality
(J Land Use/Planning [
] Mineral Resources [ ]
Noise
[ ] Population/Housing [
j Public Services [ ]
Recreation
[ ] Transportation/Traffic [
J Utilities/Service Systems [ J
Mandatory Findings of
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.
[ ] 1 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 proposed project, nothing further is required,
Signature
g - k
Davi etersan, Associate Planner February , 20I6
Signature _..___
Join w, Senior Planner fe4ua4l�2016
10
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
1. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ } [x] [ )
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not [) [ } [X] [ )
limited to, identified ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of [ ] [ ] [X} [ ]
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would [ ] [ ] [X] [ )
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 Department 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 Farmland of [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X)
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
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 forestland or conversion of forestland to [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due [ ]
[ ] [ ) [x)
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to
non -forest use?
11
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant Impact With
Significant No
Impact Mitigation
Impact Impact
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 applicable air [ ] [ ]
[x] [ ]
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any [ ] [ J
[X] [ ]
criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment
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?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of [ ] [ ]
[X] [ J
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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 Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
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 native resident [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
12
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 1016
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting [ ] [ ] [ I [XI
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation [ J [ ] [fl [ l
plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as identified on the
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? [ 1 I l [ l [X]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a [ ]
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.52
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an [ ]
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
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?
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:
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? [ ]
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ]
iv) Landslides? [ ]
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of [ ]
topsoil? _
13
[ l [xl [ ]
[ l [XI [ I
[ 1 [x] [ ]
[ l [XI [ I
[ l [XI
[ I
[ ] [ I
[XI
[ ] [XI
[ I
[I [I
[Xl
[] [I
[XI
[ I [XI
[ I
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, [ ] [ ]
Less Than
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Significant No
Impact
Mitigation
Impact Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that [ ]
[ J
[x) [ ]
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
materials?
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
[x] [ ]
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the [ ]
[ ]
[x] [ ]
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic [ J
[ ]
[ ) [x)
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Result in a change in topography or ground surface relief [ ]
[ ]
[x) [ ]
features?
g) Result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards [ ]
[)
[x] [ l
or more?
h) Involve development and/or grading on a natural slope greater [ ]
[ ]
[x] [ ]
than 10% natural grade?
i) Result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any [ ]
[ ]
[x] [ J
unique geologic or physical feature?
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, [ ] [ ]
[x] [ ]
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with the adopted Climate Action Plan or other [ ] [ )
[x] [ ]
applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
VIII, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [) [ ]
[x] [ ]
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ] [ ]
[x] [ ]
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)?
14
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
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?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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 wildiands?
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant Impact With
Significant
Impact Mitigation
Impact
[ ] I ]
[x]
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)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 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 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?
15
I ] Ix]
I) [x] []
[ ] Ix] I I
[ ] [x] I I
[ l [x] [ ]
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as 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 which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 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?
k) Result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and
direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river?
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant Impact With
Significant No
Impact Mitigation
Impact Impact
[J I
[x] [l
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?
16
[ l E ] [x]
[] [] El
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 1016
17
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
Impact With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient [ ]
[ J [ J [x]
manner?
XII. NOISE — Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess [ ]
[ ] [x] [ 1
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 [ ]
[ ] [x] [ J
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the [ ]
[ ] [x] [ J
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise [ ]
[ ] [x] [ J
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where [ ]
[ ] [ ] [x]
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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 [ ]
[ J [) [X]
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 [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
(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 I ]
[ ] [ ] [x]
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially
affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the [ ]
[ j [ ] [xJ
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
17
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
Impact With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
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? [ ]
(] [ ] [x]
ii) Police protection? (]
[ ] (x] ( ]
iii) Schools? [ J
[ ] [ ] [x]
iv) Parks? [ ]
( ] [x] [ ]
v) Other public facilities? [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
XV. RECREATION — Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
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 [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC — 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 program, [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
including, but not limited to, level of service standards 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 either an (]
[ ] [ ] [x]
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
18
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
related to solid waste?
19
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
Impact With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., (]
[ ] [ ] [x]
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ]
[ I [x] []
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding [ ]
[ ] [x] []
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — WouId the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable [)
(] [x] [ ]
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 stormwater [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
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 project [ ]
[) [x] [ ]
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider [ ]
[ ] [x] (]
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 Iandfill with sufficient permitted capacity to [ ]
[ ] [x] []
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
related to solid waste?
19
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16.001
February 9, 2016
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
Impact With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but [ ]
[ ] [ ] [x]
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.)
e) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause [ ]
[ ] [ ] [x]
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Master Case 16-01.2
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS
Section and Subsections I Evaluation of Impacts
1. AESTHETICS Impacts related to aesthetics that were not addressed in the previously
certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to
be less than significant. The proposed project consists of the annexation,
prezone, for the West Creek and West Hills neighborhoods, which consist
of approximately 1,018 acres of land under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles
County. The annexation area is partially developed with approximately
1,717 completed residences, a 74,000 square foot commercial center, one
elementary school, ajunior high school, and West Creek Park. The project
proposes no new development, however, uses that have already been
approved but have yet to be built include but are not limited to 727
residences, and two commercial centers. Prior to development of additional
uses within the undeveloped areas, the design of any new development
would be subject to the architectural design guidelines and conditions of
approval previously established under the County of Los Angeles. Where
applicable, new construction may be subject to the City's architectural
design guidelines. The annexation area is surrounded by and includes
several ridgelines. However, no new development is proposed on any of
these ridgelines and any future development near these ridgelines would be
subject to the City of Santa CMta Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance,
Therefore no significant impacts on a scenic vista are anticipated as a result
of the project.
