Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - PREZONE 89-001 (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be Presented by PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 23, 1998 SUBJECT: APPROVING PREZONE NO. 89-001 (MASTER CASE NO. 89- 016, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-002 AND APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS, GENERALLY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5, EXTENDING ONE-HALF MILE SOUTH OF THE CALGROVE BOULEVARD EXIT, AND TO THE NORTH APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF SAGECREST CIRCLE RESOLUTION NO. 98-59 AND NO. 98-92 ORDINANCE NO 98-14 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services RECOMMENDED ACTION Council conduct the public hearing, adopt Resolution No. 98-92, approving the negative declaration prepared for the project, with the finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; adopt Resolution No. 98-59 approving General Plan Amendment 98-02; and introduce Ordinance No. 98-14 approving Prezone No. 89-01, waive further reading, and pass to a second reading. The Towsley Canyon Annexation is a proposal to annex 25 parcels of land of approximately 728 acres to the City of Santa Clarita. Planning staff initially considered this as the City's first annexation proposal in 1989. The City's purchase of approximately 62 acres (56 acres formerly known as the Rivendale property) of the Towsley Canyon area was completed in 1995. This purchase, along with the City's cooperation with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to form a joint powers authority, were actions creating the Santa Clarita Valley's first open space district concept known as the Santa Clarita Woodlands.: In July, 1996, City Council directed staff to meet with affected property owners in order to reach accord on proposed land uses and zoning upon annexation. The project site is currently under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. As such, it is currently subject to the County's land use designations and zoning, which call Adopted: -z3-9 g Agenda Item:�_ td j _Iiil� Tow iey Canyon Annexation ` Agenda Report Page 2 for predominantly low density and open space development. To date, the revised annexation study area totals approximately 728 acres. This analysis pertains to the entire area collectively for land use compatibility. The zoning designations selected by staff for the properties in the annexation study area reflects a combination of good planning principles with the preferred zoning of the individual property owner whenever possible. No development is proposed at this time. The majority of the annexation area consists of vacant land with one property developed as a residence and adjacent properties having various accessory structures including modular trailers and buildings for animal keeping, park uses, and a U.S. Post Office. The annexation area contains the major drainages of Lyons Canyon, Wiley Canyon, and Towsley Canyon. This area has been historically developed and used for very low density rural type of residential and recreational uses, including horseback riding and hiking. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 21, 1998. At that meeting the Commission adopted Resolution P98-15 which recommended that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration prepared on the project with a finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and approved General Plan Amendment 98-02 and adopted the proposed ordinance approving Prezone No. 89-01. and General Plan Amendment 98-02. Completion of this annexation would bring the City owned property of Towsley Canyon under its municipal jurisdiction. Final annexation of the project area is scheduled to occur as early as October, 1998, or as late as February, 1999. Staff will recommend that the City Council adopt the Resolution of Application for Annexation at the July 14, 1998 Council Meeting. Upon acquiring the necessary approvals, staff will submit an application for annexation with the Local Agency Formation Commission in August to be followed by a tax transfer resolution to be presented to the City Council in September. FISCAL IMPACT As a result of the existing conditions and uses in the annexation area, and because no development is proposed at this time, it is estimated that the annual service expenditures incurred by the City will continue at $5,000 likely to be earmarked for park service and maintenance expenses. This amount has already been allocated for maintenance of the City owned (formerly known as Rivendale) property. For further information, see the fiscal impact analysis in reading file. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as determined by the City Council. Tow ley Canyon Annexation • Agenda Report Page 3 ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map (Exhibit A) Proposed Annexation Boundary Map (Exhibit B) Resolution No. 98-92 Resolution No. 98-59 Ordinance No. 98-14 Negative Declaration Planning Commission Staff Report, 4/21/98 Resolution P98-15 Planning Commission Minutes, 4/21/98, (Item 5, In Reading File in City Clerk's Office) Initial Study (In Reading File in City Clerk's Office) Fiscal Impact Analysis (In Reading File in City Clerk's Office) Letters Regarding This Project's Planning Commission Hearing (In Reading File in City Clerk's Office) s:\pbs\annex\8901a pz RESOLUTION NO. 9&92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MASTER CASE NO. 89-016 FOR THE ANNEXATION (ANNEX 89-001) AND PREZONE (PZ 89-001) OF THE 728 ACRE UNINHABITED AREA KNOWN AS TOWSLEY CANYON, LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS, GENERALLY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF SAGECREST CIRCLE WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine, and declare: A. That the City has initiated Prezone