HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-04-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - PLUM CYN PREZONE ANNEX MC 18-020 (2)Agenda Item: 14
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Q)
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS /,
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: /V`tt7%
DATE:
April 24, 2018
SUBJECT:
PLUM CANYON PREZONE AND ANNEXATION - FIRST
READING: MASTER CASE NO. 18-020; PREZONE 18-001; AND
ANNEXATION 18-001
DEPARTMENT:
Community Development
PRESENTER:
Hai Nguyen
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
1. Conduct the public hearing;
2. Adopt a resolution approving Master Case No. 18-020, adopting a Negative Declaration and
authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to submit an application to the Local Agency
Formation Commission requesting annexation of approximately 3,118.8 acres of land to the
City of Santa Clarita for the Plum Canyon Annexation Area; and
3. Introduce and pass to second reading an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PREZONE 18-001 (MASTER CASE NO. 18-020) FOR THE PLUM CANYON
ANNEXATION."
On February 12, 2018, the 2,138 property owners within the Plum Canyon Annexation Area
were surveyed to determine the overall level of support for annexation into the City of Santa
Clarita (City). Approximately 14% responded. Of those, 77% indicated support for the
annexation, 11 % would not support annexation, and 12% requested additional information. Staff
contacted the property owners that requested additional information.
On March 20, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on Master Case No.
18-020 for the Plum Canyon Annexation project. By a 4-0 vote, the Planning Commission
adopted a resolution and recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve
Master Case No. 18-020, including a Prezone for the Plum Canyon Annexation Area.
Page 1
Packet Pg. 97
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of approximately 3,118.8 acres in three areas: Plum Canyon,
Skyline Ranch, and North Sand Canyon. The Prezone would designate zoning and land use for
the Plum Canyon Annexation Area to be consistent with the City's General Plan. The total
project area is generally located northeast of the existing jurisdictional boundary of the City,
along Plum Canyon Road, west of Sierra Highway, south of Vasquez Canyon Road, and north
of the City on Sand Canyon Road, in the unincorporated portion of Los Angeles County. A
summary of each of the three areas is as follows:
Plum Canyon
The Plum Canyon project is located in the western portion of the proposed annexation area as
indicated on the attached Plum Canyon Annexation Area Vicinity Map. In 1988, the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors approved a Zone Change and a Conditional Use Permit (Project
No. 85628) to authorize the Plum Canyon development. The original approval consisted of 1,298
single-family units, 1,202 multi -family dwelling units, a park site, fire station, open space lots
within a hillside management area, and a commercial center. There are approximately 674
unbuilt units remaining.
The Plum Canyon area is approximately 1,037 acres. A revised project contains approximately
1,990 built residences, a 12.7 -acre undeveloped commercial center, and a future residential
development area that could accommodate up to 674 residences. The Plum Canyon area is
generally located northeast of the existing jurisdictional boundary of the City, including portions
of Plum Canyon Road, Whites Canyon Road, and Golden Valley Road.
Skyline Ranch
The Skyline Ranch project is located in the central portion of the proposed annexation area as
indicated on the attached Plum Canyon Annexation Area Vicinity Map. In 2010, the Los Angeles
County Regional Planning Commission approved a vesting tentative tract map (No. 060922), a
highway realignment, a General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and an Oak Tree
Permit, authorizing the Skyline Ranch development. The development consists of the creation of
a clustered hillside residential development of 1,220 single-family lots, 25 open space lots, 10
park lots (including one 12 -acre public park lot), four water pump station lots, 13 public facility
lots on 2,173 gross acres, and a highway realignment to authorize the realignment of Whites
Canyon Road through the project site. The project has been entitled and has begun grading work,
but construction has not begun.
The Skyline Ranch area includes a 1,926.8 -acre portion of the 2,173 -acre Skyline Ranch project
area. The annexation area consists of undeveloped land that is entitled, but unconstructed, with
single-family residential development that would include approximately 1,220 residential units.
The development also consists of open space lots, private recreation lots, one public park lot, and
one public school lot. The Skyline Ranch area is generally located northeast of the existing
jurisdictional boundary of the City, west of Sierra Highway and south of Vasquez Canyon Road.
North Sand Canyon
The North Sand Canyon area is approximately 155.0 acres and contains approximately 74
Page 2
Packet Pg. 98
existing residences called Canyon Collection, built in 2004. The North Sand Canyon area is
generally located north of the City, and west of Sand Canyon Road, along Vista Point Lane, as
indicated on the attached Plum Canyon Annexation Area Vicinity Map.
Summary
The entire Plum Canyon Annexation Area includes a total of 3,958 residential units (2,064
constructed residences and 1,894 unconstructed residences) with a projected estimated
population of 11,874. Should the City Council approve the project, a project application would
be submitted to Local Agency Formation Commission in May 2018, with the intent of the
annexation being completed by December 2018.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the State of California Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization
Act of 2000, annexing cities are required to prezone land. The City proposes a prezone that
would change the zoning designations of the annexation area in order to be consistent with the
City's zoning ordinance. The Prezone designations would be consistent with the existing Los
Angeles County (County) land use designation for the Santa Clarita Valley area plan and would
reflect the existing development and conditions within the proposed annexation area.
The project is located within the City's existing General Plan planning area and consists of land
use including the following zones: CN (Neighborhood Commercial); NU2 (Non -Urban 2); NU3
(Non -Urban 3); NU4 (Non -Urban 4); OS (Open Space); OS-BLM (Open Space -Bureau of Land
Management); URI (Urban Residential 1); UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR4 (Urban Residential
4); and UR5 (Urban Residential 5). Since no changes to the General Plan are proposed, a General
Plan Amendment is not required.
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 supports and is consistent with the General Plan. The project is consistent with the following
objectives and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan:
Objective LU 1.1: Maintain an urban form for the Santa Clarita Valley that preserves an open
space greenbelt around the developed portions of the Valley, protects
significant resources from development, and directs growth to urbanized
areas served with infrastructure.
Policy LU 1.1.3: Discourage urban sprawl into rural areas by limiting non-contiguous,
"leap frog " development outside of areas designated for urban use.
The project supports this objective and policy because it would prezone approximately 449 acres
as Open Space, which would prevent additional sprawl into natural areas. The project would
direct growth into areas that are currently served by infrastructure and assign residential zones to
the unincorporated territory that carry appropriate densities.