The proposed land use designations would not substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Although ridgelines are located within the annexation area, no new
development would occur as a part of this project. Approximately 727
residences that have been previously approved, have not yet been built.
The eventual construction of these residences will change the existing
aesthetic environment. A previous environmental review has been
conducted on these unbuilt residences. Impacts related to scenic resources
are anticipated to be less than significant.
The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The West Creek and
West Hills area is partially built out with the exception of 727 residences
and two commercial centers, all of which was analyzed as part of the
environmental review conducted for the West Creek Project. Impacts
related to the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings
including new sources of light or glare that may affect day time or night
time views are anticipated to be less than significant.
II. AGRICULTURE AND 1-11 Impacts related to agricultural resources that were not addressed in the
FORESTRY RESOURCES previously certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than si&i.�iticant. There are cunently no agricultural
21
Master Case 16-011
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
III. AIR QUALITY
operations being conducted on the proposed project area, and the City of
Santa Clarita's General Plan does not identify any important farmlands or
any lands for farmland use. In addition, the site is not within an area of
Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland,
Grazing Land, or Farmland of Local Importance as identified by the
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource
Protection on the Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2002 map
(California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource
Protection, 2004). Therefore, the project will not have an impact that could
result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.
Furthermore, the majority of the project area has been developed with the
exception of 727 residences, two commercial center sites, watershed areas,
hillside areas and ridgelines. The proposed designations would be
consistent with the types of uses and development currently on the project
site or previously approved for the site.
Furthermore, the City's General Plan does not identify any agricultural land
use designations for the project site and there is no Williamson Act contract
land for this area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with
zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contracts, and would have a
less than significant impact.
Impacts related to air quality that were not addressed in the previously
certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to
be less than significant. The project site is located within the South Coast
Air Quality Management District. The proposal is to annex 1,018 acres to
the City of Santa Clwita and designate the project area with applicable
zoning designations consistent with the General Plan, existing development
and that would activate upon annexation of the project area. No new
development is proposed with this application. However, there are
approximately 727 residences, and two commercial centers that have yet to
be built within the annexation area. The proposal to annex land to the City,
and prezone land consistent with the approved General Plan land use
designations. The project would therefore have a less than significant
impact with regard to the obstruction of the implementation of the
SCAQMD's air quality plan or directly violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
The proposed project would not directly result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of 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). Impacts related to a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant are considered less than
significant.
The project area has primarily been developed with uses consistent with the
surrounding uses in and outside of the unincorporated County territory and
City of Santa Clarita limits. No new develo p� ent is pruhu ed with this
22
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
Iv. BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
annexation, and prezone. There is however vacant land within the proposed
annexation area that may be developed as part of previously approved and
entitled projects including approximately 727 residences and two
commercial center sites in the West Creek and West Hills neighborhoods.
The project as proposed is not anticipated to significantly expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or directly create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
No significant impacts related to air quality is anticipated. No further
environmental review is necessary.
Impacts related to biological resources that were not addressed in the
previously certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. No new development is proposed
with the project. The proposal would not have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or 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. No significant impact on wildlife
resource is anticipated to occur.
The project entails the annexation of 1,018 acres of land into the City of
Santa Clarita and proposes no new development. However, 727 residences,
and two commercial centers have yet to be developed in the project area.
The proposed project would not have a direct adverse effect on any riparian
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 and would not interfere substantially
or have significant impacts with the movement of any 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. Therefore, any impacts would be considered less than significant.
No new development is proposed, therefore the project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on federally 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. No significant impact related to federally
protected wetlands is anticipated.
Upon annexation, the project area would be required to comply with all
City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code and City requirements.
The proposed zoning designations are consistent with the built environment
of the project area and General Plan. The proposal would not conflict with
any L.A. County or City of Santa Clarita policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Upon
annexation, any oak trees in would be protected by the City of Santa Clarita
Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines.
The o gsed p -(Ject would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted
23
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The proposed application would not change any state or federally
designation on the project area. No new development is proposed with the
prezone application. The proposal would not affect a County -designated
Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as
identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map.
Impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant. No
further environmental review is necessary.
V. CULTURAL _ Impacts related to cultural resources that were not addressed in the
RESOURCES previously certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would not
directly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any known
cultural or archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the
Government Code. However, future development of still -undeveloped
areas within the West Creek and West Hills neighborhoods may have a less
than significant impact on an archeological resource pursuant to 15064.5.
The proposal would not directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
The project is subject to requirements of AB52, Local and Tribal
Intergovernmental Consultation Law, including consultation with local
Native American tribes identified by the California Native American
Heritage Commission. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a
significant impact related to cultural resources
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impacts related to geology and soils that were not addressed in the
previously certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The proposed project consists of an
annexation of the West Creek and West Hills neighborhoods into the City
of Santa Clarita. No new development is proposed with the prezone
application. However, development may occur in the near future as part of
the completed construction of the West Creek project. Because of the
potential of development in the near future, the project may have a less than
significant impact with regard to exposure of people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects.