No. 89-001 to zone the 728 acre project site, also known as Towsley Canyon, RVL (Residential Very Low), OS (Open Space) CC (Community Commercial) and SP (Specific Plan) in conformance with the City's General Plan OS, CC, and SP land use designations as amended with this project to allow for the future annexation of Towsley Canyon to the City of Santa Clarita; and B. That the General Plan land use designation for the annexation area. is currently Residential Very Low (RVL), Open Space (OS), Community Commercial (CC), and Specific Plan) as amended by this project; and C. That the Towsley Canyon annexation area is presently developed with one single- family dwelling, a U. S. Post Office, accessory structures, park buildings, and modular trailers. The site is predominately in a natural state and no development is proposed at this time.. The proposed zoning reflects existing land uses, responsible planning principles, and existing land uses on-site; and D. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project and that said study found that no adverse impact to the existing and future environmental resources of the area would result from the proposed prezone that is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan as amended by this project. An environmental impact report was prepared and certified for the General Plan in June 1991 (SCH#90010683); and E. That the Initial Study found that the proposed prezone would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment based on CEQA Section 21083.3 and a proposed Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on February 17, 1998 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). F. That a proposed Negative Declaration was prepared for the project based on the Initial Study findings and the determination that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, would not impact resources protected by the California Department of Fish and Game, and that a finding of de Minimus impact on such resources was appropriate. Resolution No. 98-92 Page 2 G. That the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public hearing on April 21, 1998, pursuant to applicable law, to consider the prezone and annexation to the City of Santa Clarita, and adopted Resolution No. P98-15, with the finding that the Negative Declaration was in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommending that the City Council approve Master Case No. 89-016 (the annexation, general plan amendment and prezone) and the Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and H. That the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public hearing on June 23, 1998, pursuant to applicable law, to consider the annexation and prezone. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, the Council further finds as follows: A. That the proposed Negative Declaration is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan as amended by this project, and that the Negative Declaration complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local guidelines. B. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines that the Negative Declaration is in compliance with CEQA and that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 3. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, the Council further finds as follows: A. This project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area, nor be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the .vicinity of the project site, nor jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the proposed zoning designations are consistent with the City's General Plan land use designations. SECTION 4. The Negative Declaration for the project is hereby approved. The Director of Planning and Building Services is hereby directed to file the Negative Declaration with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles.. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution to the Departments of Public Works, Fire, and Parks, Recreation, and Community Services, and shall give notice of this recommendation in the manner prescribed by the Municipal Code. Resolution No. 98-92 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 19_ TO MOB ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L.. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK sAcd\annex\9892cm RESOLUTION NO. 98-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR MASTER CASE NO. 89-001 FOR THE UNINHABITED AREA LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMTPS, GENERALLY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5, EXTENDING ONE-HALF MILE SOUTH OF THE CALGROVE BOULEVARD EXIT, AND TO THE NORTH APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF SAGECREST CIRCLE WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CL:ARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: follows: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine, and declare: A. That the General Plan land use designation for the subject site is currently RE (Residential Estate), RVL (Residential Very Low), and OS (Open Space); and B. That a General Plan Amendment is necessary to change the land use designation from RE (Residential Estate), RVL (Residential Very Low), and OS (Open Space) to RVL (Residential Very Low), CC (Community Commercial), OS (Open Space), and SP (Specific Plan) in order to reflect the existing and future uses on-site; and C. That the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public hearing on April 21, 1998, pursuant to applicable law, to consider theprezone. and general plan amendment for the City of Santa Clarita, and adopted Resolution No. P98-15, with the finding that the Negative Declaration was in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 98-002 and the Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and D. That the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public hearing on June 23, 1998, pursuant to applicable law, to consider the prezone and general plan amendment. E. Following the public hearing on June 23, 1998, the Santa Clarita City Council adopted Resolution 98-92 approving the Negative Declaration prepared for this annexation prezone with the finding that the Negative Declaration was in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, the Council further finds as A. This project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area, nor be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site, nor jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the General Plan Amendment will change the land use designation to one which reflects the density on-site and will be compatible with the surrounding area. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby approve the general plan amendment and the General Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended to designate the subject properties to RVL Resolution No. 98-59 Page 2 (Residential Very Low), CC (Community Commercial), OS (Open Space), and SP (Specific Plan) as shown in Exhibit A_ SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution to the Departments of.Public Works, Fire, and Parks, Recreation , and Community Services, and shall give notice of this recommendation in the manner prescribed by the Municipal Code. Resolution No. 98.69 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of '19—. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of , 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEM 3ERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK JES s:-W1annex'89-1ENVR EXHIBIT "A" \r O Ownership 1D Note. Ownership boundaries are approximate. NORTH RVL Residential - Very Low CC Community Commercial OS Cpen Space SP Specific Plan General Plan Designations FIA CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MASTER CASE 89-016, ANNEXATION 89-001, PREZONE 89-001 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-002 PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider Master Case 89-016, Annexation 89-001, Prezone 89-001, General Plan Amendment 98-002. The annexation of 29 individual parcels under 13 separate owners to the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed at this time, although the proposal includes prezoning for each of the parcels. The project location is 740.7 acres west of Interstate 5, in unincorporated Los Angeles County and immediately southwest of the current City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary. The applicant is the City of Santa Clarita. The hearing will be held by the Santa Clarity City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, on the 23' day of June, 1998, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office, Santa Clarity City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite #301, Santa Clarita, CA. If you wish to challenge this action 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 Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Dated: May 29, 1998 Sharon L. Dawson, CMC City Clerk Publish Date: June 2, 1998 Comshowsly.gb EXHIBIT "N' -- ----- --- CITY BCEWARY.LINE -ffD ANNEXATION ION AREA am IC il4 %lw ch,11 JA Z ls AP r 4e SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 32 OF TRACT 43972 SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 31 AND 33 OF TRACT 43972 > ` QA J = 2825-022-023 f ? CURRENT 3CUNGARY 2926-023-031 2925-022-02l rJ A r/, � Y 2925-023-01A GOLDEN STATE SOUTHERLY LINE OF HE 1/A. Sv 1/4. SEC A � ASA 4a \ 71 EASTERLY PRCLONCATSCN p OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT 43972 SOUTHERLY LINE CF SECTION 9 C. ALL SEC7ZCNS REFERENCED ARE A PART 11' OF TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANCE 16 VEST 11 OF THE SAN 3ERNARDINO MERIDIAN LEGEN1 PROP. ANNEXA—, 7 BDRY. — EXISTING CITY 3DRY.' AFF 1 C- T , = C: T Y ENGLVE-,R C1 TSANTA CLAiR TA I CHECKED 3Y: SCALE I' = ISQD'_ .AREA+ AHS HNM: t.157 SG.Mc l SI A3QvE 23AMI17 Si 234MO97 T N -r CCL'NT'. RECCREE.R PARCELS IN ANNEXATIQN - ` QA 2925-023-009 2825-022-023 P CURRENT 3CUNGARY 2926-023-031 2925-022-02l CF THE CITY OF 2925-022-025 2926-023-013 C. INTERSTATE 7 2925-023-01A GOLDEN STATE n FRWY ANO THE -9 3OUNOARY OF 2926-023-021 SANTA CLARITA PARCELS IN ANNEXATIQN - ` QA 2925-023-009 2825-022-023 2926 -023 -Gla CURRENT 3CUNGARY 2926-023-031 2925-022-02l CF THE CITY OF 2925-022-025 2926-023-013 SANTA ELARITA 2925-023-01A 2925-022028 2826-023-015 AMB 2826-023-039 2926-023-021 • 2825-023-030 ' - 2925-023-900 2324-023-800 2925-023_9CI 2925-02- 9C2 AMS 2825-023-007 Q ,_, ' I, 1 2925-02]-905 A (��(�(j ANH - C l CH HQ O Q 9 U NMI i TO THE SOUTHERLY SECTION LINE OF ' 10 PARCELS IN ANNEXATIQN - AMB 2926-022-022 2925-023-009 2825-022-023 2926 -023 -Gla 2826-022-024 2926-023-031 2925-022-02l 2925-a23-012 2925-022-025 2926-023-013 2825-022-027 2925-023-01A 2925-022028 2826-023-015 AMB 2826-023-039 2926-023-021 • 2825-023-030 ' - 2925-023-900 2324-023-800 2925-023_9CI 2925-02- 9C2 AMS 2825-023-007 2925-023-90A 2925-023-008 2925-02]-905 (PROPOSED) (��(�(j ANH - C l CH HQ O Q 9 U NMI i TO THE TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ORDINANCE NO. 98-14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (PREZONE 89-001) FOR THE AREA LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS GENERALLY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5, EXTENDING ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF THE CALGROVE BOULEVARD EXIT, AND TO THE NORTH APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF SAGECREST CIRCLE WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated prezoning of approximately 728 acres of uninhabited land, located adjacent to and outside the existing City limits, extending approximately one mile to the west, and extends to the south