Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-11-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - TESORO DEL VALLE ANNEXATION AREA - MC 19-115;GENER (2)Agenda Item: 15 DATE: November 12, 2019 SUBJECT: TESORO DEL VALLE ANNEXATION AREA - MASTER CASE 19- 115: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PREZONE FOR THE TESORO DEL VALLE ANNEXATION AREA DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTER: Ben Jarvis RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Conduct the Public Hearing; 2. Adopt a resolution to adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approve Master Case No. 19-115, consisting of Annexation 19-001, General Plan Amendment 19- 002, and Prezone 19-001 (adopted by separate ordinance), to amend the General Plan land use map encompassing approximately 1,786 acres of land generally located along the northern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, California, north of Copper Hill Drive, west of San Francisquito Road, south of the Angeles National Forest, and east of the community of West Hills, in unincorporated Los Angeles County, as shown in Exhibit A; 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 19-001 (MASTER CASE NO. 19-115) FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE TESORO DEL VALLE ANNEXATION AREA, AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A;" and 4. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to submit an application requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County initiate proceedings to annex certain inhabited territory known as the Tesoro del Valle Annexation Area to the City of Santa Clarita (Master Case No. 19-115). BACKGROUND Residents in the Tesoro del Valle area have expressed an interest in annexing to the City of Santa Clarita (City) since the development was completed in 2006. In 2010, the City Council Page 1 considered an annexation area that included the Copperstone, Tesoro del Valle, West Creek, and West Hills communities. That project was processed under Master Case No. 10-048. After considering concerns raised by area residents and community developers, the City Council reduced the project area and directed staff to move forward only with the annexation of the Copperstone neighborhood. That annexation was completed on June 14, 2012. In 2016, the developer and residents of West Creek and West Hills expressed a renewed interest in annexation. Based on the results of a residential survey showing a majority of property owners supported annexation, the City proposed a Prezone under Master Case No. 16-012 in preparation to submitting an annexation application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The Tesoro del Valle community was not included in the annexation area because Phase 2 of the development (Tesoro Highlands) was going through the entitlement process in Los Angeles County. The West Creek and West Hills annexation was completed on November 15, 2016. Tesoro del Valle residents continued to express interest in annexation. In response to community requests, the City surveyed property owners in May 2019 to determine the level of support for annexation. Of the 1,133 property owners who were surveyed, approximately 17 percent responded (185 individuals). Of those, 86 percent indicated they would support annexation, 8 percent would not support annexation, and 6 percent indicated a need for additional information. Staff followed -up with those residents who requested more information and who provided a means of contact. Based on the community's strong support for annexation, the City initiated Master Case No.19-115, which consists of a General Plan Amendment and Prezone that are required before an annexation application can be submitted to LAFCO. The proposed annexation area consists of approximately 1,786 acres, which are currently developed with 1,077 units, an elementary school, and the 2.25-acre Tesoro Adobe Historic Park which is operated by Los Angeles County and is listed as a state and national historic site. The developed area also includes private recreational amenities, such as a community swimming pool, club house, a private park, and trails. The proposed annexation area also includes undeveloped land that was entitled by Los Angeles County under Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 51644-1 (also known as Tesoro del Valle Phase 2 or Tesoro Highlands). The Los Angeles County -approved project includes an additional 820 units that have not yet been built. The annexation would not affect the buildout of those units or of two other units slated for Lots 702 and 703 that were approved under the original VTTM 51644, but are not yet constructed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On October 1, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on Master Case No. 19-115. By a unanimous 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution and recommended the City Council adopt a resolution to adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and approve Master Case No. 19-115, which consists of General Plan Amendment 19-002 and Prezone 19-001 in support of the Tesoro del Valle annexation (Annexation 19-001). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Santa Clarita proposes a General Plan Amendment and Prezone of approximately 1,786 acres of land, associated with the Tesoro del Valle Annexation. The annexation area is Page 2 located along the northern boundary of the City, north of Copper Hill Drive, west of San Francisquito Canyon Road, south of the Angeles National Forest, and east of the West Hills community. Upon buildout, the population of the annexation area is estimated to be 5,151 residents. No development is proposed or will be approved as part of the General Plan Amendment and Prezone, nor are the City's proposed land use and prezone designations intended to change the development potential of the annexation area beyond what has already been approved by Los Angeles County. ANALYSTS Los Angeles County -Approved Entitlements The proposed Tesoro Highlands development is located in the project area and was approved by Los Angeles County in 2018. The approval included 820 units: 455 conventional single-family units and 365 age -qualified units. The impacts of the proposed development were analyzed under the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project (State Clearing House 42016101032). The Tesoro Highlands project is located in the annexation area but is not a part of the entitlements in Master Case No. 19-115 because the project is already approved. As with other proposed annexation areas that included unbuilt Los Angeles County -approved projects, all mitigation measures required under the previous Los Angeles County -certified EIR would be accepted by the City upon annexation, without change. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Tesoro del Valle project is included in the EIR and would likewise remain valid. General Plan Amendment and Prezone A General Plan Amendment is required because the development densities approved by Los Angeles County under VTTM 51644-1 are different from the City's current General Plan land use map. The proposed General Plan Amendment will assign land use designations to the project area that are consistent with both the existing neighborhoods and Los Angeles County -approved development in the vicinity of the Tesoro del Valle community. This action must occur before an annexation application can be submitted to LAFCO. Pursuant to the State of California Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, cities must prezone land before an annexation application can be submitted to LAFCO. The proposed Prezone would assign appropriate zoning designations to the annexation area that would be consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance and proposed General Plan Amendment. The prezoning and land use designations would reflect the existing conditions of the established neighborhoods in the project area, as well as the Los Angeles County -approved entitlements for the undeveloped area. The project site is located in the City's Sphere of Influence and carries General Plan land use designations. The City's current General Plan land use map includes the following designations for the annexation area: CN (Neighborhood Commercial); NU2 (Non -Urban 2); NU3 (Non - Urban 3); NU4 (Non -Urban 4); OS (Open Space); PI (Public/Institutional); UR2 (Urban Residential 2); UR3 (Urban Residential 3); UR4 (Urban Residential 4); and UR5 (Urban Residential 5). A map showing the existing General Plan land use designations is attached. Page 3 Current City land use designations are generally consistent with the developed portions of the annexation area but are inconsistent with the undeveloped areas where the Los Angeles County has approved units in excess of the density contemplated by the City's adopted General Plan. Other minor inconsistencies exist that will be remedied by the General Plan Amendment, such as low density residential parcels that are more appropriately designated as Open Space. Portions of the annexation area are located in a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) along San Francisquito Creek; the SEA designation would not be affected by the annexation. Portions of the project area are also overlain by two Los Angeles County Community Standards Districts (CSDs): Castaic Canyons and San Francisquito Canyon. Upon annexation, Los Angeles County CSD standards would no longer apply. Regardless, no change in land use standards is anticipated, given the City will honor existing Los Angeles County entitlements and development patterns. The proposed land use and/or zoning designations consist of the following: NU3 (Non -Urban Residential 3), OS (Open Space), Open Space -Agriculture (OS -A), PI (Public/Institutional), UR2 (Urban Residential 2), UR3 (Urban Residential 3), UR4 (Urban Residential 4), and UR5 (Urban Residential 5). Table 1 lists the proposed designations and their estimated acreages: Table 1: Proposed City General Plan and Prezone Land Use Designations Proposed General Plan and Prezone Land Use Designation General Plan Amendment Acreage* Prezone Acreage* Density Non -Urban Residential 3 (NU3) 1.016 1.016 .2 units per acre Open Space (OS) 1,062.374 1,054.452 .025 units per acre Open Space -Agriculture (OS -A) 0.000 7.922 .2 units per acre Public/Institutional (PI) 11.441 11.441 Floor Area Ratio: .5 Urban Residential 2 (UR2) 615.573 615.573 5 units per acre Urban Residential 3 (UR3) 20.642 20.642 11 units per acre Urban Residential 4 (UR4) 57.671 57.671 18 units per acre Urban Residential 5 (UR5) 16.827 16.827 30 units per acre Total: 1,785.544 (1,786 rounded) 1,785.544 (1,786 rounded) *The General Plan and Prezone acreage includes streets, public rights -of -way, and easements. These numbers are based on the City's mapping data. There may be slight differences in the numbers when the legal description/boundary map is formally defined by a licensed surveyor as part of the annexation application to the Local Agency Formation Commission. Any differences would be minor and insignificant. A map of the proposed General Plan land use designations is attached as Exhibit A to the General Plan Amendment Resolution (Attachment b). The proposed Prezone map is attached as Exhibit A to the Prezone Ordinance (Attachment c). A vicinity map showing the proposed annexation area is attached as Exhibit A to the LAFCO Resolution (Attachment d). A General Plan Amendment exhibit (Attachment f) and a current Los Angeles County zoning map (Attachment g) are also attached to the report. General Plan Consistency The proposed project is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan: Page 4 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 1,054 acres as Open Space, including natural areas that would not be available for future development. The project would also assign appropriate prezone designations to the project area that are consistent with existing development, as well as future entitlements. Upon approval of the project, the land use and prezone designations for the annexation area would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL An Initial Study was prepared for the project. The Initial Study determined the proposed General Plan Amendment and Prezone could not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review and comment from September 10 to October 1, 2019. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians was contacted for consultation in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52. AB 52 consultation concluded on September 4, 2019. Consultation under Senate Bill (SB) 18 is also required because of the proposed General Plan Amendment. Applicable tribes were contacted on September 5, 2019, and given an opportunity to consult and comment. The comment period closed on October 24, 2019, and the City received no comments or requests for consultation. NOTWING All noticing requirements required by law have been completed. Required noticing consisted of a one -eighth page legal advertisement in The Signal newspaper on October 22, 2019. In addition to the required legal notice, two signs were posted at the entrance to the Tesoro del Valle community off Copper Hill Drive. Staff has received two letters in support of the annexation: one from the Tesoro del Valle Homeowners' Association and another from Newport Pacific Land Company. Those letters are attached. �T TMMARY The General Plan Amendment and Prezone proposed as part of the Tesoro del Valle Annexation would apply appropriate City land use prezone designations to the project area that reflect existing and approved development and that are consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project does not include any development and would not change the physical characteristics of the annexation area. Upon annexation, the City would provide services to the project area, and would assume ownership and maintenance of the trails within the annexation area. Page 5 ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT Annexation of the Tesoro del Valle area would generate a neutral/no-net fiscal impact to the City of Santa Clarita. ATTACHMENTS Public Hearing Notice Resolution - CEQA and General Plan Amendment with attached Exhibit A Ordinance - Prezone with attached Exhibit A Resolution - LAFCO with attached Exhibit A Existing City Tesoro del Valle Annexation OVOV General Plan Land Use Designations Tesoro del Valle Annexation General Plan Amendment Exhibit Existing Tesoro del Valle Annexation Los Angeles County Zoning Designations Letters of Support Draft Negative Declaraiton and Initial Study Page 6 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment and Prezone for the Tesoro del Valle Annexation Area APPLICATION: Master Case No. MC 19-115: General Plan Amendment 19-002 and Prezone 19-001 PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita PROJECT LOCATION: The project area is known as the Tesoro del Valle community and is located generally north of Copper Hill Drive and west of San Francisquito Canyon Road. The annexation area is located in unincorporated Los Angeles County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Santa Clarita proposes to annex approximately 1,786 acres in the vicinity of the Tesoro del Valle community. The project includes a General Plan Amendment and Prezone request that would apply City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area. The proposed land use designations would be consistent with both the existing and entitled development in the project area. These designations and approximate acreages include: Non -Urban Residential 3 (one acre), Open Space (1,062.4 acres), Public/Institutional (11.4 acres), Urban Residential 2 (615.6 acres), Urban Residential 3 (20.6 acres), Urban Residential 4 (57.7 acres), and Urban Residential 5 (16.9 acres). No development is proposed in conjunction with the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, or Prezone. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On October 1, 2019, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the City Council certify the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and approve Master Case No. 19-115 and its associated General Plan Amendment and Prezone. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project and was posted for public review from September 10, 2019 to October 1, 2019. A copy of the Negative Declaration and all supporting documents are available at the City Clerk's Office, located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date DATE: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 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-clarita.com/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Ben Jarvis, Associate Planner, bjarvis@santa- clarita.com. Mary Cusick, City Clerk Published: The Signal, October 22, 2019 RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT, AND APPROVE MASTER CASE NO. 19- 115 CONSISTING OF ANNEXATION 19-001, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002, AND PREZONE 19-001 (ADOPTED BY SEPARATE ORDINANCE), TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,786 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, NORTH OF COPPER HILL DRIVE, WEST OF SAN FRANCISQUITO CANYON ROAD, SOUTH OF THE ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST, AND EAST OF THE COMMUNITY OF WEST HILLS IN UNINCORPORATED LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: A. In May 2019, at the request of the Tesoro del Valle Homeowners Association and residents, property owners in the Tesoro del Valle community were surveyed to determine the overall level of support for annexation into the City of Santa Clarita (City). Of the 1,133 property owners who were surveyed, approximately 17 percent (185 individuals) responded. Of those, 86 percent indicated they would support annexation, 8 percent would not support annexation, and 6 percent indicated a need for additional information. B. Given the strong support for annexation, on June 25, 2019, the City began the preliminary work necessary prior to the City Council initiating annexation proceedings, which included Master Case No. 19-115, consisting of Annexation 19- 001, General Plan Amendment 19-002, and Prezone 19-001, to designate, or re- designate, the approximate 1,786-acre project area with appropriate land use designations based on existing neighborhoods and entitled development. The proposed General Plan land use designations are found in Exhibit A to this resolution C. The project area is known as the Tesoro del Valle Annexation area and includes the unincorporated Los Angeles County area generally north of Copper Hill Drive, west of San Francisquito Canyon Road, south of the Angeles National Forest, and east of the West Hills community. D. The project area consists of approximately 1,786 acres of land contiguous to the corporate limits of the City, as shown in Exhibit A. E. The project area contains developed and undeveloped land. The Tesoro del Valle portion of the project area would include an estimated total of 1,897 residential units (1,077 built residences and 820 unconstructed residences). While other parcels in the project area may have Los Angeles County entitlements and/or development potential, no development activity will be entitled as a part of the project. F. Current Los Angeles County zoning designations for the project area include Heavy Agriculture (A-2-2), Open Space (OS), Single -Family Residence (R1), Limited Density Multiple Residence (R-3 and R-3-24U-DP), and Residential Planned Development (RPD-12000-3.7U, RPD20000-2.8U, RPD-5000-27U, and RPD 5000- 2U). G. Land uses surrounding the annexation area include the developed community of Valencia on the south, east, and west (West Hills), consisting of built neighborhoods, commercial shopping centers, and Rio Norte Junior High School. The Los Angeles County Pitchess Detention Center is located to the southwest of the project area, undeveloped land is located to the north (Angeles National Forest), and rural/non- urban areas are located immediately to the east (San Francisquito Canyon). The annexation area is traversed by a Metropolitan Water District aqueduct, a Southern California Edison electrical transmission corridor, and also includes Tesoro del Valle Elementary School and the Tesoro Adobe Historic Park. H. The project area is located within the City's Sphere of Influence and carries the following City General Plan land use designations: Non -Urban Residential (NU2), Non -Urban Residential 3 (NU3), Non -Urban Residential 4 (NU4), Public/Institutional (PI), Open Space (OS), Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 3 (UR3), Urban Residential 4 (UR4), and Urban Residential 5 (UR5). I. The City's existing General Plan land use designations are generally consistent with the built portions of the project area, but are not consistent with Los Angeles County - entitled unbuilt areas. Therefore, a General Plan Amendment is required in support of the proposed annexation. J. In 1999, Los Angeles County approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 51644 for 1,791 units, 6.2 acres of commercial use (40,000 square feet), a recreation center, an elementary school site, a National Register of Historic Places site (Tesoro Adobe Historic Park), bicycle/hiking/equestrian trails throughout the project area, a fire station site, water quality/retention basins, water tank sites, equestrian areas, and permanent open space. The original VTTM was amended several times, with the final map for Phase A (the initial phase of the Tesoro del Valle development) being approved in 2004 and generally completed by 2006. There are two residential lots located east of the primary Tesoro del Valle community that were included in the original approval but remain undeveloped. These lots, Lot 702 and Lot 703, can each accommodate a single-family home and are sometimes referred to as the "estate lots." 2 In November 2018, VTTM 51644-1 (Project No. 92074-(5)) was approved by Los Angeles County, which entitled 820 units contemplated in the original project, including 455 conventional single-family units and 365 age -restricted units. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the project included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (State Clearing House 42016101032). Should the annexation be approved, the provisions of the certified EIR and MMRP for the Tesoro del Valle project would be honored by the City, with the City assuming responsibility for implementing and enforcing the MMRP as approved by Los Angeles County. The 6.2 acres of commercial use were annexed with the West Creek/West Hills annexation in 2016. K. The proposed annexation boundary does not include any parcels that would be split between City and Los Angeles County jurisdiction. L. The City will work with Los Angeles County to determine the proportional and appropriate transfer of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations for the annexation area. M. On August 28, 2019, the City requested consultation with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The tribe responded to the City's request, and consultation under AB52 formally concluded on September 4, 2019. N. On September 5, 2019, the City invited applicable Native American tribes to consult on the project in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18. Tribal representatives were provided 45 days to respond. SB 18 tribal consultation, if any, must conclude prior to City Council approval. The deadline for tribal groups to comment on the proposed General Plan Amendment closed on October 24, 2019, with the City receiving no requests for consultation or comment. O. The environmental document prepared for the project, a Negative Declaration, has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and members of the public. The 21-day commenting period commenced on September 10, 2019, and ran through October 1, 2019. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was posted with the Los Angeles County Clerk. P. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on this issue at 6:00 p.m. on October 1, 2019, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. The Planning Commission considered the staff presentation, the staff report, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and public testimony on the proposal and, in a 5-0 vote, recommended the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approve Master Case No. 19-115, which consists of Annexation 19-001, General Plan Amendment 19-002, and Prezone 19- 001. Q. The City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing on this issue at 6:00 p.m. on November 12, 2019, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. The City Council considered the staff presentation, the staff report, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and public testimony on the proposal. R. Public participation and notification requirements, pursuant to Sections 65090, 65091, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California, were duly followed. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT FINDINGS. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study prepared for the project and finds and determines as follows: A. The City Council hereby finds the proposed Negative Declaration prepared in connection with Master Case No. 19-115 (Annexation 19-001, General Plan Amendment 19-002, and Prezone 19-001), has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Based on the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, including correspondence from the County of Los Angeles and other public agencies, there is substantial evidence the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration prepared for the project as included in the agenda packet for the November 12, 2019, City Council meeting. The Director of Community Development is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings in this matter. Copies of the proposed Negative Declaration and all documents referenced in the proposed Negative Declaration are available for review at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, during normal business hours. SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The proposed Tesoro del Valle annexation area (Annexation 19-001) is located within the City's Sphere of Influence. Upon approval of the project and its associated entitlements, General Plan Amendment 19-002 and Prezone 19-001 (to be adopted by separate ordinance), the project would be consistent with the General Plan. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this code; Tesoro del Valle annexation area is located in unincorporated Los Angeles County and does not carry City zoning designations. Should the City Council approve the Prezone associated with Master Case No. 19-115, and should the Tesoro del Valle Annexation be approved by the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation .19 Commission (LAFCO), the project area would carry the appropriate zoning designations that reflect existing and entitled development. As such, the land uses in the annexation area, both existing and planned, would be allowed within the proposed zoning designations and would comply with all applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code. C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and The proposed General Plan Amendment and Prezone associated with Master Case No. 19-115 in support of the Tesoro del Valle Annexation do not include any development and would not change the physical characteristics of the project area. The annexation, should it ultimately be approved by LAFCO, would change the jurisdictional boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, bringing the annexation area into City limits. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Prezone associated with the project have no potential to endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to persons or property either in the annexation area or the surrounding vicinity because no development is proposed and there would be no physical change to the project site. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; ii. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of suff cient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; iii. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sherds protection, etc) are readily available; and iv. The provision of utilities (e.g. potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Prezone associated with the project would not change the physical characteristics of the project site or change its development potential. The project involves amending the General Plan to reflect existing and entitled development in the project area and a required Prezone (to be adopted by separate Ordinance) that is necessary prior to the annexation being considered by LAFCO. The proposed land use and zoning designations would reflect the existing and planned operating characteristics of the annexation area. As such, the project would not impact streets or highways, public protection services, or the provision of utilities. SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposed General Plan amendment meets all of the findings per Section 17.06.130 (Findings and Decision); As explained in Section 3 above, General Plan Amendment 19-002 meets all of the applicable findings per Section 17.06.130 (Findings and Decision) of the Unified Development Code. B. Properties which benefit from increased density or intensity ofdevelopment resulting from the General Plan amendment shall fully mitigate their increased sewer impact at the time that development occurs on the properties; and This finding does not apply to the project. The proposed General Plan Amendment is being made in conjunction with the Tesoro del Valle Annexation. Land use designations are proposed to be applied to the annexation area that reflect existing built neighborhoods and unbuilt entitled development approved by Los Angeles County. General Plan Amendment 19-002 would not increase density or development potential beyond that which is already approved and analyzed. C. In addition, the Council shall make at least one (1) of the following findings: i. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with other elements of the City's General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5. ii. The proposed General Plan amendment, if applicable, responds to changes in the State and/or Federal law pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.9. iii. The proposed General Plan amendment has been referred to the County ofLos Angeles and any adjacent cities abutting or affected by the proposed action, the Local Agency Formation Committee (LAFCO), and any Federal agency whose operation or lands may be affected by the proposed decision pursuant to Government Code Section 65352. The proposed General Plan Amendment 19-002 is part of Master Case No.19-115, which pertains to the proposed Tesoro del Valle Annexation area. Upon approval by the City Council, and if so directed, staff will prepare the necessary application materials to submit to LAFCO. Los Angeles County officials were also consulted on the project and the annexation boundary. Therefore, the City can satisfy finding Ciii m above. Exhibit A provides a map of the proposed General Plan land use designations. SECTION 5. PREZONE 19-001. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council finds as follows: A. Prezone 19-001, which is a part of the project and is associated with the Tesoro del Valle Annexation, shall be adopted by separate ordinance. SECTION 6. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council find as follows: A. The current land uses in the project area are consistent with the City's General Plan. The project would assign residential, open space, and public/institutional land use and prezoning designations to the unincorporated territory that are consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the project is consistent with the following 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 General Plan Amendment 19- 002 would designate and prezone 1,062 acres as open space, including areas that would not be available for future development. Through Prezone 19-001, an entitlement that will be adopted by separate ordinance, the project would assign appropriate prezone designations to the project area that are consistent with existing development as well as future entitlements. B. No Sphere of Influence Amendment is necessary; and C. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the Public Hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan. SECTION 7. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approves Master Case No. 19-115, consisting of Annexation 19-001, General Plan 7 Amendment 19-002, and Prezone 19-001 (to be adopted by separate ordinance) as described in Sections 3 through 6 above. SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 121h day of November, 2019. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 19- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 121h day of November, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: CITY CLERK ",'SANTA CLARFEA Tesoro Del Valle Annexation Proposed General Plan ®. T—ra Ph— 2 00—dary Open Space 7—t 5—dar� O-NF R-d C-tli- #03111) 0S Tr.t gat L— OS-BLM Parxd Cudi— Speck Plan EM W.W, W. poi NL SP; S P amw 0auarvdery Rural Residential Prap—d 7,.— Na Wfle Anne ft- NUVRRI C.05 dula NU2JRR2 0.1 d.j. Tesoro General Plan NU3/RR3 - 0.2 W. Mixed Use NU4/RR4 = 0.5 duia Mx c NU5/PRS = 1.0 du,a MX-N Urban Residential Commercial U I 2A d"a R2 5A d1ja oc UR3 = 11.0 db/. crq UM URI eac. 15d0 d.). SCR UR5 rcmn.. is.o dw. - 30.0 Industrial Other PT rc - rranspaftalm Carrldm N A 0 500 1,000 2,000 The City US Feet th. — —y ofth. dm. ..d no obifty for .,y — ., ... Q: WROJECTMC D k I 90812fl \Ta.... A,,—n-\T— E Code Acres NU3 0S 1.016 1062.374 Pi 11.441 UR2 615,573 UR3 20.642 UR4 57.671 URS 16.827 Total: 1785.544 ORDINANCE NO. 19- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PREZONE 19-001 (MASTER CASE NO. 19-115) FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE TESORO DEL VALLE ANNEXATION AREA, AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: A. In May 2019, at the request of the Tesoro del Valle Homeowners Association and residents, property owners in the Tesoro del Valle community were surveyed to determine the overall level of support for annexation into the City of Santa Clarita (City). Of the 1,133 property owners who were surveyed, approximately 17 percent (185 individuals) responded. Of those, 86 percent indicated they would support annexation, 8 percent would not support annexation, and 6 percent indicated a need for additional information. B. Given the overwhelming support for annexation, on June 25, 2019, the City began the preliminary work necessary prior to the City Council initiating annexation proceedings, which included Master Case No. 19-115, consisting of Annexation 19- 001, General Plan Amendment 19-002, and Prezone 19-001, to designate, or re- designate, the approximate 1,786-acre project area with appropriate designations that would be activated upon annexation. The proposed General Plan land use designations are found in Exhibit A to this ordinance. C. The project area is known as the Tesoro del Valle Annexation area and includes the unincorporated Los Angeles County area generally north of Copper Hill Drive, west of San Francisquito Canyon Road, south of the Angeles National Forest, and east of the West Hills community. D. The project area consists of approximately 1,786 acres of land contiguous to the corporate limits of the City, as shown in Exhibit A. E. The project area contains developed and undeveloped land. The Tesoro del Valle portion of the project area would include an estimated total of 1,897 residential units (1,077 built residences and 820 unconstructed residences). While other parcels in the project area may have Los Angeles County entitlements and/or development potential, no development activity will be entitled as a part of the project. F. Land uses surrounding the annexation area include the developed community of Valencia on the south, east, and west (West Hills), consisting of built neighborhoods, commercial shopping centers, and Rio Norte Junior High School. The Los Angeles County Pitchess Detention Center is located to the southwest of the project area, undeveloped land is located to the north (Angeles National Forest), and rural/non- urban areas are located immediately to the east (San Francisquito Canyon). The annexation area is traversed by a Metropolitan Water District aqueduct, a Southern California Edison electrical transmission corridor, and also includes Tesoro del Valle Elementary School and the Tesoro Adobe Historic Park. G. The project area is located within the City's Sphere of Influence and carries the following City General Plan land use designations: Non -Urban Residential (NU2), Non -Urban Residential 3 (NU3), Non -Urban Residential 4 (NU4), Public/Institutional (PI), Open Space (OS), Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 3 (UR3), Urban Residential 4 (UR4), and Urban Residential 5 (UR5). H. The City's existing General Plan land use designations are generally consistent with the built -portions of the project area but are not consistent with Los Angeles County - entitled unbuilt areas. Therefore, a General Plan Amendment is required in support of the proposed annexation. L In 1999, Los Angeles County approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 51644 for 1,791 units, 6.2 acres of commercial use (40,000 square feet), a recreation center, an elementary school site, a National Register of Historic Places site (Tesoro Adobe Historic Park), bicycle/hiking/equestrian trails throughout the project area, a fire station site, water quality/retention basins, water tank sites, equestrian areas, and permanent open space. The original VTTM was amended several times, with the final map for Phase A (the initial phase of the Tesoro del Valle development) being approved in 2004 and generally completed by 2006. There are two residential lots located east of the primary Tesoro del Valle community that were included in the original approval but remain undeveloped. These lots, Lot 702 and Lot 703, can each accommodate a single-family home and are sometimes referred to as the "estate lots." In November 2018, VTTM 51644-1 (Project No. 92074-(5)) was approved by Los Angeles County, which entitled 820 units contemplated in the original project, including 455 conventional single-family units and 365 age -restricted units. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the project included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (State Clearing House 42016101032). Should the annexation be approved, the provisions of the certified EIR and MMRP for the Tesoro del Valle project would be honored by the City, with the City assuming responsibility for implementing and enforcing the MMRP as approved by Los Angeles County. The 6.2 acres of commercial use were annexed with the West Creek/West Hills annexation in 2016. J. The proposed annexation boundary does not include any parcels that would be split between City and Los Angeles County jurisdiction. K. The City will work with Los Angeles County to determine the proportional and 2 appropriate transfer of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations for the annexation area. L. On August 28, 2019, the City requested consultation with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The tribe responded to the City's request, and consultation under AB52 formally concluded on September 4, 2019. M. On September 5, 2019, the City invited applicable Native American tribes to consult on the project in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18. Tribal representatives were provided 45 days to respond. SB 18 tribal consultation, if any, must conclude prior to City Council approval. The deadline for tribal groups to comment on the proposed General Plan Amendment closed on October 24, 2019, with the City receiving no requests for consultation or comment. N. The environmental document prepared for the project, a Negative Declaration, has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and members of the public. The 21-day commenting period commenced on September 10, 2019, and ran through October 1, 2019. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was posted with the Los Angeles County Clerk. O. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on this issue at 6:00 p.m. on October 1, 2019, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. The Planning Commission considered the staff presentation, the staff report, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and public testimony on the proposal and, in a 5-0 vote, recommended the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approve Master Case No. 19-115, which consists of Annexation 19-001, General Plan Amendment 19-002, and Prezone 19- 001. P. The City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing on this issue at 6:00 p.m. on November 12, 2019, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. The City Council considered the staff presentation, the staff report, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and public testimony on the proposal. Q. At the regular meeting on November 12, 2019, the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approved Master Case No. 19-115 and its associated entitlements. R. Public participation and notification requirements, pursuant to Sections 65090, 65091, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California, were duly followed. 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 1,786-acre project area to include: 1.016 acre Non -Urban Residential 3 (NU3), 1,054.452 acres Open Space (OS), 7.922 acres Open Space -Agriculture (OS -A), 11.441 acres Public/Institutional (PI), 615.573 acres Urban Residential 2 (UR2), 20.642 acres Urban Residential 3 (UR3), 57.671 acres Urban Residential 4 (UR4), and 16.827 acres Urban Residential 5 (UR5). B. Prezone 19-001 has been reviewed for consistency with the City's proposed General Plan Amendment 19-002. C. Public participation and notification requirements, pursuant to Sections 65090, 65091, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California, were duly followed. SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR PREZONE 19-001. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council finds as follows: A. Principles and Standards for Zone Changes. The Council shall approve a zone change only after the applicant substantiates all of the following required findings That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning map as it pertains to the area under consideration; and The proposed Prezone 19-001 is warranted because prezoning of unincorporated territory is required under Section 56375(a)(7) of the Government Code prior to Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) taking action on an annexation. ii. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within such area; and The Tesoro del Valle annexation area is located outside the jurisdictional boundary of the City and does not carry City zoning designations. As part of the annexation process, the City must prezone the unincorporated territory prior to submitting an annexation application to LAFCO; therefore, the need exists to apply City zoning designations to the annexation area by means of a Prezone entitlement. A prezone is considered a zone change under Unified Development Code Section 17.28.120(A). The proposed prezoning designations are consistent with existing and entitled development in the annexation area and are also consistent with the General Plan Amendment that is proposed as part of the project. iii. That the particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone classification within such area: .19 a. That placement of the proposed zone at such location will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and inconformity with good zoning practice; and b. That the proposed zone change is consistent with the adopted General Plan for the area unless a General Plan amendment is filed concurrently and approved with said zone change. The proposed designations under Prezone 19-001 are appropriate for the annexation area because the prezone designations reflect the established residential neighborhoods, parks, Tesoro del Valle Elementary School, and open space. The designations also reflect the entitled unbuilt development in the Tesoro del Valle community contemplated under VTTM 51644-1. The proposed zoning designations constitute good zoning practice because they reflect the existing and entitled future development. The prezone designations are also consistent with General Plan Amendment 19-002, which is part of Master Case 19-115 and will be considered concurrently with Prezone 19-001 (Zone Change). SECTION 4. The City Council hereby adopts the ordinance approving Prezone 19-001 as described herein and shown on the 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 261h day of November, 2019. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 19- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 121h day of November, 2019. That thereafter, said ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 261h day of November 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. 19- and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806). CITY CLERK m .'ANTAC' nR7'3/e ^�- . Cade Acres Ae.�QrQ DE'�'1'@a�"�L1�'YEfUt1f.')C'r'�tiQ11 E�.hi1g� .Ji}4'7"N,/� NU3 1.016 0S 1054.4! Tcsarr phase Z B.hdc y //ie l 0../�L 7.922 '..:» RhJgehne 0-1.y Zn ©pen Space ,.. lllllll11111r Slgnmrlant E6IA.iik l Area 'D-fNF SOME, CDs --- Tract Buunda y No L -A ....... Ru.d C.,W,ne 05-OLM Tract it line Specific (Plan . P_,q 0mines V NL sPi sP Cm wate' ways Riurai Residential Saar. Chw,t. 13—dary NUIIRR1 = 0.05 du/. Preyaesdd Tesaro Del Vdlle Annex fi.. NU1RR2 = 0.1 dui. NU31RR.3 = 0.2, duf. '''... Tesoro Pre -Zoning NU4/RR4=0,5 dufa Mixed Use ML)5f RR5 = Ile dufa <+ Mx-C Urbana Residential ^. Mx..N " URI = 2.,0 duly ..........