The proposed project does not include any new development proposals.
The project area has been developed with a range of residential and
commercial uses. The development was reviewed and approved by Los
Angeles County. Review of impacts from earthquake -related causes on
development of the site was included in a separate environmental analysis.
No new development is proposed with this project so, the proposal would
not directly result in soil erosion. It is anticipated however that in the
foreseeable future, development would occur as part of the completed
construction of the West Creek project. Any new development that has not
already been entitled would be subject to the review of the City and all
uni licable devcloinuent code rettuirements. Thereforc, no significant
24
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
VIII. HAZARDS AND
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
impacts related to substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil is anticipated on or off site as a result of the project.
No impacts related to geologic units or soil that is unstable, 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 are
anticipated to occur as a result of this proposal and would not have an
impact related to expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property.
No new development is proposed with this project. No change in
topography or ground surface relief features or earth movement (cut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more or grading on a slope greater than 10%
natural grade would occur with approval of this project.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to
Geology and Soils. No further environmental review is necessary.
The proposed project consists of an annexation of the West Creek and West
Hills neighborhoods into the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is
proposed within the project area as a part of the prezone application. The
prezone reflects approved land use designations under the General Plan and
is consistent with the built environment within the project area.
The City of Santa Clarita's Climate Action Plan (CAP) identifies the
amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted within Santa Clarita and
establishes a set of strategies that reduces the amount of greenhouse gases
produced in the city to a level that is consistent with the reduction goals
identified in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)
(Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, 38550,
38560,38561-38565,38570,38571,38574,38580,38590,38592-38599).
The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. Because goals, objectives, and policies approved under the
General Plan are forecast to meet the GHG emission reduction targets
mandated by AB 32, development projects that are able to demonstrate
consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are by association
consistent with the CAP. Since the project is consistent with the General
Plan land use designations and zoning for the project area, impacts relating
to GHG emissions are less than significant.
Because the project is consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan
is consistent with the CAP, the project is consistent with the CAP. The CAP
must achieve emission reduction goals consistent with those outlined by the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Therefore the
proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plans or policies
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG and would be
considered less than sig cant.
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that were not addressed
in the previously certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would not
store, use, or generate hazardous materials, and would not utilize any
25
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
acutely hazardous materials. No new development is proposed within the
project area as a part of the prezone application. The prezone reflects
approved land use designations under the General Plan and is consistent
with the built environment within the project area. The application would
not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
The proposed project would not 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). No new development is proposed as part of this project.
The proposed project does not propose any new development and the
project would not store, use, or generate substantial amounts of hazardous
materials, and would not utilize any acutely hazardous materials.
Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
No impact related to 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 create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment would occur with the prezone application.
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The prezone
would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area.
The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The prezone
would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area.
No new development is proposed with this project. The proposal would not
impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The proposed project does not propose any development and would not
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.
The prezone would not expose people to existing sources of potential health
hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines).
Impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials are not anticipated to be
significant. No further environmental review is accessary.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND Impacts related to hydrology and water quality that were not addressed in
WATER QUALITY the previously certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The proposed annexation and prezone
would not violate unv water quality standards or waste dischoq
26
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
requirements.
No new development is proposed. The project would not 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).
The proposed City of Santa Clarita zoning and General Plan designations
would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 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.
The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
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 because no new
development is proposed as a part of this application for annexation.
No new development is proposed, therefore, this project would not create or
contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff. No further environmental review is necessary.
The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality in the
project area because the proposed zoning and General Plan designations
would be consistent with the existing development and land use planning in
the project area.
No new development is proposed with this application. The application
would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map and the proposed project would not place
within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows.
The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam.
No new development is proposed. The project would not create inundation
by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow in the project area.
No new development is associated with this prezone application. No
changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface
water and/or groundwater would occur.
No modification of a wash, channel creek or river is proposed. No impact
would result from the proposed annexation, and prezone.
27
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to
Stormwater Management. The project consists of no new development,
however prior to annexation, the property owners would have to elect to
pay an annual City of Santa Clarita Stormwater Drainage Fee. The City's
stormwater program provides street catch -basin cleaning a minimum of
once a year, thereby reducing trash, debris, and potential neighborhood
flooding.
Furthermore, because no new development is proposed as a part of this
project, the proposed annexation would not create any impacts to
Stomwater Management of any of the following ways:
i) No potential impact of project construction and project post -construction
activity on storm water runoff
ii) No 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) No significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or
volume of storm water runoff
iv) No significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the
project site or surrounding areas
v) No 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.)
vi) The proposal would not cause harm to the biological integrity of
drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies
vii) Provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both
during construction and after project occupancy is not necessary.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to
hydrology and water quality. No further environmental review is
X. LAND USE AND The proposed project consists of an annexation of the West Creek and West
PLANNING Hills neighborhoods into the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is
proposed within the project area as a part of the prezone application. The
prezone reflects approved land use designations under the General Plan and
is consistent with the built environment within the project area.