The proposed Prezone designations for the annexation area include CN, NU2, NU3, NU4, OS,
OS-BLM, URI, URI, UR2, UR4, and UR5 zones, consistent with the City of Santa Clarita
Pue_
Packet Pg. 99
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Prezone and associated annexation would
neither create County islands nor result in non-contiguous City territory. The Prezone would be
consistent with the existing neighborhoods and also the approved, future development, and
would likewise reflect the City's commitment for preserving Open Space in undeveloped
portions of the Santa Clarita Valley. Any future development that was not previously approved
and/or environmentally analyzed by the County of Los Angeles would be processed, analyzed,
and reviewed by the City. The Prezone would become effective when the project area is formally
annexed by the City of Santa Clarita.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared that evaluated the potential impacts of the project (available in the
City Clerk's Reading File). No significant impacts were identified that could reasonably result
from the Prezone or annexation. It is determined that Master Case No. 18-020 and Prezone 18-
001 would not have a significant effect on the environment. The requested Prezone is consistent
with Los Angeles County land use planning policies and reflects the project area's existing
development land uses. The Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review
and comment beginning February 16, 2018, and ending on March 20, 2018.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52, the Tribal Cultural Resources section was added to the Initial
Study. It is determined that the Prezone would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources. Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The project was the subject of duly noticed Public Hearing before the Planning Commission
on March 20, 2018. All notices by law were completed, which consists of a one-eighth page
advertisement in The Signal newspaper on March 23, 2018. 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 within the project area on March 6, 2018.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other actions as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
The annexation of the Plum Canyon Annexation Area would generate a neutral/no-net fiscal
impact to the City of Santa Clarita.
ATTACHMENTS
Public Hearing Notice
Resolution — Plum Canyon Annexation LAFCO Resolution
Ordinance - Plum Canyon Annexation Prezone Ordinance
14'
Page 4
Packet Pg.100
Plum Canyon Annexation Area Vicinity Map
General Plan Map (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
General Plan And Zoning Tables (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
Initial Study (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
Proposed Negative Declaration (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
Planning Commission Staff Report (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
Page 5
Packet Pg. 101
74.a
4i) 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 the Plum Canyon Annexation Area
APPLICATION: Master Case No. 18-020: Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001, Initial Study 18-001
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
PROJECT LOCATION: The project area is known as the Plum Canyon Annexation and includes three areas: Plum
Canyon, Skyline Ranch, and North Sand Canyon. The project area is generally located along the northeastern boundary
of the City of Santa Clarita. The Plum Canyon and Skyline Ranch areas located along of Plum Canyon Road, west of
Sierra Highway, and south of Vasquez Canyon Road. The North Sand Canyon area is located west of Sand Canyon
c
Road, alongVista Point Lane. The project area is current) located in the unincorporated
p J y rporated portion of the County of Los
C
Angeles.
x
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a prezone for the purposes of the annexation of approximately
m
c
Q
3,117 acres within the County of Los Angeles. As a part of the annexation, the City proposes a prezone that would
c
designate the project area with City of Santa Clarita zoning designations consistent with the approved General Plan.
°,
The proposed land use designations are consistent with the built environment in the project area as well. These include
15 acres of the Neighborhood Commercial zone, 26 acres of the Non -Urban 2 zone, 1,030 acres of the Non -Urban 3
O
zone, 15 acres of the Non -Urban 4 zone, 450 acres of the Open Space zone, 895 acres of the Urban Residential 1 zone,
E
531 acres of the Urban Residential 2 zone, 139 acres of the Urban Residential 4 zone, and 21 acres of the Urban
a
Residential 5 zone. The proposal also includes a request to allow for the submittal of an Annexation application to the
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On March 20, 2018, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend the
0
Z
M
City Council adopt a resolution to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Master Case No. 18-020; Prezone 18-
c
001 for the Plum Canyon Annexation.
m
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for the proposed project
and was available for a public review period, during which the City of Santa Clarita Community Development
Department was open for comments, beginning at noon on February 16, 2018, and ending at noon on March 20, 2018.
A copy of the Negative Declaration and all supporting documents is located at the City Clerk's Office located in the
City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. A copy of the draft Negative
Declaration (without all supporting documents) is posted at the Santa Clarita Library, Valencia Branch,
The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date:
DATE: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
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) 255-4330. Website: www.santa-
Packet Pg.102
clarita.com/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355.
Project Planner: Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner. (661) 255-4365. hnguyen@santa-clarita.com.
Mary Cusick
City Clerk
Published: The Signal, March 23, 2018
PROJECT AREA
—... ,: . Sivn1Q,Nli A
Plum Giryon, SkyR" Ranch
aM NOM Sand Ca . Annasabon _
77
f
alar r .
®® 6
i
X4,0, :i�:a .. : �•f
Y
7aa
Packet Pg. 103
14.b
RESOLUTION NO. 18-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT
AND REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY
3,118.8 ACRES OF CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY, GENERALLY KNOWN AS
THE PLUM CANYON ANNEXATION AREA, TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
(MASTER CASE NO. 18-020)
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita (City) 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 3,118.8
acres of unincorporated county territory; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed includes a total of 3,958 residential
units (2,064 built residences and 1,894 unconstructed residences) with a projected estimated
population of 11,874, as well as undeveloped lands and open space, 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 18-001 (Master
Case No. 18-020), which includes the area known as the Plum Canyon Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2018, an environmental Initial Study was prepared for
Prezone 18-001 and Annexation 18-001, for the proposed Plum Canyon Annexation Area.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the Initial Study concluded that adverse
environmental impacts associated with the project were less.than significant and a Negative
Declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the environmental document was circulated for review and comment by
affected governmental agencies and the public from February 16, 2018, to March 20, 2018; 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 bring established
neighborhoods, future development areas, open space, and public facilities into the City's
jurisdiction to create a logical extension of City boundaries, and to preserve vacant land within
the annexation area as permanent open space; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has considered all evidence,
oral and documentary, and is advised of the foregoing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santa
Clarita, California, does hereby determine and find as follows:
Packet Pg.104
14.tF
SECTION 1. This Resolution of Application is hereby adopted by the City Council,
and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County is hereby requested to
initiate proceedings for the annexation of that territory shown in Exhibit A, according to the
terms and conditions stated above, if any, with notice and hearing by the Local Agency
Formation Commission, and in the manner provided by the Cortese -Knox Hertzberg Local
Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Negative Declaration
prepared in connection with Prezone 18-001 and Annexation 18-001, pertaining to the Plum
c
Canyon Annexation Area, has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental
R
Quality Act, has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and reflects the
d
c
independent judgment of the City Council, and that based on the Initial Study and the entire
a
record of proceedings, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
`o
effect on the environment. Therefore, the City Council approved the Negative Declaration
for the project, as included in the agenda packet for the April 24, 2018, City Council Meeting.