�. Commercial UR2=.a.0 du/. CC Em UR3 =: 11.0 dwFa CN UR4 =. — 18,0 dul. CR UR5 =min, 18,0 du/a - m-, 30,0 dWa i Indin0rial Other ...,. BP - PI- Pubk/Ihedaub... TC- Transp¢rha .' Coarldar N 0 500 1,000 2,000 The C ty of seat. U as does--nram the curacy of thad t das®umes— USFeet Viahllarty fanny error swans. Q APROJECTSyCD' 19GB12r1 V ..r. Avtw^xaCuan'1Te rn Ann—h—Mrx. ff�� wizi 1 UR3 1 20,.642 1 r r N fC tJ L N fcC G 0 fC X 4) i i Q 0 0 W 12 RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY KNOWN AS THE TESORO DEL VALLE ANNEXATION AREA TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA (MASTER CASE NO. 19-115) 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 1,786 acres of unincorporated Los Angeles County territory; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited, includes 1,077 existing units and at least 820 units that are entitled but not yet built, is estimated to have an ultimate population of 5,151 residents, and a boundary map of the annexation area is set forth in the attached Exhibit A and is by this reference incorporated; and WHEREAS, the short form designation of the proposal is Annexation 19-001 (Master Case No. 19-115), which includes the area known as the Tesoro del Valle Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council, in their regular meeting on November 12, 2019, adopted the Negative Declaration prepared for the project (Master Case No. 19-115); and WHEREAS, in May 2019, the City conducted an annexation survey of 1,133 property owners in the Tesoro del Valle community, with the results of the survey showing 86 percent of the respondents supported annexation, 8 percent did not support annexation, and 6 percent requested more information; and WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation are to create a logical extension of City boundaries, to respond to the property owners' request for local representation, to promote the efficient provision of municipal services in the affected territory, to bring established neighborhoods, future development areas, open space, and public facilities into the City's jurisdiction, 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 herby determine and find as follows: 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 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 3. 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 4. 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 121h day of November, 2019. ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE 2 MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 19- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 121h day of November, 2019, by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: CITY CLERK }} r I t " 1 I ` I 3�4 x Sk51 SAN P RAHMVPIVAII"M OPIEN SPACE I FEW r�� 4uf�•�R L �2 - � A c� 3^, 1r � ,y 40iy r �` ��¢' Ww+ Y I: G~h A'✓ (" O¢19O � !{jI �t�tA � WIC Pi r• � cP � ,i( V I .�i� ,t�?g, mac= pP- 'P 7 �'P ...� r/"� ,G I it � ✓`...:. ;. ,�, , P,, '�O �.�(C' .,,o - GilCj.SAN TA CLARtTA t Tesoro del Valle x I Annexation Boundary r'--,.- �� a ` rr g1 � Vicinity Map Tesoro del Valle Annexations Boundary ] xE u�N SU aN , City -owned 1,000 Soo 0 1,000 Feet Property e Parcel Outlines Parcel data. Copyright August 2019, 2 l ParcelQuest & County of Los Angeles: City of Santa All rights reserved. Clarita Boundary The city of Santa Clarita does not warrant City of Santa the accuracy cf the data and assumes no liahjllty for — —"1-- any errors or omissions �:�� Clarita Sphere of Influence Q:IPR0JECTS1CMl90903f11rrttdUiuscro_annex_vicinity.rrxd 11 September 131", 2019 Mr. Ben Jarvis Associate Planner, Community Development Dept. City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA. 91355-2196 Re: Annexation 19-001- Tesoro del Valle Community October 1, 2019 Planning Commission Dear Mr. Jarvis, We are in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration. On behalf of the Tesoro Del Valle Master Homeowners Association, representing 1077 existing homes in this proposed annexation area, we support the proposed actions to be considered by the Santa Clarita Planning Commission on October 1, 2019, including the associated General Plan Amendment, the Prezone designation, and the filing of an application with LAFCO. We appreciate the courtesy shown by the City by posting the hearing notices in our community and by engaging with us to ensure that the annexation will be beneficial to the existing residents. Be assured of our continuing cooperation as the annexation process commences. Very truly yours, Richard Galway President of the Board of Directors, Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Association c/c Hunt Braly, Esq. IVA September 25, 2019 Ben Jarvis Associate Planner, Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 re Master Case No. 19-115, Annexation 19-001, General Plan Amendment 19-002 and Prezone 18-001 (Tesoro del Valle Community) Dear Mr. Jarvis, We have received the Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the action referenced above. On behalf of Newport Pacific Land Company, developer of The Highlands at Tesoro del Valle, we support the proposed actions to be considered by the Planning Commission on October 1, 2019, including the revised Prezone exhibit dated September 24, 2019. We have enjoyed working with the City's staff for the past four years and look forward to a continued cooperative relationship during the annexation process. Sincerely, Michael J S I finger cc: Hunt Braly 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 Telephone 949 945-2290 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MASTER CASE NO: Master Case 19-115 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Annexation 19-001, General Plan Amendment 1.9-002, and Prezone 19-001 APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Valencia, CA 91355 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Tesoro del Valle Annexation Area: generally north of Copper Hill Drive and west of San Francisquito Road DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: City of Santa Clarita proposes to annex approximately 1,786 acres of land and apply appropriate land use and zoning designations to the land. Proposed designations include NU3, OS, PI, UR2, UR3, UR4, and. UR5. No development is proposed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section '1.5070 of the California Environmental. Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section '15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached Jason Crawford, AICP PLANNING MANAGER Prepared by: Ben Jarvis Associate Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) Approved by: James Chow Senior Planner (Name/Title) Public Review Period From September 10, 2019 To October 1 2019 Public Notice Given On September 10, 2019 [X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: S:\CDVPLANNINCr DIVISION\CIJRREN'r\i2019\MC19-115 (PRZ and ANX 'resoroffrivironmentallnitial Study and MND\MC 19-115 Draft Negative Declaration.doc ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Project Title and Master Case Number: Lead Agency Name & Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Tesoro del Valle Annexation Master Case 19-115 Annexation 19-001, Prezone 19-001, and General Plan Amendment 19-002 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department (661) 255-4330 M Project Location: The project area is known as the Tesoro del Valle community and is located on the City of Santa Clarita's northern boundary, north of Copper Hill Drive, west of San Francisquito Canyon Road, and east of the West Creek/West Hills community. The annexation area is located in an unincorporated portion of Los Angeles County. Maps of the annexation area can be found in Figures 1-6. Applicant/Owner Name and Address: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 General Plan Designation: Existing Los Angeles County Designations Open Space Parks and Recreation (OS -PR), Open Space Water (OS-W), Residential 2 (H2), Residential 5 (H5), Residential 18 (H18), Residential 30 (H30), Rural Residential 2 (RU2), Rural Residential 5 (RU5), and Rural Residential 10 (RU10). Existing City of Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence Non -Urban Residential (NU2), Non -Urban Residential 3 (NU3), Non -Urban Residential 4 (NU4), Open Space (OS), Public/Institutional (PI), Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 3 (UR3), Urban Residential 4 (UR4), and Urban Residential 5 (UR5). Proposed City Land Use Designations Open Space (OS), Public/Institutional (PI), Non - Urban Residential 3 (NU3), Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 3 (UR3), Urban Residential 4 (UR4), and Urban Residential 5 (UR5). Zoning Designation(s): Existing Los Angeles County Zoning Heavy Agriculture (A-2-2), Open Space (OS), Single Family Residence (R1), Limited Density Multiple Residence (R-3 and R-3-24U-DP), and Residential Planned Development (RPD-12000- 3.7U, RPD 20000-2.8U, RPD-5000-27U, and RPD 5000-2U). See Figure 3 for a map of current zoning. Proposed Citv Land Use Designations Open Space (OS), Public/Institutional (PI), Non - Urban Residential 3 (NU3), Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 3 (UR3), Urban Residential 4 (UR4), and Urban Residential 5 (UR5). Proiect Setting/Existing Conditions: The proposed project consists of approximately 1,786 acres. Approximately 422 acres are currently developed with 1,077 units, an elementary school, and the 2.25-acre Tesoro Adobe Historic Park, which is operated by Los Angeles County. Based on information provided by Los Angeles County, Tesoro Adobe Historic Park is a registered State Historical Site and is also on the National Register of Historic Places. The developed area also includes private recreational amenities such as a community swimming pool, club house, private park, and public trails including the Cliffie Stone Trail, Tapia Canyon Trail, and the San Francisquito Trail. The proposed annexation area also includes approximately 1,363 acres of undeveloped land that was entitled by Los Angeles County under Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 51644-1. The County -approved project includes an additional 820 units that have not yet been built. While the proposed annexation area includes this County approval, the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone currently under review by the City of Santa Clarita, is not associated with the County approved project or the 820 unbuilt units. The project under review only pertains to the jurisdictional boundary change that would bring the Tesoro del Valle community, both the built and yet unbuilt areas, into the incorporated territory of the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed annexation area only contains residential uses, both existing and planned/approved. The annexation area does not contain any commercial centers or uses. Based on an analysis done in 2016, the existing Tesoro del Valle population is estimated to be 2,900 people. Future development would be expected to house an additional 2,251 residents, for a total of 5,151 people (Applied Economics, March 2016). Protect Description This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for an Annexation (ANX), General Plan Amendment (GPA), and Prezone (PZN) for the Tesoro del Valle community. The City of Santa Clarita proposes the annexation and pre -zoning of approximately 1,786 acres of land along the northern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, north of Copper Hill Drive and west of San Francisquito Canyon Road. The project would amend the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan and apply City land use and zoning designations that are consistent with the existing neighborhoods in the built portions of the Tesoro del Valle community, and also the 820 entitled units approved under VTTM 51644-1. The built and entitled portions of the Tesoro del Valle annexation area were developed, approved, and environmentally reviewed under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County in accordance with that agency's planning and land use policies. Upon completion of the annexation, the subject territory would be assigned land use designations consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City of Santa Clarita would then provide municipal services to the Tesoro del Valle community and the residents would officially reside within the jurisdictional boundary of the City. The project consists of the annexation of unincorporated territory to the City of Santa Clarita and the subsequent application of City land use and zoning designations to the currently unincorporated Los Angeles County territory (the vicinity of the Tesoro del Valle community). No development is proposed or will be aproved as part of this annexation project, nor would City land use and zoning designations change the development potential for the annexation area beyond what has already been aproved by Los Angeles County. Table 1 provides information on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Prezone land use designations: Table 1: Proposed City General Plan and Prezone Land Use Designations Proposed General Plan and Prezone Land Use Designation Acres* Dens=aycres) (per gross Non -Urban Residential 3 (NU3) 1.016 .2 units per acre Space OS 1,062.374 .025 units per acre -Open Public/Institutional (PI) 11.441 Floor Area Ratio:.5/1 Urban Residential 2 UR2 615.573 5 units per acre Urban Residential 3 (UR3) 20.642 11 units per acre Urban Residential 4 UR4 57.671 18 units per acre Urban Residential 5 (UR5) 16.827 30 units per acre Total: 1,785.544 (1,786, rounded) -- 'The General Plan and Prezone acreage includes streets, public rights -of -way, and easements. These numbers are based on the City's mapping data. There may be slight differences in the numberswhen the annexation area is formally defined by a licensed surveyor as part of the annexation application to the Local Agency Formation Commission. Any differences would be minor and insignificant. The required CEQA review for the Tesoro del Valle development was completed by Los Angeles County. All mitigation measures under the previously certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) would be accepted by the City upon annexation with no changes. The Mitigation Measures (MMs) for the Tesoro del Valle community are included in the SEIR, State Clearinghouse 42016101032. The SEIR analyzed impacts to the approved 820 units that would be built in the currently undeveloped portions of the annexation area. The existing homes were constructed consistent with the Los Angeles County development code in place at the time they were approved. According to date from the County Assessor's office, the construction of the existing neighborhoods occurred in the 2004/2005 timeframe. The 820 units that have yet to be built will likewise be developed in accordance with the approval granted by Los Angeles County. No new development beyond that which has already been approved, is proposed for the area. Maps on pages 5-10 summarize the regional and local context of the annexation area. Figure 1 provides a regional map of the proposed annexation area. Figure 2 shows the existing Los Angeles County zoning designations for the project area. Figure 3 provides the existing Santa Clarita General Plan land use designations for the annexation area, while Figure 4 depicts the proposed land use designations under the General Plan Amendments. Figure 5 shows the proposed Prezone designations, including overlay zones, and Figure 6 shows the boundary of the annexation area in relation to the Significant Ecological Area of San Francisquito Creek. Surrounding Land Uses: The Tesoro del Valle annexation area is located on the City of Santa Clarita's northern boundary. Surrounding land uses include the developed community of Valencia on the west, south, and east, consisting of built neighborhoods, commercial shopping centers, and Rio Norte Junior High School. The Los Angeles County Pitchess Detention Center is located to the southwest of the project area, and undeveloped land is located both to the north (Angeles National Forest) and also to the east (San Francisquito Creek). The annexation area is traversed by a Metropolitan Water District aqueduct and a Southern California Edison electrical transmission corridor. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Local Agency Formation Commission 80 South Lake Avenue 4870 Pasadena, CA 91101 4 Figure 1: Regional Map 0 It- U L c� G K Q L co 7E C m C 0 L M V d Z L d C 0 E .0 V m Q Figure 2: Existing Los Angeles County Zoning Designations 0 It- U L c� G K Q 0 L. O co 7E O L M V d Z L d E .0 V m Q Figure 3: Existing City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Designations Figure 4: Proposed City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Designations 0 It- U L c� G K Q L co 7E O L M V d Z L d E .0 V m Q Figure 5: Proposed City of Santa Clarita Prezone Designations ."SANIA CLARrIA Tesoro Del Valle Annexation Q Prezone TI— Ph— 2 1 Rii Camriny Zu. op.. sp.,. S19,10—T Eld.ijkd A- O.Nr spe lflc Plan T­ _at Ji,, V///// NIL 5P; 15P Pared O.M.. Rural Ri,dd.ntW am wint. W.Y, INUVRRI = 0.05 J,U. Santa Clarity Bawndary NU2/RR2 ro.1 du/a P,P..d Tesoro 0iI V.1i AnniaMatlron NIIIIII 11-1 dul. NUVRR4 0.5 Wi Tesoro Pre -Zoning NUSJRU - LO d.j. Mixed Use: Urban Residential mX -C URI 2.0 duly M­ UR2 5.0 di.,fa Commer6al JIM 11.0i dLJ/. cc UR - e.IB.0 dufa CN URS 18.0 duFa max. 30.0 6V. Ca Other Industrial PI- P,6l,01,,t,n�,na 3P Tic - r,—ptm., C­W 0 500 I,DDO 2,000 761. City of Senba amt. d-ii, US Feet QWOUEM1CD1,190812f1 ir,a A­rm­W­I. Code Acres NU3 1,016 IDS PI 1062.374 11.441 UR2 LIR3 61S.573 20.642 UR4 UR5 57.671 16,827 Total: 1785.544 9 Figure 6: Existing County of Los Angeles Significant Ecological Area 4 q"4N f BLq ClNpACN, `5A I.. j � c�,• � � rGh �� Sine �PTERAL• ... ,. _ 1� °ftx r v i � m r ,� !ij ,p tLINIII�,(f mrcuia ��� �' � � ,.s' it "t �c ,r1����'r'�Jl1i or °o rYV fl i�l� wf5 r F Y l .�"'. +ti�m mils , M'da 'M f� 2 in �Y Tesoro del aA CiLA�2lTA ., Ciq of r 1 � Ile Annexation o r Significant Ecological Area F Significant Ecological Area sx t i �s- City of Santa Clarita''` 1,000 500� 0 Feet •— Sphere of Influence , Parcel Outlines Parcel data Copyright August 2019, Tesoro del Valle Par celQuest & County of Los Angeles. Annexation All rights reserved. Boundary a g The Ciry or Santa Clarita does not warrant j o�.o+a„�°p�=�j.� City of Santa Clarita P ` w�E Bounda the accuracy oTthe data and assumes no m'o t a �etf 1 ry ability Tor any errors or omissions. City -owned Property 0.1PROJECTS1CD1190903f21mxd1tesoro annex sea.mxd 10 A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agricultural and Forestry [ ] Air Quality Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology/Soils [ ] Greenhouse Gas Emissions [ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology & Water Materials Quality [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Traffic & Transportation [ ] Tribal Cultural Resources [ ] Utilities & Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance B. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Ben rarivis, Asso iate Planner James w, Senior Planner Date —'-- ltel ff Date C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact L AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? El El M El b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but El El M El not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or El El M El quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that El El M El would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversation of ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? 12 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant 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 quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) 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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? El H In /1 ►_7 0 c) 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? d) Interfere substantially 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? 13 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 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, either on or off site? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact m 0 M tJ m 0 0 x m 0 m m 0 L. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ W m N ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 14 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), 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? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ indirectly, that may have 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? VIIL 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? 15 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential ❑ ❑ ® ❑ health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ® ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? 16 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? 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? f) 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) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and directions 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 with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 17 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and ❑ ❑ ❑ inefficient manner? XII. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ Necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? 18 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ii) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XV. RECREATION - Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ❑ parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVL 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? n 0 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 0 It- m tJ L 0 x m 0 0 Q m m 0 0 0 N 19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ❑ ❑ ® ❑ program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVIL TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project cause a change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in the Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or 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: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or b) 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 Section 5024.1 In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. XVIIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ ❑ ® ❑ water drainage facilities or expansion of existing 0 It- a� m tJ m 0 x m 0 0 Q m m 0 U- 0 0 N 20 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ® ❑ provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ® ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? XVIV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ❑ limited, but 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 21 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts L AESTHETICS I a. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Santa Clarita is located within Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susana Mountains to the southwest, and the mountains of the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests to the north. The surrounding natural mountains and rdgelines, some of which extend into the City, provide a visual backdrop for much of the urbanized area. Other scenic resources within or visible from the City include the Santa Clara River corridor, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons and natural drainages in portions of the City. The proposed project would not have a significant effect on aesthetics, scenic vistas, or other scenic resources because the project consists of a jurisdictional boundary change, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone, and is not associated with any development. The project area covers the Tesoro del Valle community which consists of approximately 1,783 acres of land under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The annexation area is partially developed with 1,077 units, an elementary school, and the Tesoro Adobe Historic Park, which is listed both as a state and national historic site. In addition to the existing development (1,077 residential units), an additional 820 units have been approved by Los Angeles County but are not yet built. New construction would be subject to the City's architectural design guidelines with the City honoring the approved tract map for the area (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51644-1). Given the project consists solely of a jurisdictional boundary change and the proposed zoning/land use designations would be consistent with the approved and existing development, and given the project proposes no new development beyond what has already been analyzed and approved by Los Angeles County, therefore, impacts related to scenic vistas are anticipated to be less than significant. I b. Less Than Significant Impact. The only roadway in Santa Clarita that is identified in the California Department of Transportation's State Scenic Highway program is Interstate 5 (I-5). The eligible segment of I-5 extends from the I-210 interchange to the State Route (SR) 126/Newhall Ranch Road interchange. SR-126 is also designated as an Eligible 22 State Scenic Highway from the City's boundary at Interstate 5 west to SR-150 in Ventura County. The proposed project is not located on I-5, SR-126, or any other designated scenic highway. The annexation area includes the Tesoro Adobe Historic Park, a Los Angeles County facility that is home to the Tesoro Adobe and the remnants of the Harry Carey Ranch. The Tesoro Adobe was constructed in 1916 and served as the farm house for Harry Carey and his wife, Olive. The site played an important role in the development of the western film industry in the Santa Clarita Valley and also operated as a tourist attraction in the early 1900s. The Carey family sold the ranch in the 1940s after which the ranch was used for cattle production until it was ultimately developed as the Tesoro del Valle community. The Tesoro Adobe Historic Park is listed as a State Historical Site and is also the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone is regulatory in nature and would not change the operations of, or access to, the Tesoro Adobe Historic Park. Furthermore, the project does not include any development, and would not create the opportunity for new development, beyond that which was previously analyzed and approved by Los Angeles County. Therefore, any impact to scenic resources, including historic buildings, would be less than significant. I c-d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the annexation of unincorporated land in Los Angeles County to the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Prezone would place land use and zoning designations on the annexation territory consistent with the existing and future development approved by Los Angeles County. As the project does not include any development and is not associated the approval of the existing and future development approved by Los Angeles County, the project would not degrade the visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding area, nor would the project create new sources of substantial light or glare. Any impact would be anticipated to be less than significant. IL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES II a. No Impact. Based on information from the California Department of Conservation, the annexation area is considered "Grazing Land" and "Other Land." There are no agricultural operations located within the proposed annexation area nor are there any areas 23 designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance as identified by the California Department of Conservation (Los Angeles Important Farmland July 2017). This information was verified on August 27, 2019. The area is developed with 1,077 residential units, public and private parks, an elementary school, and trails. An additional 820 residential units have also been approved by Los Angeles County as part of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 51644-1. Parcels not included in the tract map will either retain their current land use designation under the City's General Plan or be designated as open space. Given the annexation has no potential to convert existing farmland to non-agricultural use, the project would have no impact on farmlands. II b. No Impact. Santa Clarita does not have agricultural preserve areas. Further, there is no Williamson Act contract land within the City limits or the proposed annexation area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the zoning for agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts, and would have no related impacts: there would be no impact. II c. No Impact. The project includes an Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone that would result in a jurisdictional boundary change and City land use/zoning designations that would be consistent with the existing and approved development in the annexation area. The project site is not located in an area zoned as Open Space -National Forest nor does the project area contain any designated forestland, timberland, or areas zoned for timberland production. The project would increase the amount of Open Space designated lands and would not induce or promote development beyond that which has already occurred or has been approved by Los Angeles County. Therefore, the project would have no impact on forest or timberland resources. II d. No Impact. The proposed annexation area does not contain any forest land nor would the project result the conversion of forest land to non -forest uses. The project consists of an Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone that would result in a jurisdictional boundary change and the application of City land use/zoning designations that would be consistent with the existing and approved development. No development is proposed as part of the project. Therefore, there would be no impact. 24 II e. No Impact. The project does not have the potential to result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use because no such lands or resources exist in the annexation area; nor could the project result in the conversion of forest lands to non -forest use. The project consists of an Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone that would result in a jurisdictional boundary change and the application of City land use/zoning designations that would be consistent with the existing and future development approved by Los Angeles County. No development is proposed as part of the project. Therefore, there would be no impact. III. AIR QUALITY III a-b. Less Than Significant Impact. The annexation area and the City of Santa Clarita are both located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is generally bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east, and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the violations of the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifies region -wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for stationary -source polluters; facilitation of new transportation technologies, such as low -emission vehicles; and capital improvements, such as park -and -ride facilities and public transit improvements. The current adopted plan is the 2016 AQMP adopted on March 3, 2017. The 2017 AQMP is designed to meet the state and federal Clean Air Act planning requirements and focuses on new federal ozone and ultra -fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. The SCAQMD's AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, and to attain clean air within the region. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment, because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize 25 attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds. AQMPs utilize projections of population and transportation activity forecasted by SCAG in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). If the project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning, it has been assumed in the AQMP and therefore will not obstruct implementation of the AQMP. The project would annex approximately 1,786 acres to the City of Santa Clarita and apply applicable City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area that are consistent with the existing neighborhoods and County -approved future development. While no new development or grading is proposed with the proposed annexation, the County of Los Angeles has approved 820 additional units that could be constructed in the project area. Impacts of that potential future development were analyzed under the certified EIR that was prepared for the Tesoro del Valle community (SCH 42016101032). No development is included as part of the annexation and the proposed land use and zoning designations would not induce or facilitate additional development beyond that which has already been approved by Los Angeles County. The proposal to annex unincorporated territory and apply City land use and zoning designations that are consistent with the existing Tesoro del Valle neighborhoods and County -approved development, would not impact the implementation of SCAQMD's air quality plan or violate (directly or indirectly) any air quality standard. Furthermore, the proposed annexation would not substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impacts would be anticipated to be less than significant. III c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not directly result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. Given the project does not involve development and consists solely of a jurisdictional boundary change and the application of City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area, impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant are considered to be less than significant. III d. Less Than Significant Impact. Certain residents, such as the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities, are particularly 26 sensitive to air pollution and are considered sensitive receptors. In addition, active park users, such as participants in sporting events, are sensitive air pollutant receptors due to increased breathing rates. Land uses where sensitive air pollutant receptors congregate include schools, daycare centers, parks, recreational areas, medical facilities, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. The proposed project does not involve any construction or grading activities that would cause toxic substances such as oils, solvents, paints, or adhesives, to enter the atmosphere, and therefore, would not create an impact. The project would annex land in unincorporated Los Angeles County to the City of Santa Clarita and assign City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area. Development is not included in the project and the proposed land use/zoning designations would be consistent with the established neighborhoods and the County -approved development. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. III e. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is regulatory in nature, is not associated with a construction or grading project, and has no potential to produce odors. The annexation area is not known to contain uses or activities that would cause odors, such as agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, fiberglass molding firms, etc. Therefore, any impact would be anticipated to be less than significant. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES General Biological Resources Setting Impacts related to biological resources that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community, but 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 impacts to wildlife resource are anticipated to occur. IV a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not adversely affect, either directly or through habitat modifications, 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 27 Fish and Wildlife or the US Fish and Wildlife Service because the project does not involve construction or grading. The project consists of the annexation of unincorporated Los Angeles County territory to the City of Santa Clarita and the application of City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area that would be consistent with the existing Tesoro del Valle neighborhoods and County -approved development plans. As no development is proposed, and as the envisioned land use and zoning designations would be consistent with the existing and previously approved development, any impact is anticipated to be less than significant. IV b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project entails the annexation of approximately 1,786 acres of land to the City of Santa Clarita. No grading or new development is proposed. In addition to the existing Tesoro del Valle neighborhoods that contain 1,077 residential units, the County of Los Angeles has approved an additional 820 residential units that are not yet constructed. Those units were entitled, approved, and analyzed by County Los Angeles County. Aside from having a change of jurisdiction and access to the City services and programs, the existing and approved units would not be impacted by the proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone. The proposed project would not have any adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, the project would not interfere substantially or have significant impacts on 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. IV c. Less Than Significant Impact. 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 as a result of the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone; any impact would be less than significant. 28 IV d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, nor would the project interfere with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildfire nursery sites. The proposed project consists of an annexation of territory in unincorporated Los Angeles County to the City of Santa Clarita and the assignment of City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area. As no construction or change to the physical environment would occur in association with the proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone, therefore, any impact would be less than significant. IV e. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not adversely impact local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as an oak tree ordinance. Upon annexation, the project area would be subject to the City's Unified Development Code (UDC). Per Section 17.51.040 (Oak Tree Preservation) of the UDC, it is the City's policy to require the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees. Given the proposed project would not include any development and would annex territory and assign City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area without changing the physical environment, any impact is anticipated to be less than significant. IV f. No Impact. 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. As the project only pertains to annexation and the application of City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area, any impacts would be anticipated to be less than significant. IV g. Less Than Significant Impact. A portion of the project site contains a Significant Ecological Area as identified on Exhibit CO-5 (Significant Ecological Areas) of the City's General Plan Conservation Element. Specifically, the San Francisquito Creek is part of the Santa Clara River SEA. The project would designate the San Francisquito Creek area as Open Space. Open Space is the appropriate designation for the creek bed and SEA. As no development is proposed as part of the project, and given the SEA would be zoned Open Space in an effort to preserve the San Francisquito creek area, any impact is anticipated to be less than significant. 29 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES V a-d. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to cultural resources that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community, but 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. A portion of the annexation area is not yet developed but is approved for an additional 820 residential units. While these units would be constructed in the annexation area, they are not part of the annexation project and were previously analyzed and approved by Los Angeles County (VTTM 51644-1). The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would not significantly impact archeological resources pursuant to 15064.5. The proposal would not directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource or site, or a unique geologic feature. The proposed annexation would not impact the Tesoro Adobe Historic Park which is proposed to remain under the ownership of Los Angeles County and retain its status as a State Historic Site and listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone is subject to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, Local and Tribal Intergovernmental Consultation Law, including consultation with local Native American tribes identified by the California Native American Heritage Commission. The project is also subject to tribal consultation under Senate Bill (SB) 18. The applicable tribes have been contacted and invited to provide consultation on the project. Given that no development is proposed as part of the annexation and that applicable tribes were given the opportunity to consult on the project, any impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS VI a. Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California has numerous active and potentially active faults that could affect the City. As stated in the City's General Plan, the City is susceptible to geologic hazards in the event of a major earthquake (magnitude 8.3) along the San Andreas Fault. This could result in ground failure and liquefaction. The project does not include any construction or development. Therefore, any impact related to geology soils would expected to be less than significant. Impacts related to geology and soils that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle 30 community, but that are attributable to the proposed project, are considered to be less than significant. i) Less Than Significant Impact A search of the City's GIS mapping system confirmed the proposed annexation area is not located in an Alquist-Priolo zone. As the proposed annexation does not include development or changes to the physical environment, any impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. ii) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project consists of an annexation of the Tesoro del Valle neighborhood to the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is proposed with the General Plan Amendment and Prezone application. The Santa Clarita Valley is subject to periodic shaking due to its location near major fault lines in Southern California. The proposed annexation would not subject residents to an increased risk of loss or injury due to strong ground shaking because the annexation does not include development and would not change the physical geography of the annexation area. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. iii) Less Than Significant Impact Portions of the annexation are located in a seismic zone as shown on the City of Santa Clarita's Mapping Your City website. The proposed annexation would not increase the risk of seismic -related ground failure or liquefaction because annexation does not include any development and would not change the physical geography of the annexation area. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. iv) Less Than Significant Impact The annexation area contains hilly terrain that may present risks of landslides during a seismic event. Regardless, the proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would not expose people or structures to these potential risks because no development is proposed, there would be no change to the existing geography and topography of the land, and no additional development would be induced by the jurisdictional change from County to City or the application of appropriate City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area. Any impact would be less than significant. 31 VI b. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project consists of an annexation of the Tesoro del Valle neighborhood to the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is proposed with the General Plan Amendment and Prezone application. Development may occur in the near future as part of the County approval of 820 additional units; however, that development is not governed by, or part of, the annexation project. The existing and future development of the Tesoro del Valle area was reviewed and approved by Los Angeles County. The annexation itself would not result in soil erosion or the loss of top soil because no physical change to the annexation area is proposed as part of the project. Any impact would be less than significant. VI c. Less Than Significant Impact As stated in Section VIb above, no development or change to the physical topography is proposed as part of the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone application. Therefore, there would be no potential to disturb a geologic unit, unstable soil, and increase of on -site or off -site landslides as a result of the project. Any impact would be less than significant. VI d. Less Than Significant Impact As stated in Sections Vlb and VIc above, no development or change to the physical topography is proposed as part of the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone application. Therefore, there would be no potential for the project to increase risks in terms of locating people/life or buildings/property on expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. Any impact would be less than significant. VI e. No Impact As stated in Sections VIb, VIc, and VId above, no development or change to the physical topography is proposed as part of the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone application. As such the annexation would not create a need for new septic tanks or wastewater disposal, and therefore, could not have an impact in terms of incapable or adequate soils for septic and wastewater disposal. Therefore, there would be no impact. VI f-i. Less Than Significant Impact As stated in the sections above, no development or change to the physical topography is proposed as part of the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone application. Therefore, there would be no potential for change in topography or ground surface relief features, earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more, or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade. 32 Portions of the Tesoro del Valle community are already built and development previously approved by Los Angeles County would be able to move forward. The General Plan Amendment and Prezone would apply City land use and zoning designations that are consistent with the built environment and County -approved project; however, the proposed in itself would not have any impact on the topography and existing characteristics of the annexation area. Any impact would be less than significant. VIL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS VII a-b. Less Than Significant Impact. 