Impacts related to land use and planning that were not addressed in the
previously certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The project does not propose any new
development with this annexation, and prezone, The proposed open space,
commercial and residential zoning designations would be consistent with
the existing development and County land use planning in the project area,
as well as the development surrounding the project area.
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by
aencic4 with jurisdiction over the�>rcr�uct, such as the Amity Corps of
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
Engineers, or the California Department of Fish and Game's jurisdiction
over San Franeisquito Creek because the proposal would not change the
applicable state or federal designations in the project area.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to land
use and olanninrt. No further environmental review is necessary.
XI. MINERAL AND Impacts related to mineral and energy resources that were not addressed in
ENERGY RESOURCES the previously certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would not 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. No further environmental
review is necessary.
The proposed prezone would not 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 and would not use
nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. No further
environmental review is necessary.
No impact related to mineral and energy resources is anticipated. No
further environmental review is necessary.
XII. NOISE Impacts related to noise that were not addressed in the previously certified
EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less
than significant. The proposed project proposes no new development and
therefore there would be no exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the City's General Plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Furthermore, because
no new development is proposed with the annexation, there would be no
exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundbome noise levels.
The project would not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
No new development is anticipated with this prezone application, therefore
a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project would not occur.
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, the prezone would
not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels.
The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels,
No irnpact related to noise is antici titad No further environmental
29
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001,
February 9, 2016
Initial Study 16-001
is necessary.
XIII. POPULATION AND
Impacts related to population and housing that were not addressed in the
HOUSING
previously certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. No new development is proposed
with the prezone. The annexation area currently consists of approximately
1,717 completed residences, with another 727 residences approved but not
yet built. The project area contains and is surrounded by infrastructure that
is adequate for the existing and previously approved residential and
commercial development by Los Angeles County in the project area.
The proposed residential and commercial designations would be consistent
with the existing development and uses in the project area. The application
would not displace existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing).
The proposed residential and commercial designations would not displace
people, necessitating the construction or replacement housing elsewhere, as
the proposal would be consistent with the existing uses and County-
approved development in the project area.
No impact related to population and housing is anticipated. No further
environmental review is nece_sse _.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Impacts related to public services that were not addressed in the previously
certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to
be less than significant. The proposed project would not create any
significant adverse impacts to public services. School district and many
government services will remain unaffected. A fire station is located along
Copper Hill Drive, near Camino Del Arte.
The annexation area will experience an increase in police patrols and
decrease in non-emergency response time due to the City's increased police
service levels under its contract with the L.A. 'County Sheriff's Department.
Upon annexation, the responsibilities for road maintenance, streetlight
patrols and maintenance of parks would transfer to the City. . The
annexation would result in a negotiated tax transfer between the City of
Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles which would be used to
partially fund public services.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to
public services. No further environmental review is ncces"ar .
XV. RECREATION
Impacts related to recreation that were not addressed in the previously
certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to
be less than significant. No new development is proposed with the proposed
project that would cause direct increase in usage of existing parks and
recreational facilities. However, payment of lower parks and recreation
program fees by residents within the project site once they are annexed to
the City of Santa Clarita may increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other City recreational facilities that may cause a minor
impact on these facilities.
30
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
The proposed project does not include new development of residential units
that would require park development fees or implementation of new
recreational facilities. The proposed annexation area does include West
Creek Park located adjacent to Rio Norte Junior High School, which is in
good condition. The park site and its associated impacts have been analyzed
as part of the West Creek project. It is not anticipated that there would be
any additional adverse physical effects as a result of annexation these park
sites. Upon annexation, the responsibility for maintenance of parks would
transfer to the City. Impacts related to the expansion or upgrade of
recreational facilities or parks is considered less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to
recreation. No further environmental review is neccs5,jry_ _
—_�......_______.__ — p,�.__—__ �—. _ —
XVI. TRANSPORTATION! Im acts related to trans nation/traffic that werenot addressed in the
TRAFFIC previously certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The project site has been developed
with residential, commercial and open space uses which were analyzed
under separate environmental documents. The prezone would not cause an
increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections.).
No new development is proposed, therefore, the prezone would not exceed,
either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways.
The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks.
No new development is proposed, therefore, the application would not
substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
No new development is proposed with this application. The project area is
adjacent to existing infrastructure and City of Santa Clarita incorporated
land. The prezone would not result in inadequate emergency access.
No new development is proposed with the prezone, therefore, the proposal
would not result in inadequate parking capacity.
Upon annexation, the City may construct new bus stops and improvements
to existing bus stops. This may have a minor impact; however, impacts are
anticipated to be less than significant.
Upon annexation, the City may make improvements to sidewalks and bike
lanes. These improvements would reduce hazards and barriers for
31
Master Case 16-012
Annexation 16-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 9, 2016
XVII. UTILITIES AND
SERVICE SYSTEMS
pedestrians
impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to
transportation and traffic. No further environmental review is necessary.
Impacts related to utilities and service systems that were not addressed in
the previously certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The project would not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board, as the site is already developed.
No new development is proposed with this, annexation and prezone.
Therefore, this application would not require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, that have not already been considered, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects.
The project would not require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects because no new
development is proposed.