ci
The Director of Community Development is hereby designated as the custodian of the
E
documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings in this matter.
a
The documents and materials are on file in the Department of Community Development at
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 Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the subject
area 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
the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and certify
this record to be a full, true, correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of .2018.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
DATE
Packet Pg. 105
14.b
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
c
0
I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the w
foregoing Resolution No. was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa
m
Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 2018, Cr -
by the following vote of Council: e
T
C
R
U
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: E
2
a
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
Packet Pg. 106
(uopexauuy uo fuel wn1d) uoijnjosa21 Oodtll uoilexauuy uoAueo wnid — uopniosay :3uawyoe3;y
14.c
ORDINANCE NO. 18 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PREZONE 18-001 (MASTER CASE NO. 18-020) FOR THE
ANNEXATION OF THE PLUM CANYON ANNEXATION AREA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
a. On February 2, 2018, staff initiated Master Case No. 18-020, consisting of Prezone
18-001 and Annexation 18-001, for approximately 3,118.8 acres of land, known as
the Plum Canyon Annexation Area, in the unincorporated County of Los Angeles
territory that is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Santa Clarita, as shown
in Exhibit A.
b. The annexation area is located in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. The
Plum Canyon Annexation Area includes three areas: Plum Canyon, Skyline Ranch, and
North Sand Canyon. The total project area is generally located northeast of the existing
jurisdictional boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, along Plum Canyon Road, west of
Sierra Highway, south of Vasquez Canyon Road, and north of the City on Sand Canyon
Road.
C. The project area includes both developed neighborhoods and undeveloped land. The
entire Plum Canyon Annexation Area includes a total of 3,958 residential units (2,064
built residences and 1,894 unconstructed residences), with a projected estimated
population of 11,874. The annexation area includes two entitled residential
developments: Plum Canyon and Skyline Ranch. The Plum Canyon project was
approved by Los Angeles County in 1988 and consists of approximately 1,990 built
residences, 674 unconstructed residences, and a 12.7 -acre undeveloped commercial
center. The Skyline Ranch project was approved by Los Angeles County in 2010 and
consists of 1,220 unconstructed residential units. Both projects consist of a total of
1,894 residential units that have been approved but not yet built within the annexation
area. The annexation area also includes an existing residential community with
approximately 74 single-family residences located in the North Sand Canyon area.
No new development would be entitled as a part of this project.
d. The project area is surrounded as follows: located to the north are undeveloped portions
of unincorporated Los Angeles County; located to the south are existing residential
communities; located to the east of the Skyline Ranch area are existing unincorporated
residential communities; located to the east of the North Canyon area are existing
residential communities and open space; located to the west are existing residential
communities, Plum Canyon Elementary School, and David March Park; and located to
the west of the North Sand Canyon area is College of the Canyons East Campus.
PacketPg.108
c
0
x
m
c
C
Q
c
0
c
m
U
E
e. Under the County of Los Angeles, the project area is currently zoned: A-2-1 (Heavy
Agriculture, one -acre minimum lot size); A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, 2 -acre minimum
lot size); C-2 (Neighborhood Business); O -S (Open Space); R-1 (Single Family
Residential); R-14000 (Single Family Residential, 4,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size); R-1-
5000 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size); RPD -1-8U
(Residential Planned Development, 1 -acre minimum lot size, 8 units per acre); RPD-
20000-2AU (Residential Planned Development, 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 2.4
units per acre); RPD -5000-20U (Residential Planned Development, 5,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size, 20 units per acre); RPD -5000-5U (Residential Planned Development,
5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 5 units per acre); RPD -5000-6.2U (Residential Planned
Development, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 6.2 units per acre); RPD -6000-22U
(Residential Planned Development, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 22 units per acre);
RPD -6000-5.9U (Residential Planned Development, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 5.9
units per acre); and RPD -6000-7.5U (Residential Planned Development, 6,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size, 7.5 units per acre).
f. Prezone 18-001, pertaining to the Plum Canyon Annexation Area, proposes to prezone
approximately 3,118.8 acres as follows: 14.9 acres as CN (Neighborhood Commercial);
25.8 acres as NU2 (Non -Urban 2); 1,029.9 acres as NU3 (Non -Urban 3); 14.7 acres
as NU4 (Non -Urban 4); 449.4 acres as OS (Open Space) and OS-BLM (Open Space -
Bureau of Land Management); 894.3 acres as URI (Urban Residential 1); 530.5 acres
as UR2 (Urban Residential 2); 138.7 acres as UR4 (Urban Residential 4); and 20.6 acres
as UR5 (Urban Residential 5).
g. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita held a duly noticed Public
Hearing on March 20, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Santa Clarita, CA, 91355. The Planning Commission considered the staff presentation,
staff report, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and public testimony on
the proposal.
h. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to adopt Resolution P18-11, recommending the
City Council adopt the Negative Declaration, approve Master Case No. 18-020 and
Prezone 18-001 for the Plum Canyon Annexation for the purpose of prezoning
approximately 3,118.8 acres, and direct staff to submit an annexation application to
the Local Agency Formation Commission for the project.
i. On March 23, 2018, staff noticed a Public Hearing for the Plum Canyon Annexation
Area. All property owners within the proposed annexation area were sent notices of the
proposed Public Hearing. A one-eighth (1/8) page advertisement was placed in The
Signal newspaper and signage was posted in the project area.
The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing
on this issue on April 24, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Santa Clarita, CA, 91355. The City Council considered the staff report, public
comment, and closed the Public Hearing.
k. Public participation and notification requirements, pursuant to Sections 65090 and
65391 of the Government Code of the State of California, were duly followed.
14.c
c
0
x
m
e
e
a
C
0
C
w
v
E
a
Packet Pg.109
14.0
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the hearing,
and upon the study and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf,
the City Council finds as follows:
a. The purpose of the proposal is to prezone the approximate 3,118.8 -acre project area to
include: 14.8 acres as CN (Neighborhood Commercial); 25.5 acres as NU2 (Non -Urban
2); 1,029.7 acres as NU3 (Non -Urban 3); 14.4 acres as NU4 (Non -Urban 4); 449.1 acres
as OS (Open Space) and OS-BLM (Open Space -Bureau of Land Management); 894.1
acres as URI (Urban Residential 1); 530.2 acres as UR2 (Urban Residential 2); 138.4
c
acres as UR4 (Urban Residential 4); and 20.3 acres as UR5 (Urban Residential 5).