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). No development is proposed as part of the project. The annexation area contains established neighborhoods and 820 future dwelling units that were analyzed and approved by the County of Los Angeles, consistent with the County's Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan. Once annexed, the City would include the Tesoro del Valle area in the next CAP update. Given the Tesoro del Valle community was analyzed by the County and no development is proposed as part of the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone, the project would not conflict with any applicable plans or policies adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. Any impact would be less than significant. VIIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VIII a. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community, but that are attributable to the proposed project, are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would not store, use, or generate hazardous materials, and would not utilize any acutely hazardous materials. No new development is proposed within the project area as a part of the General Plan Amendment and Prezone. The prezone reflects the existing and approved land entitlements issued by the County of Los Angeles and are residential in nature. The proj ect would not create a 33 significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. VIII b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not consist of any development or change to the physical environment. The project would annex unincorporated Los Angeles County territory to the City of Santa Clarita and assign City zoning and land use designations consistent with the built neighborhoods and the future County -approved development. Given the project is jurisdictional in nature and no changes will occur to the existing environment due to the Annexation, Prezone, and General Plan Amendment, the project would not create a significant hazard involving conditions relating to explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation. VIII c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The project proposes to annex approximately 1,786 acres to the City of Santa Clarita and apply City General Plan and zoning designations to the territory. Tesoro del Valle Elementary school is located within the annexation area. Rio North Junior High is located 700' south of the project area on Rio Norte Drive. West Creek Academy is located a half mile west of the annexation area on West Hills Drive. As the annexation has no potential for the use or emission of hazardous substances, any impact to nearby schools would be less than significant. VIII d. No Impact. The annexation area does not include any sites identified as concerns pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (California Department of Toxic Substance Control's EnviroStor database(hgps://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov). This information was verified on August 28, 2019. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. There would be no impact. VIII a-f. No Impact. The annexation area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or private airport. Therefore, there would be no impact. VIII g. No Impact. No new development is proposed with this project. The proposal would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, 34 an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposal involves annexing unincorporated Los Angeles County territory to the City of Santa Clarita and assigning City land use and zoning designations to the land. As no development is proposed, therefore, there would be no impact. VIII It. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed annexation does not include development and would not increase the potential for development. Therefore, the project 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 annex territory from unincorporated Los Angeles County to the City of Santa Clarita and apply City land use and zoning designations to the land. There would be no change to the existing topography, built neighborhoods, and future County -approved entitlements. As no development is proposed as part of the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone, any impact would be less than significant. VIII i. Less Than Significant Impact. No new development is proposed with the project and no changes would be made to the existing terrain or neighborhoods. Nothing about the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would be expected to expose people to existing health hazards like transmission lines, gas lines, or oil pipelines. The proposal involves annexing unincorporated Los Angeles County territory to the City of Santa Clarita and assigning City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IX a-b. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community, but 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. 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 35 existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). IX c. Less Than Significant Impact. 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. IX d. Less Than Significant Impact. 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. IX e-f. Less Than Significant Impact. 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. Furthermore, nothing in the proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would be expected to otherwise substantially degrade water quality. No further environmental review is necessary as there would be no impact. IX g-h. No Impact. 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, 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 is jurisdictional in nature and involves annexing unincorporated Los Angeles County territory to the City of Santa Clarita and assigning City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area. As no development is associated with the project, there would be no impact. IX i-j. No Impact. 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. Risks due to seiche are 36 low given no large lakes or water bodies exist in the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact. IX k-1. Less Than Significant Impact. No new development is associated with this Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone rezone application. No changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and/or groundwater would occur. As no modification of a wash, channel creek or river is proposed as part of this project, there would be no impact. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to Stormwater Management because the project consists of no new development. Upon annexation, property owners would 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 the potential neighborhood flooding. The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would not result in a significant impact related to hydrology and water quality. Any impact would be less than significant and no further environmental review is necessary. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING X a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the annexation of the Tesoro del Valle community to the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is proposed within the annexation area. The proposed land use and prezone designations reflect the existing neighborhoods and County -approved entitlements. As no changes to the existing terrain and neighborhoods are proposed, the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would not disrupt or physically divide the established community. Any impact would be less than significant. X b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex approximately 1,786 acres to the City of Santa Clarita. The General Plan Amendment and Prezone associated with the project would assign City land use policy and zoning designations to the annexation area which would be consistent with the existing neighborhoods and entitled future development. No development or physical changes to the environment are proposed or associated with the project. 37 Portions of the annexation area are overlain by existing Community Standards Districts (CSDs) that were established by Los Angeles County. Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 3244-163- 002 is located in the San Francisquito Canyon Community Standards District (SFCCSD). Another strip of unspecified land is also in the SFCCSD in the vicinity of the 28000 block of San Francisquito Canyon Road, west of the roadway. This land appears to be public right-of-way. Large portions of the Tesoro del Valle community, both existing and entitled future development, are located in the Castaic Canyons Community Standards District (CCCSD). Upon annexation, these areas would no longer be subject to County development standards. No impact to these properties is anticipated in terms of conflict with land use plans or policies because the project would not change the characteristics of the existing development and would honor all County entitlements. The development potential for APN 3244-163-002 (SFCCSD) would not change and the property would continue to be considered rural residential land. The right-of-way located west of San Francisquito Road which is also in the SFCCSD, has no development potential and would continue to be used for public purposes. The developed portions of the Tesoro del Valle community would not be affected, and the City would honor the entitlements issued for the unbuilt portion of the site. As these entitlements were issued by the County of Los Angels, it is assumed the approvals were made consistent with the development standards for the CCCSD. As no development is proposed by the project, as the City would honor existing entitlements granted by Los Angeles County, and as characteristics of the existing and planned development would not be affected by the proposed jurisdictional boundary change, upon approval of the project, the project's City land use and zoning designations would reflect the built and entitled portions of the annexation area. Therefore, the proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would not be anticipated to create a significant conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the annexation area. Any impact would be less than significant. X c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would not affect City standards regarding habitat conservation plans, natural community preservation plans, and/or the policies of agencies with jurisdiction over resources and resource areas within the City, since no development is proposed. All future development, if any, would be subject to the standards and 38 regulations established by the City at the time applications are submitted. Any impact would be less than significant. XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES XII. NOISE XI a. No Impact. Impacts related to mineral and energy resources that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community, but 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. Therefore, there would be no impact. XI b. No Impact. The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and 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. There would be no impact. XI c. No Impact. The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone do not have the potential for development (or to influence or induce future development), and would not affect the use of nonrenewable resources. The project would change the jurisdictional boundary of the City of Santa Clarita and assign City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area. As the project has no potential to impact non-renewable resources directly or indirectly, therefore, there would be no impact. XII a-d. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to noise that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community, but that are attributable to the proposed project, are considered to be less than significant. The proposed annexation proposes no new development and therefore would not result in the exposure of persons to, or the generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's General Plan, the City's 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 ground - borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. 39 The project could not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project because nothing in the proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone has the potential to change the existing topography, terrain, or neighborhoods. New development is not associated the Tesoro del Valle annexation. Therefore, a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, could not occur. Any impact would be anticipated to be less than significant. XII a-f. No Impact. The annexation area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. Therefore, the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels based on airport operations and there would be no impact. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING XIII a. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to population and housing that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community, but that are attributable to the proposed annexation, are considered to be less than significant. No new development is proposed with the Annexation, General Plan Amendment and Prezone. The annexation area currently consists of approximately 1,077 residences, with another 820 residences entitled by Los Angeles County but not yet built. The annexation area contains the necessary infrastructure for the existing development as well as the planned future units. The proposed residential and open space designations would be consistent with the existing neighborhoods and County -entitled units in the annexation area. Any impact would be less than significant. XIII b-c. No Impact. The proposed annexation would not displace existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing). Land use and zoning designations would be applied to the annexation area that are consistent with existing neighborhoods and entitled development. Therefore, no impact related to population and housing is anticipated and no further environmental review is necessary. 