Impacts related to water supply that were not addressed in the previously
certified EIR that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to
be less than significant. Water supply was previously evaluated as part of
the West Creek project mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for each project, and included in
Appendix A. The proposed prezone does not include any new
development, and therefore, will not result in significant impacts to water
supply. Prior to the recordation of a final map for the remaining
undeveloped portions of the annexation area, the developer(s) will have to
obtain a will -serve letter from the area's water service provider.
Compliance with this requirement and with the project's mitigation
measures will not result in significant impacts.
The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves the project that it does not have adequate capacity to
serve existing and projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments.
Under the West Creek EIR, mitigation measures are identified to reduce
solid waste disposal. The project area is currently served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project site's
construction -related solid waste disposal needs. However, the EIR
identified significant cumulative impacts on solid waste as a result of both
projects, due to the fact that landfill space is finite and that other disposal
alternatives have not been identified to adequately serve existing and future
uses. The proposed prezone would not directly result in a significant
i pluict related to solid waste disposal needs. The pro`cet area would be
32
Master Case 16-012
Annexation I6-001, Prezone 16-001, Initial Study 16-001
February 4, 2016
XVIII. MANDATORY
FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
subject to City franchise agreements for both business and residential.
Impacts related service by a landfill is considered less than significant.
The project area currently complies with federal, state, and County statutes
and regulations related to solid waste. Businesses would also become
subject to City's Standard Urban Storm water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP)
upon annexation.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impacts related to
utilities and service systems is anticipated. No further environmental
review is necessary.
The project includes a request for a prezone for the purpose of annexation
and does not propose any new development that has not already been
reviewed and approved under Los Angeles County. The proposed project
would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any
future development would he reviewed by the City to ensure compliance
with all previously approved development and environmental standards and
design guidelines, including mitigation measures as required by the County.
Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact related to
degradation of the quality of the environment or habitat of fish and wildlife
species.
The project does not propose new development and would not have impacts
that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Any new
development that has not already been approved would go through a design
review process and would have to adhere to the development standards and
the City's General Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in a
significant impact.
The proposed project would not include any new development. The project
consists of a prezone for the purpose of annexation and would not cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the
Mandatory findings of significance. No further environmental review is
33
RESOLUTION NO. P 16-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
PROJECT AND APPROVE MASTER CASE NO. 16-012 REGARDING PREZONE 16-001, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PREZONING APPROXIMATELY 1,018 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED
WEST OF THE LOCKHEED INDUSTRIAL PARK, NORTHWEST OF THE VALENCIA 2 SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA AND WEST OF SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, ALONG THE NORTHERN
BOUNDARY OF THE EXISTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY LIMITS FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ANNEXATION
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 May 21, 2010, the City conducted an annexation survey of the West Creek/West
Hills, and Copperstone neighborhoods. Survey cards were mailed to approximately
740 property owners.
b. The results of the annexation survey of the West Creek/West Hills and Copperstone
neighborhoods concluded that 20% of those surveyed, responded to the survey. Of
those who responded, 92% were in support of annexation and 8% did not support
annexation.
c. At their regular meeting on July 20, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution 10-24, recommending that the City Council approve Master Case 10-048,
initiating the annexation of the West Creek, West Hills, Tesoro del Valle and
Copperstone communities.
d. On December 14, 2010 the City Council- directed staff to proceed with an application
to LAFCO for the Copperstone area only. The Copperstone area was formally
annexed into the City on June 14, 2012.
e. In late 2015, the Newhall Land Company (Newhall Land), the developer of the
project, indicated to the City of Santa Clarita that they were in favor of the City of
Santa Clarita proceeding with the annexation of the West Creek and West Hills
neighborhood.
f. City staff is currently in process of conducting a survey of property owners within the
project area.
g. The project area is located adjacent to the northern boundary line of the City of Santa
Clarita, northwest of the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area and includes the
communities generally known as West Creek and West Hills.
Resolution P16-05
Master Case 16-012
Page 2 of 4
h. The project area consists of 1,018 acres of land contiguous to the corporate limits of
the City of Santa Clarita on the southern boundary of the project area, as shown on
Exhibit A.
i. The project area is partially built out with approximately 1,717 residential units with
another 727 residential units to be built. One existing 74,000 square -foot commercial
center and two vacant commercial center sites are located along Copper Hill Drive.
The proposed annexation area also includes one elementary school, a junior high
school, and West Creek Park. No new development is proposed with this proposal.
The land use to the west of the project consists of the Lockheed Industrial Park,
within the City of Santa Clarita. The land use to the north of the proposed annexation
area consists of the Tesoro del Valle community and the Angeles National Forest,
within the County of Los Angeles. The land to the south of the proposed annexation
area is the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area, located in the City of Santa Clarita.
The area to the east of the proposed annexation includes the Northpark community.
k. Currently, the project area is designated PI (Public Institution); CN (Neighborhood
Commercial); UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR3 (Urban Residential 3); UR4 (Urban
Residential 4); UR5 (Urban Residential 5); and OS (Open Space) in the General Plan.