0
10X
b. The prezone is consistent with the City's General Plan.
cm
a
C. Public participation and notification requirements, pursuant to Sections 65090 and
65391 of the Government Code of the State of California, were duly followed.
U
SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR PREZONE. Based upon the foregoing facts and
E
findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a
a. Prezone 18-001 pertaining to 3,118.8 acres, generally known as the Plum Canyon
Annexation Area, is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code,
the General Plan, and development policies of the City in that the proposed prezoning
designations are consistent with existing land uses in the area. The project would
prezone 14.9 acres as CN (Neighborhood Commercial), 25.8 acres as NU2 (Non -Urban
2), 1,029.9 acres as NU3 (Non -Urban 3), 14.7 acres as NU4 (Non -Urban 4), 449.4 acres
as OS (Open Space) and OS-BLM (Open Space -Bureau of Land Management), 894.3
acres as URI (Urban Residential 1), 530.5 acres as UR2 (Urban Residential 2), 138.7
acres as UR4 (Urban Residential 4), and 20.6 acres as UR5 (Urban Residential 5).
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby introduces, and passes to second reading, an
ordinance approving Prezone 18-001 pertaining to the Plum Canyon Annexation Area as
described herein and shown on attached Exhibit "A."
SECTION 5. 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 24th day of April 2018.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
DATE
Packet Pg. 110
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
) ss.
1, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance 18- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 24th day of April 2018. That thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day
of May 2018, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance 18- and
was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806).
CITY CLERK
PacketP9.111
(uoilexouuy uoAueo wnld) aoueu'PAO auozaJd uoilexauuy uoAueo wnld - aoueu'PJO :luawyoelly N
N
r
F E
�d _ v v
d
f o%Is logo? i!
rim
ML wm
K
E
a
m
Q Q
s
x x
N W
C
^U
c
p
C L
U
Y
F o m
m
E a
? g a
IL
E e
!4'
Y goo
K
E
206
k\
|!__
;,,.•
!r!),!!l;444 !
-
\\
°
z _ „
�!\��l�����■��\\`}|
�7�d�
A-
. \
206
k\
-
\\
I J%
Ea
jLo
^�
�
�
��
�
\�/g/��
w �
@
��° _■� \ �
� _--- �_• . _
� a_■�• a � ■
r$ �
VD6 �\
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PLUM CANYON ANNEXATION AREA
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING TABLE EXHIBITS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2018
Table 1: General Plan Land Use Designations
General Plan Designation
Acres
Existing Land Use
CN (L4eighborhood Commercial
14.9
Vacant
NU2 (Non -Urban 2)
25.8
Vacant
NU3 (Non -Urban 3)
1,029.9
Vacant
NU4 (Non -Urban 4)
14.7
Vacant
OS (Open Space)
449.4
Vacant, parks
URI (Urban Residential 1)
894.3
Vacant, multifamily residences
UR2 (Urban Residential 2)
530.5
Vacant, single-family residences
UR4 (Urban Residential 4)
138.7
Vacant, multifamily residences, Los
Angeles County Fire Station
URS Urban Residential 5
20.6
Multifamily residences
Total:
3118.8
Table 2: Plum Canyon Annexation Area Prezones
Prezone Designation
Acres
Density
CN (Neighborhood Commercial)
14.9
Floor Area Ratio: .5/1
NU2 (Non -Urban 2)
25.8
.1 units per acre
NU3 on -Urban 3
1,029.9
.2 units per acre
NU4 (Non -Urban 4)
14.7
.5 units per acre
OS (Open Space)
449.4
1 unit per 4 acres
URI(Urban Residential 1
894.3
2 units per acre
UR2 (Urban Residential 2)
530.5
5 units per acre
UR4 (Urban Residential 4)
138.7
18 units per acre
UR5 (Urban Residential 5)
20.6
30 units per acre
Total:
3118.8
Table 3: Existing Countv Zoning
County Zoning Designations
A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, one -acre minimum lot size
A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, two -acre minimum lot size
C-2 (Neighborhood Business
O -S (Open Space)
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
R-1-4000 (Single Family Residential, 4,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size
R-1-5000 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size)
RPD -1-8U Residential Planned Development, one -acre minimum lot size, 8 units per acre
RPD -20000-2.4U (Residential Planned Development, 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 2.4 units
per acre)
RPD -5000-20U (Residential Planned Development, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 20 units per
acre)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
M
1M
Project title/master case number: Plum Canyon Annexation — Master Case No. 18-020, Annexation 18-001, Prezone
18-001, Initial Study 18-001
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: Hai Nguyen
Associate Planner
(661) 255-4330
Project location: The project area is known as the Plum Canyon Annexation includes three areas:
Plum Canyon, Skyline Ranch, and North Sand Canyon. The project area is
generally located along the northeastern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita,
north of Plum Canyon Road, west of Sierra Highway, and south of Vasquez
Canyon Road. The North Sand Canyon area is located west of Sand Canyon Road,
along Vista Point Lane. 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: CN (Neighborhood Commercial); NU2 (Non -Urban 2); NU3 (Non -Urban 3); NU4
(Non -Urban 4); OS (Open Space); OS-BLM (Open Space - Bureau of Land
Management); URI (Urban Residential 1); UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR4
(Urban Residential 4); UR5 (Urban Residential 5).
Zoning: Existing County of Los Angeles Zoning for the project area includes:
A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture); A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture); C-2 (Neighborhood
Commercial); O -S (Open Space); R-1 (Single Family Residence); R-1-4000
(Single Family Residence); R-1-5000 (Single Family Residence); RPD -1-8U
(Residential Planned Development); RPD -5000-20U (Residential Planned
Development); RPD -5000-5U (Residential Planned Development); RPD -5000-
6.2U (Residential Planned Development); RPD -6000-5.9U (Residential Planned
Development); RPD -6000-22U (Residential Planned Development); RPD -6000-
7.5U (Residential Planned Development); RPD -20000-2.4U (Residential Planned
Development).