40 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES XIV a. General Comments on Impacts to Public Services: Impacts related to public services that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community but that are attributable to the proposed annexation, are considered to be less than significant. The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would not create significant adverse impacts to public services. Education and other government services will remain unaffected. Discussion of specific elements of public services is provided below: i) No Impact The annexation would not increase the need for fire protection beyond what currently exists. Fire protection for the area is provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and that would not change upon annexation. Fire Station No. 156, the nearest fire station to the annexation area, is located at 24505 Copper Hill Drive. As no development is proposed as part of the annexation, there would be no impact to fire services. ii) Less Than Significant Impact The annexation area will experience an increase in police patrols and decrease in non -emergency response time due to the City's increased police service levels under its contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. iii) No Impact The proposed annexation would have no impact on schools. The annexation area is served by the Saugus Union Elementary School District and the William S. Hart Union High School District. As the annexation does not involve additional units or development of any kind, there would be no additional students created by the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone. Therefore, there would be no impact. iv-v) Less Than Significant Impact Upon annexation, the responsibilities for road maintenance, streetlight patrols, maintenance of parks, and certain other services would transfer to the City. The annexation would result in a negotiated tax transfer between the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles which would be used to partially fund public services. Upon annexation, residents of the Tesoro del Valle would be able to use City services and recreational programs, paying resident fees. The City has sufficient capacity to accommodate the 1,077 existing units and 820 approved future 41 units. Some parks services would not change, such as the existing Tesoro Adobe Historic Park which would continue to be administered by the County of Los Angeles. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to public services. No further environmental review is necessary. XV. RECREATION XV a-b. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to recreation that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community, but that are attributable to the proposed project, are considered to be less than significant. No new development is proposed with the proposed annexation that would cause a substantial increase in usage of existing parks and recreational facilities. Upon annexation, residents will pay lower fees for parks and recreation programs than they currently do as County residents. This may create a slight increase in the use of City parks, facilities, and programs; regardless, the City has sufficient resources to accommodate the increase and any additional demand or use would be anticipated to be less than significant. The proposed annexation does not include new development of residential units that would require park development fees or implementation of new recreational facilities. The proposed annexation area includes Tesoro Adobe Historic Park and is adjacent to publicly -owned open space. Annexing the Tesoro del Valle community to the City of Santa Clarita is not anticipated to create adverse physical effects on park sites or recreational programs and amenities. Impacts related to the expansion or upgrade of recreational facilities or parks is considered less than significant. Therefore, the proposed annexation would not result in a significant impact related to recreation and no further environmental review is necessary XVL TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC XVI a. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to transportation/traffic that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community, but that are attributable to the proposed project, are considered to be less than significant. The project site has been developed with residential and open space uses which were analyzed under when the projects were approved by the County of Los Angeles. As no development is proposed as part of the Annexation, General Plan 42 Amendment, and Prezone, the project would not be expected to cause an increase or change in traffic patterns versus that already which exists in the developed neighborhoods and that which is anticipated in the future/entitled neighborhoods. The annexation will not impact existing or planned street capacity, including an increase in the number of vehicle trips, the volume -to -capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections. In a similar vein, the annexation would have no impact on the number of vehicle miles traveled regarding the developed and unbuilt neighborhoods because the annexation proposes no development or change to the physical characteristics, topography, or development pattern of the annexation area. Any impact would be less than significant. XVI b. Less Than Significant Impact. No new development is proposed. Therefore, the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and 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, nor would the annexation affect the number of vehicle miles traveled. Any impact would be less than significant. XVI c-d. No Impact. The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone 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. As no new development is proposed, therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). XVI e. Less Than Significant Impact. No new development is proposed with this Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone. The annexation area is adjacent to existing infrastructure, City of Santa Clarita incorporated territory, and would not create barriers to existing emergency services. Therefore, the annexation would not result in inadequate emergency access XVI f. Less Than Significant Impact. No new development is proposed with the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone. Therefore, the proposal would not result in inadequate or changed parking capacity. Upon annexation, the City may construct new bus stops or improve existing bus stops in the annexation area or its vicinity. The City may also make improvements to sidewalks and bike lanes in an effort to reduce 43 hazards and barriers for pedestrians. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Any impact would be less than significant. XVIL TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES XVII a-b. Less Than Significant Impact. Assembly Bill (AB) 52, in effect as of July 1, 2015, introduces into CEQA tribal cultural resource as a class of cultural resources and additional considerations relating to Native American consultation. California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074 defines a tribal cultural resource as "sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe." A tribal cultural resource may be considered significant if it: is included in a local or state register of historical resources; is determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1; is a geographically defined cultural landscape that meets one or more of the criteria in PRC Section 5024,1; or is a historical resource described in PRC Section 21084.1; a unique archaeological resource described in PRC Section 21083.2; or is a non -unique archaeological resource if it conforms with the above criteria. Given the annexation area's proximity to San Francisquito Creek, there is the potential for tribal cultural resources to be present in the annexation area. The annexation area also includes the Tesoro Adobe Historic Park, where the ranch home for the former Harry Carey Ranch is located and which is designated as a State Historic Site, and is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In accordance with Assembly Bill 52 (Public Resource Code Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 5097.94), the City of Santa Clarita initiated communication with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to determine if the project site is within their ancestral tribal settlements and/or trade routes, or otherwise of importance to Native Americans, which would indicate a potential for encountering tribal cultural resources within the project site. As a result of the project being jurisdictional in nature and proposing no new development or ground disturbance, The Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation (THCP) Department of the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) has no concerns with the proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone. Even so, the project area remains within the traditional ancestral territory of the FTBMI, and therefore, the FTBMI would like to 44 pursue consultation if and when physical development of any kind is proposed in the vicinity of the project area. The archaeology of the region is not well defined and the FTBMI would like to assure all cultural materials on the surface and subsurface, and any inadvertent discoveries, are documented, salvaged, and protected. Correspondence from the THCP dated August 28, 2019, concluded the consultation with the FTBMI, and confirmed no additional input or consultation on the project is required pursuant to CEQA and AB 52 unless there is an unanticipated change to the project. Because of the General Plan Amendment associated with the annexation, the project is also subject to consultation under Senate Bill (SB) 18. Applicable tribes were contacted and given the opportunity to consult under SB 18. Pursuant with state law, tribal leaders were given 45 days to consult on the project. Should a tribe choose consult, consultation will be completed prior to City Council approval of the project. The proposed annexation does not involve any grading, development, or changes to the existing terrain. Furthermore, the annexation of Los Angeles County territory to the City of Santa Clarita and the assignment of City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area will not disturb the existing environment, topography, or potential cultural resources. As no development or disturbance is proposed, any impact to tribal cultural resources is anticipated to be less than significant. XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS XVIII a. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to utilities and service systems that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community, but that are attributable to the proposed project, are considered to be less than significant. The proposed annexation would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, as portions of the site are already developed and other portions of the site have been duly entitled and analyzed. Any impacts from the project are anticipated to be less than significant. XVIII b. Less Than Significant Impact. No new development is proposed with the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, including the expansion of existing facilities. The project includes the annexation of unincorporated County territory and the application of City land use and zoning 45 designations to the annexation area. As no construction of water or waste water facilities would be necessary, any impact would be less than significant. XVIII c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed annexation would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. As no construction is proposed, there is no potential for impacts. Any impact associated with the annexation of County territory to the City of Santa Clarita and the application of City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area, would be less than significant. XVIII d. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to water supply that were not addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Tesoro del Valle community, but that are attributable to the proposed project, are considered to be less than significant. The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone does not include any new development, and therefore, will not result in significant impacts to water supply. In keeping with standard procedures, prior to the recordation of a final map for the remaining undeveloped portions of the annexation area, the developer must obtain a will -serve letter from the area's water service provider. The water provider (Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency) remains the same regardless if the area is located in unincorporated Los Angeles County or the City of Santa Clarita. As the proposed annexation does not include any development, any impact to the planned water supply would be less than significant. XVIII e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not impact wastewater generation or treatment because the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone does not include any development. Wastewater services (sewerage) is provided by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, not the City of Santa Clarita. Wastewater service and capacity will be unaffected by the annexation. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. XVIII f. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone will not impact landfill or solid waste disposal needs because no development is proposed. Upon annexation, the Tesoro del Valle community would be subject to City franchise agreements for residential customers (no commercial uses are located within the 46 annexation area). Therefore, impacts related landfill services and solid waste management are considered less than significant. XVIII g. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area currently complies with federal, state, and County statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would not result in significant impacts related to utilities and service systems. Any impact would be less than significant and no further environmental review is necessary XVIV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE XVIV a. No Impact. The project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment and Prezone for the purpose of annexation and does not propose any new development that has not already been reviewed and approved under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The proposed annexation 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. XVIV b. No Impact. 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 an entitlement process and would adhere to the development standards and the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including CEQA review. Therefore, the proposed annexation and its associated entitlements would not result in a significant impact. XVIV c. No Impact. The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Prezone would not include any new development. The project would annex unincorporated Los Angeles County territory to the City of Santa Clarita and assign City land use and zoning designations to the annexation area that are consistent with the existing neighborhoods 47 and the future development already entitled by Los Angeles County. The annexation would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the Mandatory findings of significance. 48