1. Prezone 16-001 would be consistent with the zoning currently in place within the
project area and is consistent with the General Plan.
in. On February 9, 2016, an Initial Study was prepared for Prezone 16-001 for the West
Creek and West Hills communities. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the Initial Study concluded that no significant adverse environmental
impacts were associated with the project and a Negative Declaration was prepared.
n. The environmental document has been circulated for review and comment by affected
governmental agencies and the public for a 21 -day public review period from
February 9, 2016 through March 1, 2016, and posted with the County Clerk.
o. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on March
1, 2016. This public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At the hearing, the Planning Commission considered the
staff presentation, the staff report, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project,
and public testimony on the proposal.
p. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391,
and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed.
Resolution P16-05
Master Case 16-012
Page 3 of 4
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. The
Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study prepared for the project and
finds and determines as follows:
a. The Planning Commission, hereby finds that the proposed Negative Declaration
prepared in connection with PRZ 16-001, and Annexation 16-001, has been prepared
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, has been reviewed and
considered by the Planning Commission, and reflects the independent judgment of the
Planning Commission and that based on the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, there is substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council adopt the Negative Declaration for the project as included in the agenda
packet for the March 1, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. The Director of
Community Development is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and
other materials which constitute the record of proceedings in this matter. Copies of
the proposed Negative Declaration, and all documents referenced in the proposed
Negative Declaration are available for review at Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, during normal business
hours.
SECTION 3. PREZONE FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find as follows:
a. The Prezoning is required under Section 56375(a)(3) of the Government Code in that
prior to the Local Agency Formation Commission taking an action on an annexation,
annexing land must be prezoned by the annexing city.
b. The proposed Prezone 16-001 amending the City of Santa Clarita Zoning Map is
consistent with General Plan zoning designations and existing development
entitlements for the subject site; and
c. The proposed Prezone 16-001 is consistent with the objectives of the Unified
Development Code in that it implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan
and guides the future growth of the City in that it meets the development policies of
the City of Santa Clarita.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hereby adopt
the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approve Master Case 16-012 for Prezone
16-001 as described in Sections 1 through 3 above.
SECTION 5. 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.
Resolution P16-05
Master Case 16-012
Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 2016.
DENNIS OSTROM, CHAIRPERSON
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
JASON CRAWFORD, SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Jason Crawford, Interim 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 1 st day of March, 2016 by the
following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
EXHIBIT A: PROJECT BOUNDARY
' IMA CLAIMA
West Creek Annexation_.
BOUNDARY i •� ��
Prks (Existing)
Scrods (Existing)
f Parw Oumnes w_
Santa Curs River
City of Santa Ctarta Boundary e
WiM Crook Ann,"&Wrt Arca (Proposed)
" < ,.
A hNst tlra: 0o"oft Jan. amt.
cavntr Of t=AM*Jex Ali rte nArf".
011,
rtr cxv et sinm Dara eas errt errant �.''
tmm a taa r..t the seauragdtM Wts arrlaaturrrxroMin
� IUalRy br airr �r'rM9 tK Ont@iJalYt ✓ �, "er.
u'.I"�tlSL €Sjtxil4Fti r.a4�.rSw�rrN M+wY+Ma.J
Ft6 J a
tuo rwrta
juloot
_ WaYxt Ck'iait V
d k, 0ACY~, t...jr t tts.TrJy {y:j
EXHIBIT B: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
SANT CLARITA
[O�D West Creek Annexation
GENERAL PLAN
Pamei Outlines
City of Santa CIM1. Boundary
West Creek Annexation Area (Proposed)
OVOV land Use Poky (Adopted M 10111
A PMON Ol4: Coo"Iffm Jan. 1014
County of td Angeles. Ak dghts re emd.
iW 7ID 0 WCRai The Clty of Sams Oatita does not warrant
the accutxy of she data and i ssumas no
LebWly for airy <rtIXs IX ofhuons.
1tlPxaecnUsltaolat<timrllaeaena arrwan.nm
MX -C
T` ± MX -N
cc
CN
CR
fidUstrtdl
aP
I
Open Space
O -NF
0S
OS-BLM
Specific Plan
NL SP; SP
ural Residential
NU 1lRR 1 - 0.05 dura
NU2iRR2 - 0.1 dura
NU3/RR3 - 02 dula
NUNRR4 - 0.5 dela
NLWwPR5 - 1.0 dWa
rban Residential
UR f - 20 dela
UR2 - 50 d Wa
UR3 - 11 A dura
UR4 -min. 1D dula -max 18,0 duo
URO - mm, 10 dula - max. 30.0 min's
P1 - Pubw nY"'li B<P131
Nfl1MiA�t' RANGN Rb
71.
' r.
A� Y
VAN
t �
a
EXHIBIT C: PROPOSED PREZONE
i hU(-N
CC
West Creek Annexation
CN
.,.,...
4 ' PRE -ZONE
industrial
OP
z pen Spam
OJ4f
Paroei Outlines
0s
City of Santa Clarila Boundary
NLaP; 9P
Wast Geek Annexation Area (Proposed)
Rural Residential
oww land use r1wKy{pdepWl luno "Ill
lonral dam. Coorr'6aht JAM-idli
oeurrcydlosAmir AJl r.y+a ro�rvW.