The City is proposing to prezone the project area as follows, consistent with the
General Plan:
CN (Neighborhood Commercial); NU2 (Non -Urban 2); NU3 (Non -Urban 3); NU4
(Non -Urban 4); OS (Open Space); OS-BLM (Open Space - Bureau of Land
Management); URI (Urban Residential 1); UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR4
(Urban Residential 4); UR5 (Urban Residential 5).
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
Description of project and setting:
This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Prezone (PZN) and
Annexation (ANX). The City of Santa Clarita proposes the annexation of approximately 4.87 square miles or
approximately 3,117 acres of land located in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The Plum Canyon/Skyline Ranch area
is located along the northeastern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, north of Plum Canyon Road, west of Sierra
Highway, and south of Vasquez Canyon Road. The North Sand Canyon area is located west of Sand Canyon Road, along
Vista Point Lane.
Setting:
The proposed project consists of approximately 4.87 square miles or approximately 3,117 acres in three areas: Plum
Canyon, Skyline Ranch, and North Sand Canyon. The project area would include a total of 3,958 residential units (2,064
built residences and 1,894 unconstructed residences). The Plum Canyon area is approximately 1,037 acres and contains
approximately 1,990 built residences, 674 proposed residences, and a 12.7 -acre undeveloped commercial center. The
Skyline Ranch area is approximately 1,925 acres of undeveloped land, and consists of an entitled but unconstructed single-
family residential development that would include approximately 1,220 residential units. The development also consists
of open space lots, private recreation lots, one public park lot, and one public school lot. The Plum Canyon and Skyline
Ranch areas are generally located northeast of the existing jurisdictional boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, north of
Plum Canyon Road, west of Sierra Highway, and south of Vasquez Canyon Road. The North Sand Canyon area is
approximately 155 acres and contains approximately 74 built residences called Canyon Collection. The North Sand Canyon
area is generally located west of Sand Canyon Road, along Vista Point Lane. The total project area is generally located
northeast of the existing jurisdictional boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, north of Plum Canyon Road, Sierra Highway,
Sand Canyon Road, and south of Vasquez Canyon Road, in the unincorporated portion of Los Angeles County.
Project:
The City of Santa Clarita proposes a prezoning of the subject site for the purposes annexation of approximately 4.87 square
miles or approximately 3,117 acres of developed and undeveloped land within the unincorporated territory of Los Angeles
County along the northeastern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, north of Plum Canyon Road, west of Sierra Highway,
Sand Canyon Road, and south of Vasquez Canyon Road. 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 the following zones: CN (Neighborhood Commercial); NU2 (Non -Urban 2); NU3 (Non -Urban 3); NU4 (Non -
Urban 4); NU5 (Non -Urban 5); OS (Open Space); OS-BLM (Open Space - Bureau of Land Management); URI (Urban
Residential 1); URI (Urban Residential 1); UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR4 (Urban Residential 4); UR5 (Urban
Residential 5). The current land use designations are consistent with Los Angeles County approved and yet to be
constructed residential projects in the project area. The proposed prezone designations for the annexation area will match
that of the land use designations as defined by the General Plan. More specifically, the proposed prezone area is shown in
Figures 2 and 3 and summarized in Table 1.0 below:
Table 1.0
Prezone Designation
Prezone Area Acreages
CN
14.8
NU2
25.5
NU3
1,029.7
NU4
14.4
OS
449.1
URI
894.1
UR2
530.2
UR4
138.4
UR5
20.3
2
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
The entitled and unconstructed portions of the project area were approved under the Los Angeles County land use planning
policies and the development of the project area was reviewed under Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) prepared for
the Plum Canyon and Skyline Ranch projects.
All mitigation measures under the previous County certified EIRs would be accepted by the City upon annexation with no
changes. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MMRP) for the Plum Canyon and Skyline Ranch projects
are included in the EIRs, State Clearinghouse Numbers (SCH Nos.) 1986032613 (Plum Canyon) and 2004101090 (Skyline
Ranch).
As mentioned above, the annexation area includes two entitled residential developments. The Plum Canyon project consists
of approximately 1,990 built residences, 674 unconstructed residences, and a 12.7 -acre undeveloped commercial center.
The Skyline Ranch project consists of 1,220 unconstructed residential units. Both projects consist of a total of 1,894
residential units that have been approved but not yet built within the annexation area. The annexation area also includes an
existing residential community with approximately 74 single-family residences located in the North Sand Canyon area.
No new development is proposed as apart of this project.
The proposed prezone designations reflect 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
CN
Floor Area Ratio: .511
NU2
A units per acre
NU3
.2 units per acre
NU4
.5 units per acre
OS
1 unit per 4 acres
URI
2 units per acre
UR2
5 units per acre
UR4
18 units per acre
UR5
30 units per acre
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.
3
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
Surrounding land uses:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Ell
Located to the north are undeveloped portions of
unincorporated Los Angeles County and the northern
portion of Skyline Ranch project known as Mystery Mesa.
Located to the south are existing residential communities.
Directly south of the North Sand Canyon area are existing
residential communities and the entitled, unconstructed
Sand Canyon Plaza project.
Located to the east of the Skyline Ranch area are existing
unincorporated residential communities. Located to the
east of the North Canyon area are existing residential
communities and open space.
Located to the west are existing residential communities,
Plum Canyon Elementary School, and David March Park.
Located west of the North Canon area is College of the
Canyons East Campus.
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
80 South Lake Avenue 4870
Pasadena, CA 91101
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
FIGURE 1— PROJECT BOUNDARY
5
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
FIGURE 2 — EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
General
n c ' &LINA C,'L4RITk M d ueelan
Plum Canyon, Skyline Ranch,
and North Sand Canyon Annexation
/ General Plan
Le9entl
F1 ao ur
Jl
'T
.\ IN arvat CaV V.._.� ... tt
arece ryor
' a
Ni. Sp-, Plan
Nd�y�
J,han Rasltlantlal
Ir
IIS
PI.
onn5ti �ia���: � i °rrdo��a���aaQ
6
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
FIGURE 3 — PREZONE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
k
JL1RIIk
d MI -d
Canyon, Skyline Ranch, ".u:f.and North Sand Canyon slee�ed
smdeeon
Land Use Designation
Legend en
�� �i ufffd
L3 DE x
Ila
IsJ
e�
L
q
R-1-
01-
,UtiIWVII�� ��� ��P�Ullllllll�i
7
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
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
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Greenhouse Gas Emissions
[ ] Land Use/Planning
[ ] Population/Housing
[ ] Transportation/Traffic
[ ] Mandatory Findings of
Significance
B. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[ ] Agriculture and Forestry [ ] Air Quality
Resources
[ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology /Soils
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] Hydrology/Water Quality
[ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise
[ ] Public Services
[ ] Tribal Cultural Resources
[ ] Recreation
[ ] Utilities/Service Systems
IN 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.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner February 16, 2018
Signature
Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner February 16, 2018
0
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Less Than
Significant Less Than
Impact With Significant No
Mitigation Impact Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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?
H. 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 to [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -forest
use?
9
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
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 criteria [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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] []
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 other [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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 wetlands [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
10
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a [ ]
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
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?
c) Be located on a geologic unit 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?
11
I [X] I
I [X] I
I [X] I
I [X] I
I [X]
I
I I
[X]
I [X]
I
I I
[X]
I I
[X]
I [X]
I
I [X]
I
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
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
features?
g) Result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards
or more?
h) Involve development and/or grading on a natural slope greater
than 10% natural grade?
i) Result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
VH. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with the adopted Climate Action Plan or other applicable
plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant Impact With
Significant No
Impact Mitigation
Impact Impact
I I
[x] I
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ]
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ]
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the
environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely [ ]
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
12
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
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?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
I I I [x]
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 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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?
13
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
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?
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?
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant Impact With
Significant No
Impact Mitigation
Impact Impact
I I
[x] I
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?
14
[x]
[x]
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
manner?
XII. NOISE — Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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] [ ]
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially
affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
15
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
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?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XV. RECREATION —Would the project:
I I I [X]
I I [X] I
I I I
[X]
I I [X]
I
I I [X]
I
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy
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,
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?
16
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
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?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
XVIL TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical I I 1XI
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code �x�
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would 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 wastewater [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
17
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than
Evaluation of Impacts
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant Impact With
Significant No
Impact Mitigation
Impact Impact
I I
[x] I
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from [] [] [x] []
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 landfill 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?
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
[] [] I [x]
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.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS
A -D) Impacts related to aesthetics that were not addressed in the previously certified
EIRs for the residential developments approved under the auspices of Los Angeles
County Regional Planning that are attributable to the proposed project are considered
to be less than significant. The proposed project consists of the annexation and
18
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
19
prezone, for the project area referred to as the Plum Canyon Annexation Area, which
consists of approximately 3,117 acres of land under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles
County. The annexation area contains developed and undeveloped portions of land
and consists of two previously entitled residential developments. The proposed
project includes no new development. Approximately 1,894 residential units have
already been approved but have yet to be built. 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
includes several ridgelines, however, no new development is proposed on any of
these ridgelines as apart of this project. Therefore, no significant impacts on a scenic
vista are anticipated as a result of the proposed annexation.
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 1,894 residential units 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. 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 therefore anticipated to be less than
significant.
11. AGRICULTURE AND
A-E) Impacts related to agricultural resources that were not addressed in the
FORESTRY RESOURCES
previously certified EIRs for the approved residential projects that are attributable to
the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. There are currently
no agricultural 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. 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.
III. AIR QUALITY
A-E) Impacts related to air quality that were not addressed in the previously certified
EIRs for the two approved residential projects that are attributable to the proposed
project are considered to be less than significant. The project site is located within
19
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The proposal is to annex
approximately 3,117 acres to the City of Santa Clarita and designate the project area
with applicable zoning designations consistent with the General Plan that would
activate upon annexation of the project area. No new development is proposed with
this project. However, there are approximately 1,894 residential units that were
approved but yet to be built within the annexation area that must comply with the
Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs
associated to each project. The proposal is to 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 is both developed and undeveloped and is consistent with the
surrounding uses in and outside of the unincorporated County territory and City of
Santa Clarita limits. No new development is proposed with this 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 1,894 residential units within the Plum Canyon and Skyline Ranch
development projects. 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 impact related to air quality is anticipated. No further environmental
review is necessary.
IV. BIOLOGICAL A -G) Impacts related to biological resources that were not addressed in the
RESOURCES previously certified EIRs within the proposed annexation area 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 approximately 3,117 acres of land into the City
of Santa Clarita and proposes no new development. However, 1,894 residential units
have yet to be developed in the project area that must comply with the associated
conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring and reporting programs. The
proposed project would not therefore 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.
20
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
21
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 entitled and unbuilt environment of the project
area and General Plan. The proposal would not conflict with any Los Angeles 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 would be
protected by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and
Protection Guidelines.
The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted 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
A -D) Impacts related to cultural resources that were not addressed in the previously
RESOURCES
certified EIRs for the Plum Canyon and Skyline Ranch projects 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 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
A -I) Impacts related to geology and soils that were not addressed in the previously
certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less
than significant. No new development is proposed with the project application.
However, development may occur in the near future as part of the entitled Plum
Canyon and Skyline Ranch residential projects. 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. However, these projects were previously reviewed and conditioned under
the authority of Los Angeles County Regional Planning and therefore, must be
developed in consistency with the associated conditions of approval and mitigation
and monitoring programs.
21
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
The proposed project does not include any new development. A portion of the project
area has been entitled with two separate residential developments that include a total
of 1,894 unconstructed residential units. The developments were 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 proj ect so, the proposal would not directly
result in soil erosion. It is anticipated however that in the foreseeable future,
development may occur as part of the Plum Canyon and Skyline Ranch development
projects. Any new development that has not already been entitled would be subject
to the review of the City and all applicable development code requirements in
accordance with the associated conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring and
reporting program. Therefore, no significant 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.
VH. GREENHOUSE GAS A -B) The proposed project consists of an annexation of approximately 3,117 acres
EMISSIONS into the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is proposed within the project
area as a part of the prezone application. With the approval of the prezone would
reflect approved land use designations under the General Plan and would be
consistent with the entitled and unbuilt 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
22
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
23
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 significant.
VIII. HAZARDS AND
A -H) Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that were not addressed in
HAZARDOUS
the previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are
MATERIALS
considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would not store, use, or
generate hazardous materials, and would not utilize any acutely hazardous materials.
No new development is proposed within the project area as a part of the project
application. The project would reflect approved land use designations under the
General Plan and would be 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
project 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 proj ect 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 project 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 necessary.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND
A -L) Impacts related to hydrology and water quality that were not addressed in the
WATER QUALITY
previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are considered
to be less than significant. The proposed annexation and prezone would not violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
23
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
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.