•y —•,,,f "',
4
no atyol5arOalN=does nor rva/rarrr
em sso a sm r..s
� 014ucad rap alta and aswmss rw
t tlae
_
�,
IIaOMN for any arrora a oinesuons.
roan Residential
41/rslrr�r1W47oasJMtirr-ft.�raa+� n•+,n,w,wd
�, ,
UR3. 11.0 duh
oning Legend
ommeroial
mx-c
77
URS - men. t4 duh - maX 30.0 Merl
d);
?
sddMr w1'1 T '...........
i hU(-N
CC
CN
.,.,...
' CR
industrial
OP
z pen Spam
OJ4f
0s
084KM
pecifio Plan
NLaP; 9P
Rural Residential
NUtIRRt - 003 Will
NUVRR2 - 0.1 dda
NU31RR3 - 02 duh
NUVRRa - 04 dWa
NU51RR5 - i A data
..,
roan Residential
URI - 2.0 duo
UR2.5.0 dWa
UR3. 11.0 duh
URa - Mtn 10 dura - mat 18.0 WO
URS - men. t4 duh - maX 30.0 Merl
PI . Publonsrl Wonal
RO
.I►�t P'
s� s
f ' SSS'►
r
eza,. r
s ate
{
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
"Parks Make Life Betterl"
February 18, 2016
Mr. David Peterson
City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department
23920 Valencia Blvd
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Mr. Peterson:
John Wicker, Acting Director
Sent via email: dpeterson @ santa-clarita.com
WEST CREEK[ WEST HILLS ANNEXATION
INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MASTER CASE NO. 16-012
The proposed project has been reviewed for potential impacts on the facilities of this
Department. Please see below our comments:
• According to the LA County Regional Trail System, there is an existing multi -use
(hiking, equestrian, and mountain biking) trail, the Cliffie Stone Trail, which is
located within the proposed annexation area (refer to attached aerial map). The
Cliffie Stone Trail provides connectivity to and parallels the San Francisquito
Creek and travels south with connections to existing City of Santa Clarita trails.
Thank you for including this Department in the review of this document. If you have any
questions regarding County trails, please contact Olga Ruano at (213) 351-5141 or
oruano@parks.lacounty.gov. If you have any other questions, please contact me at
(213) 351-5127 orjyorn@parks.lacounty.gov.
Sincerely,
Jul . Yom
Park Planner
JY/ City of Santa Clarita West Creek] West Hills Annexation
Enclosure: West Creek Annexation Trail Map
c: DPR (N. E. Garcia, K. King, C. Lau, F. Moreno, O. Ruano, F. Parducho)
Planning and Development Agency • 510 South Vermont Ave - Los Angeles, CA 90020-1975 • (213) 351-5198
�Oftod ir Los Angeles County
Department of Regional Planning
Planning for the Challenges Ahead
February 29, 2016
David Peterson
City of Santa Clarita
Sent via e-mail to dpaterson@santa-cladta.com
Richard 1. t3ruckncr
Dircctor
SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ANNEXATION
16.001, PREZONE 16-x001, AND INITIAL STUDY 16-001
Dear Mr. Peterson,
The Department of Regional Planning provides the following comments on the subject project,
which concerns the West Creek/West Hills project area previously approved by the County.
Mitloation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
The City of Santa Clarita should assume responsibility for implementing and enforcing the
MMRP as approved by the County for the West Creek/West Hills project.
Consistency of Land Use Desianations — One Valley One Vision compared to Santa Clarita
General Plan)
• Santa Clarita's proposed land use designations are consistent with the County's existing
designations In terms of density/intensity and use types.
• Although there initially appeared to be differences In the permitted densities (see table
below), upon further analysis County staff no longer believe this to be the case. The One
Valley One Vision (OVOV) designations were done prior to build -out of the West Creek/
West Hills project, and so were based on an overall average density. Now that the project is
substantially built out, It appears that the City was able to calculate the specific densities of
certain housing types and apply more relevant densities (UR3, UR4, UR5). These
proposed designations are therefore more refined/specific to their respective sub -areas.
Location
LA County / OVOV, Land
Use Desionation
City of Santa Clarita General
Plan Land Use Designation
Area west of Copper Hill Drive
H2 0-2 du/ac
UR2 5 dulac
Area east of Copper Hill Drive
H18 9-18 du/acy
UR3, UR4, UR5 10-30 du/ac
Protections for Slanificant Natural Features
• The County would like to ensure that significant natural features (Including oaks, ridgellnes,
hillsides, and ecological areas) are subject to substantially the same, or better, protections
320 West Temple Street - Los Angeles, CA 91)012 - 213-9"1-6411 - FaN: 313.6:6-04131 - TDD: 213-617-2292
City of Santa Ciarita
February 29, 2016
Page 2
as they are currently. County staff Is of the opinion that the City's regulations would provide
sufficient protection for these features.
The land within the County -designated Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area (SEA)
Is believed to have already been dedicated as open space In perpetuity; the City should
ensure this Is the case.
Santa Clarity should maintain the connectivity of the SEA and avoid any activities that could
inhibit wildlife movement through these corridors. The City should adopting all mitigation
measures of the West Creek EIR to protect connectivity and wildlife movement for the SEA.
Further Actions Reaulred if Annewlon Is Approved
If the proposed annexation is approved:
• MMRP funds associated with the West Creek/West Hills project should be refunded from
the County to the applicant.
• Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA ) allocations for this area wilt need to be
transferred from the County to the City of Santa Clarita,
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 213-874-3426 or at
gnatoll0planning,lacgunty,gov. Our offices are open Monday through Thursday from 7:00 am to
5:00 pm.
Si cerely,
,�" M - 4 0,
Gina M. Natoli, MURP, AICP
Supervising Regional Planner
GMN:MT:JD:gmn:mt
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Public Health +
K
CYNTHIA A. HARDING, M.P.H.
Interim Director
BOARD OF i;UPERV180R6
Hilda L. Soils
JEFFREY D. GUNZENHAUSER, M.D., M.P.H.
First District
Interim Health Officer
Mork Ridley-Thomas
Second District
ANGELO J. BELLOMO, REHS, CEP
shells Kuehl
Deputy Director for Health Protection
Third Oletdot
Don Knobs
TERRI S. WILLIAMS, REHS
Fourth District
Acting Director of Environmental Health
Michael D. Antonovich
Fath Dieina
5050 Commerce Drive
Baldwin Peek, CalHomla 81706
TEL (626) 430-5100 • FAX (626) 813-3000
www.pubilohoolth.lacounty.gov
February 23, 2016
Jason Tajima
County of Los Angeles -Chief Executive Office
Office of Unincorporated Area Services
500 West Temple, Room 723
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS – CITY OF SANTA CLARITA WEST
CREEK ND AND INITIAL STUDY 16-001
Dear Mr. Tajima,
This is in response to your request dated February 16, 2016 for Departmental comments
regarding the proposed annexation of the West Creek and West Hills area to the City of Santa
Clarita. After a review of the notice of intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for the City of
Santa Clarita Annexation and Initial Study 16-001, the Environmental Health Division does not
anticipate any significant impacts on County services as a result of the proposal. However, our
Drinking Water Program recommends the City of Santa Clarita consults with the State Water
Board's Drinking Water Division if and when further development of commercial, residential,
and/or public institutions requires assurance of a reliable and safe potable water supply.
If you have any questions, please let me know or you may contact me at (626) 430-5130.
Very truly yours,
//Z—
Aura , REHS, M
Environmental Health 'ces Manager
Liaison for Unincorporated County
AW:vw
c: David Peterson, DPERTERSON@santa-clarita.com
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
FTRE DEPARTMENT
1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE
K LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294
"4r? ME�y~
DARYL L. OSBY
FIRE CHIEF
FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN
February 24, 2016
David Peterson, Assistant Planner 11
City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Mr. Peterson:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, "WEST HILLSIWEST
CREEK ANNEXATION", PROPOSES A PREZONE THAT WOULD DESIGNATE THE
PROJECT AREA WITH CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ZONING AND LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED GENERAL PLAN,
SANTA CLARITA (FFER 201600020)
The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration has been reviewed by the Planning
Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials
Dlvislon of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their
comments:
PLANNING DIVISION:
We have no comments at this time.
LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT:
The proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for
the circulation of traffic and emergency response issues.
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF:
AGOURA HILLS
CALABASAS
DIAMOND BAR
HIDDEN HILLS
LA MIRADA
MALIBU
POMONA
SIGNAL HILL
ARTESIA
CARSON
DUARTE
HUNTINGTON PARK
LA PUENTE
MAYWOOD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SOUTH EL MONTE
AZUSA
CERRITOS
EL MONTE
INDUSTRY
LAKEWOOD
NORWALK
ROLLING HILLS
SOUTH GATE
BALDWIN PARK
CLAREMONT
GARDENA
WGLEWOOD
LANCASTER
PALMDALE
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
TEMPLE CITY
BELL
COMMERCE
GLENDORA
IRWINDALE
LAWNDALE
PALOS VERDES ESTATES
ROSEMEAD
WALNUT
BELL GARDENS
COVINA
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
LOMITA
PARAMOUNT
SAN DIMAS
WEST HOLLYWOOI
BELLFLOWER
CUDAHY
HAWTHORNE
LA HABRA
LYNWOOD
PICO RIVERA
SANTA CLARITA
WESTLAKE VILLAG
BRADBURY
WHITTLER
David Peterson, Assistant Planner II
February 24, 2016
Page 2
2. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and
ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire
hydrants,
3. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will be
addressed at the building fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life
safety requirements during this time.
4. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department's apparatus by
way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the
prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around
the exterior of the building.
5. Fire Department's requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are
addressed during the building permit stage.
6. All proposals for traffic calming measures (speed humps/bumps/cushions, traffic
circles, roundabouts, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review
prior to implementation.
7. Disruptions to water service shall be coordinated with the County of Los Angeles
Fire Department and alternate water sources shall be provided for fire protection
during such disruptions.
8. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit's
comments are only general requirements. Specific fire and life safety
requirements will be addressed at the building and fire plan check phase. There
may be additional requirements during this time.
9. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit
appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
FORESTRY DIVISION — OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:
The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's
Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and
endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the
County Oak Tree Ordinance.
David Peterson, Assistant Planner II
February 24, 2018
Page 3
2. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division has no further
comments regarding this project.
HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION:
1. The Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD) of the Los Angeles County Fire
Department has no comment regarding the project at this time.
If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 8804330.
Very truly yours,
KEVIN T. JOHNSON, ACTING CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION
PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU
KTJ:ad