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.
24
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
XI. MINERAL AND A -C) Impacts related to mineral and energy resources that were not addressed in the
ENERGY RESOURCES previously certified EIRs 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.
25
Furthermore, because no new development is proposed as a part of this project, the
proposed annexation would not create any impacts to Stormwater 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 necessary.
X. LAND USE AND
A -C) The proposed project consists of an annexation of approximately 3,117 acres
PLANNING
of developed and undeveloped land into the City of Santa Clarita. No new
development is proposed within the project area as a part of the prezone application.
The prezone would reflect approved land use designations under the General Plan
and would be consistent with the entitled and unbuilt 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 environment 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 agencies with
jurisdiction over the project, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, or the California
Department of Fish and Game's jurisdiction 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 planning. No further environmental review is necessary.
XI. MINERAL AND A -C) Impacts related to mineral and energy resources that were not addressed in the
ENERGY RESOURCES previously certified EIRs 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.
25
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
26
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
A -F) Impacts related to noise that were not addressed in the previously certified EIRs
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 groundborne noise levels.
The proj ect 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 impact related to noise is anticipated. No further environmental review is
necessary.
XIII. POPULATION AND
A -C) Impacts related to population and housing that were not addressed in the
HOUSING
previously certified EIRs 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 1,894 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 development by Los
Angeles County in the project area.
The proposed residential and commercial designations would be consistent with the
existing environment within 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 necessary.
26
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
27
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Ai-Av) 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.
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 necessary.
XV. RECREATION
A -B) Impacts related to recreation that were not addressed in the previously certified
EIRs 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.
The proposed project does not include new development of residential units that
would require park development fees or implementation of new recreational
facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact
related to recreation resources. No further environmental review is necessary.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/
A -F) Impacts related to transportation/traffic that were not addressed in the
TRAFFIC
previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are considered
to be less than significant. The project site is undeveloped but does include two
entitled residential projects that 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.
The proposed proj ect would not result in a significant impact related to transportation
and traffic. No further environmental review is necessary.
27
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL A) Impacts related to tribal cultural resources that were not addressed in the
RESOURCES previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project would have no
impact. The project site consists of developed and undeveloped areas of land. The
undeveloped portions include two entitled residential projects that were analyzed
under separate environmental documents. No new development is proposed with this
annexation and prezone. Therefore, the prezone would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. No further environmental
review is necessary. No further consultation is necessary based on the email dated
March 30, 2018, from the Chiefs of Staff of Fernandefto Tataviam Band of Mission
Indians.
XVIII. UTILITIES AND A -G) Impacts related to utilities and service systems that were not addressed in the
SERVICE SYSTEMS previously certified EIRs 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
EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than
significant. Water supply was previously evaluated as part of the Plum Canyon and
Skyline Ranch projects and any mitigation measures are identified in the mitigation
monitoring and reporting program for each project. 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.
The project area is currently undeveloped and therefore does not require solid waste
disposal services. The proposed prezone would not directly result in a significant
impact related to solid waste disposal needs. The project area would be subject to
City franchise agreements for both business and residential upon future development.
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.
28
Master Case No. 18-020
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001
February 16, 2018
XVIII. MANDATORY A -C) The project includes a request for a prezone for the purpose of annexation and
FINDINGS OF does not propose any new development that has not already been reviewed and
SIGNIFICANCE 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 be 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 necessary.
29
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO: Master Case No. 18-020
PERMIT/PROJECT Plum Canyon Annexation,
Annexation 18-001, Prezone 18-001, Initial Study 18-001
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department
23920 Valencia Blvd
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT: The project area is known as the Plum Canyon Annexation includes three areas:
Plum Canyon, Skyline Ranch, and North Sand Canyon. The project area is
generally located along the northeastern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita,
north of Plum Canyon Road, west of Sierra Highway, and south of Vasquez
Canyon Road. The North Sand Canyon area is located west of Sand Canyon Road,
along Vista Point Lane. 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 (PZN) and Annexation (ANX). The City of Santa
Clarita proposes the annexation of approximately 4.87 square miles or
approximately 3,117 acres of land located in unincorporated Los Angeles County.
The Plum Canyon/Skyline Ranch area is located along the northeastern boundary
of the City of Santa Clarita, north of Plum Canyon Road, west of Sierra Highway,
and south of Vasquez Canyon Road. The North Sand Canyon area is located west
of Sand Canyon Road, along Vista Point Lane.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of
Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Planning and Building Services
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative
Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
Jason Crawford "
PLANNING MANJk'"
Prepared by; µ' ��� Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner
la � (Name/Title)
Approved li "�� '' Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
Public Review Period From _ February 16, 2018 To , March 2� 2Qa 8
m , .m m ...........
Public Notice Given On February 16, 2018
[X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
IN
NEW BUSINESS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Item:
PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: March 20, 2018
SUBJECT: Master Case No. 18-020: Prezone for the Plum Canyon Annexation
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: The project area is known as the Plum Canyon Annexation and includes
three areas: Plum Canyon, Skyline Ranch, and North Sand Canyon. The
project area is generally located along the northeastern boundary of the
City of Santa Clarita. The Plum Canyon and Skyline Ranch areas located
along of Plum Canyon Road, west of Sierra Highway, and south of
Vasquez Canyon Road. The North Sand Canyon area is located west of
Sand Canyon Road, along Vista Point Lane. The project area is currently
located in the unincorporated portion of the County of Los Angeles.
CASE PLANNER: Hai Nguyen
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P18-11, recommending the City
Council adopt a resolution to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Master Case No. 18-
020; Prezone 18-001 for the Plum Canyon Annexation.
REQUEST
This is a request for a Prezone associated with the annexation of approximately 3,117 acres of
land currently located within the County of Los Angeles, generally known as the Plum Canyon
Annexation Area.
BACKGROUND
On February 12, 2018, the property owners within the Plum Canyon Annexation Area were
surveyed to determine the overall level of support for annexation. Of the approximate 2,138
property owners that were surveyed, approximately 14 percent responded. Of those, 77 percent
indicated they would support annexation, 11 percent would not support annexation, and 12
Page 1
percent needed additional information. Staff contacted all of the property owners that requested
additional information. As proposed, the annexation area includes the following three
communities including Plum Canyon, Skyline Ranch, and North Sand Canyon.
Plum Cance
The Plum Canyon project is located in the western portion of the proposed annexation area as
indicated in Exhibit A (Plum Canyon Annexation Boundary). In 1988, the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors approved a Zone Change and a Conditional Use Permit (Project No.
85628) to authorize the Plum Canyon development. The original approval consists of 1,298
single-family units, 1,202 multi -family dwelling units, a park site, fire station, open space lots
within a hillside management area, and a commercial center. There are approximately 674
unbuilt units remaining.
The Plum Canyon annexation area is approximately 1,037 acres and contains approximately
1,990 built residences, a 12.7 -acre undeveloped commercial center, and future residential
development area that could accommodate up to 674 residences. The Plum Canyon area is
generally located northeast of the existing jurisdictional boundary of the City of Santa Clarita,
including portions of Plum Canyon Road, Whites Canyon Road, and Golden Valley Road.
Skyline Ranch
The Skyline Ranch project is located in the central portion of the proposed annexation area as
indicated in Exhibit A (Plum Canyon Annexation Boundary). In 2010, the Los Angeles County
Regional Planning Commission approved a vesting tentative tract map (No. 060922), a highway
realignment, a general plan amendment, conditional use permit, and an oak tree permit
authorizing the Skyline Ranch development. The development consists of the creation of a
clustered hillside residential development of 1,220 single-family lots, 25 open space lots, 10 park
lots (including one 12 -acre public park lot), four water pump station lots, and 13 public facility
lots on 2,173 gross acres, and a highway realignment to authorize the realignment of Whites
Canyon Road through the project site. The project has been entitled and has begun grading work,
but construction has yet to commence.
The annexation area includes a 1,925 -acre portion of the 2,173 -acre Skyline Ranch project area.
The annexation area consists of undeveloped land that is entitled, but unconstructed, with single-
family residential development that would include approximately 1,220 residential units. The
development also consists of open space lots, private recreation lots, one public park lot, and one
public school lot. The Skyline Ranch area is generally located northeast of the existing
jurisdictional boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, west of Sierra Highway, and south of
Vasquez Canyon Road.
North Sand Cance
The North Sand Canyon annexation area is approximately 155 acres and contains approximately
74 existing residences called Canyon Collection built in 2004. The North Sand Canyon area is
generally located north of the City, and west of Sand Canyon Road, along Vista Point Lane.
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City proposes to prezone the subject site for the purposes of annexation for three areas: Plum
Canyon, Skyline Ranch, and North Sand Canyon. The project area is generally located along the
northeastern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, along Plum Canyon Road, west of Sierra
Highway, south of Vasquez Canyon Road, and north of the City on Sand Canyon Road. 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 consists of approximately
3,117 acres of developed and undeveloped land within an unincorporated portion of Los Angeles
County. The project area includes a total of approximately 3,958 residential units (1,894 proposed
and 2,064 existing units). The estimated existing population of the annexation area is 5,970. The
estimated population at buildout would result in a total population of approximately 11, 874.
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 the following zones: CN (Neighborhood Commercial); NU2 (Non -
Urban 2); NU3 (Non -Urban 3); NU4 (Non -Urban 4); OS (Open Space); OS-BLM (Open Space -
Bureau of Land Management); URI (Urban Residential 1); UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR4
(Urban Residential 4); UR5 (Urban Residential 5). The current land use designations are
consistent with Los Angeles County approved and yet to be constructed residential projects in
the project area.
ANALYSIS
Prezone / Unified Development Code Consistency / General Plan Consistency
With the approval of the proposed Prezone designations for the annexation area would match
that of the land use designations as defined by the General Plan. The proposed land use
designations consist of the following zones: CN (Neighborhood Commercial); NU2 (Non -Urban
2); NU3 (Non -Urban 3); NU4 (Non -Urban 4); OS (Open Space); OS-BLM (Open Space -
Bureau of Land Management); URI (Urban Residential 1); UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR4
(Urban Residential 4); UR5 (Urban Residential 5). The current land use designations are
consistent with Los Angeles County approved and yet to be constructed residential projects in
the project area. The proposed General Plan and Prezone area is summarized in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1
Prezone
Designation
Prezone Area
Acreages
CN
14.8
NU2
25.5
NU3
1,029.7
NU4
14.4
OS
449.1
URI
894.1
UR2
530.2
UR4
138.4
Page 3
UR5 20.3
Total: 3,117
The entitled, yet unconstructed, portions of the project area were approved 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 Plum Canyon and Skyline Ranch projects.
All mitigation measures under the previous County certified EIRs would be accepted by the City
upon annexation with no changes. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MMRP)
for the Plum Canyon and Skyline Ranch projects are included in the EIRs, State Clearinghouse
Numbers (SCH Nos.) 1986032613 (Plum Canyon) and 2004101090 (Skyline Ranch).
As mentioned above, the annexation area includes two entitled residential developments. The Plum
Canyon project consists of approximately 1,990 built residences, 674 unconstructed residences,
and a 12.7 -acre undeveloped commercial center. The Skyline Ranch project consists of 1,220
unconstructed residential units. Both projects consist of a total of 1,894 residential units that have
been approved but not yet built within the annexation area. The annexation area also includes an
existing residential community with approximately 74 single-family residences located in the
North Sand Canyon area. No new development would be entitled as a part of this project.
The next step in the Prezone and the annexation process is a public hearing before the City
Council where the City Council will consider the Planning Commission recommendation. If
directed, staff will then prepare an application to the Local Area Formation Committee (LAFCO)
requesting the approval of the proposed annexation. The process will ultimately conclude with a
public hearing at LAFCO where all interested parties would have the opportunity to comment on
the annexation.
ENVIRONMENTAL
An environmental analysis, evaluating the impacts of the project, was conducted as part of the
project review. All mitigation measures under the previous County -certified EIRs for the Plum
Canyon and Skyline Ranch projects 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. With the approval of the proposed General Plan
Amendment, the requested prezone would be 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
comment beginning February 16, 2018, and ending at noon on March 20, 2018.
NOTICING
All notices required by law were completed, which consisted of a one-eighth page legal
advertisement in The Signal newspaper on February 16, 2018. In addition to the required legal
advertisement, signage was posted around the project area on March 6, 2018, for the
community's convenience. Staff received phone calls and emails from property owners
Page 4
regarding the annexation process. Staff has responded and contacted all of the property owners
that requested additional information.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution 18-11
Negative Declaration and Initial Study
Exhibit A: Plum Canyon Annexation Boundary
Exhibit B: General Plan Designations
Exhibit C: Land Use Designations
Page 5