approximately one-half mile south of the Calgrove Boulevard exit, and to the north to approximately 500 feet south of Sagecrest Circle, surrounding the entrance to Towsley Canyon in the Santa Clarita Valley, prior to annexation to the City of Santa Clarita (proposed Annexation No. 1989-001); and WHEREAS, such prezoning, as described in Exhibit A and mapped in Exhibit B, would become effective upon annexation and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated within and made a part of the City's Unified Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public hearing on April 21, 1998, pursuant to applicable law, to consider the prezone and general plan amendment for the City of Santa Clarita, and adopted Resolution No. P98-15, with the finding that the Negative Declaration was in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 98- 002, Prezone -89-001, and the Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Council set June 23, 1998 at the hour of 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said Council, and notice of said public hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, testimony was received, if any, for, and/or against the proposed prezone; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said prezone was duly heard and considered. WHEREAS; following said public hearing, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita adopted Resolution 98-92 approving the Negative Declaration prepared for this annexation and prezone with the finding that the Negative Declaration was in compliance with the California environmental Quality Act (CEQA) THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows: ordinance No. 99-14 Page 2 A. The prezone is a change from Los Angeles County A-2-1, A-2-2, C-3, and R -R zoning to City of Santa Clarita RVL (Residential Very Low), CC (Community Commercial), OS (Open Space), and SP (Specific Plan) in conformance with the City's General Plan as amended. B. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65351 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on their behalf, the City Council further finds and determines that the project is consistent with the General Plan as amended and complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance. SECTION 3. In acting on the prezoning application, the City Council has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows: A. That the proposed Annexation No. 1989-01 prezoning consists of 728.08 acres of uninhabited land located adjacent to, and outside of the existing City limits, extending .approximately one mile to the west, and extends to the south approximately one-half mile of the Calgrove Boulevard exit, and to the north to approximately 500 feet south of Sagecrest Circle. B. That a need for the prezone classification to RVL, CC, OS, and SP exists within the project area. C. That the subject property is a proper location for the RVL, CC, OS, and SP designations. D. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice justifies amending the General Plan and the prezoning designation of RVL, CC, OS, and SP. E. That the proposed prezoning designation of RVL, CC, OS, and SP is consistent with existing land uses in the area and would not result in a substantive change to the existing zoning of the subject site. F. That the proposed zone change is consistent with the objectives of the City's uniform Development Code, General Plan, and development policies. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby ordain that the application for a prezone is approved, and that the Official Zoning Map of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby amended to designate the subject properties RVL, CC, OS, and SP as shown in Exhibit B. Ordinance No.98.14 Page 3 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after adoption, or upon the effective date of the annexation (proposed Annexation No. 1989-01) of the subject property to the City of Santa Clarita, whichever occurs last. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law: Ordinance No. 98.14 Page 4 PASSED AND APPROVED this day of MAYOR Y�rl YDlCT/1F CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 19 . That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 19 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: annex\TCYNord.jes COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" Included herein by reference, on file with the Planning and Building Services Department EXHIBIT "B" —t_,J . _ _ ;I .. ..o ` vA OOwnership ID Note: Ownership boundaries are approximate. RVL Residential - Very Low CC Community Commercial OS Open Space SP Specific Plan Prezoning NORTH CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed (] Final ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MASTER CASE NO: 89-016 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Annexation 89-001 Pre Zone 89-001 APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION OF THE .PROJECT: 740.7 acres west of Interstate 5, in unincorporated Las Angeles County and :immediately southwest of the current City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT. -The annexation of 29 individual parcels under 13 separate owners to the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed at this time, although the proposal includes prezoning for each of the parcels. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (.CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [X] City Council [X] 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 [ ] Are Not.Required [X] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached -------------------------------------------------- JEFF LAMBERT PLANNING MANAGER Prepared by: A �//�( Jason Smisko, Assistant Planner 11 ignature) (Name/Title) / Approved by: a Vince Berton. Senior Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From February 17.1998 To March 19, 1998 Public Notice Given On February 17, 1998 By: [X] Legal Advertisement [ I Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFICATION DATE: pbs\m"ent\89.016ndjes CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT Master Case No.89-016 Prezone No. 89-001 Annexation No. 89-001 General Plan Amendment 98-002 Towsley Canyon Annexation DATE: April 21, 1998 TO: Cberson Hoback and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Je y Lambert, AICP, Planning Manager PLANNER: Ja ` Smisko, Assistant Planner II APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION: The project site, consisting of 728.08 acres, is located west of Interstate 5, in unincorporated Los Angeles County and immediately adjacent and southwest of the current City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary. REQUEST: Amend the General Plan and prezone the project area from Los Angeles County A-2-1, A-2-2, C-3, and R -R zoning to City of Santa Clarita RVL (Residential Very Low), CC (Community Commercial), OS (Open Space), and SP (Specific Plan) zoning to allow for annexation of approximately 728 acres of partially inhabited land to the City of Santa Clarita. BACKGROUND The Towsley Canyon Annexation is a proposal to annex 25 parcels of land of approximately 728 acres to the City of Santa Clarita. Planning staff initially considered this as the City's first annexation proposal in 1989. The City's purchase of approximately 62 acres (56 acres of it formerly known as the Rivendale property) of the Towsley Canyon area was completed in 1995. This purchase, along with the City's cooperation with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to form a joint powers authority, were actions creating the Santa Clarita Valley's first open space district concept known as the Santa Clarita Woodlands. In July, 1996, City Council directed staff to meet with affected property owners in order to reach accord on proposed land uses and zoning upon annexation. PROJECT DESCREMON The proposed project area consists of the prezoning of 25 individual parcels under nine separate owners to the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed at this time. Because of its ridgelines, hillsides, oak trees and major watershed drainages, portions of this site and adjacent land have been recognized as a Significant Ecological Area (oak woodland biome). City staff reviewed this site relative to its location to the existing incorporated MASTER CASE NO. 89-016 Staff Report Page 2 boundary, and the relationship between this boundary and adjacent properties. Considering the geographic relationship between the City boundary and the adjacent properties, and the requirement of contiguity for a logical extension of the City's urban service boundary, the adjacent properties within the study area have been included as part of this annexation request. The annexation area is located immediately west of Interstate 5 extending approximately one mile to the west, and extends to the south approximately one-half mile south of the Calgrove Boulevard exit, and to the north to approximately 500 feet south of Sagecrest Circle. The majority of the annexation area consists of vacant land with one property developed as a residence and adjacent properties having various accessory structures including modular trailers and buildings for animal keeping, park uses, and a U.S. Post Office. The annexation area contains the major drainages of Lyons Canyon, Wiley Canyon,.and Towsley Canyon. This area has been historically developed and used for very low density rural type of residential and recreational uses, including horseback riding and hiking. The site is intended to be annexed with existing uses to continue. No development is proposed at this time. An investigation by staff has concluded that 11 of the 13 owners in the originally proposed annexation area support annexation into the City. After considerable correspondence and information -sharing, two property owners (owning three connected parcels—see Exhibit C, #'s 8 and 10) remain opposed to being included in the annexation. These three properties are on the east side of The Old Road, stacked north to south, across from the entrance to Towsley Canyon. The City's policy is not to include dissenting property owners in the annexation process whenever possible. Adjacent and south of these three properties, a fourth property owner (#11) supports the annexation. Staff was concerned that the annexation of this property would not meet the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requirement that areas proposed for annexation share a minimum of 250 feet of contiguous boundary. The LAFCO contiguity requirement serves to eliminate the creation of a boundary island or isthmus, which can result in a disjointed pattern of service delivery. This condition prompted staff to consider moving the annexation boundary area east of The Old Road to provide adequate contiguity, and to create a logical extension of the City's urban service boundary. As a result, the fourth property (#11) attached to the south has been eliminated from the proposed project to avoid creating a "County island." GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and certified the Environmental Impact Report: Included in the General Plan was a Land Use Map which designated the proposed annexation area a combination of RVI; (Residential Very Low), RE (Residential Estate) and OS (Open Space) zones. Since the proposed prezoning differs from the General Plan, a General Plan Amendment has been prepared for Planning Commission Review. MASTER CASE NO. 89-016 Staff Report Page 3 CITY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND SURROUNDING LAND USE City General Plan Zonine Project Site RVL, RE, & OS County A-2-1, A-2-2, & C-3 North RE R -P -D -1-1-4-U East CC, RVL CC(PD) & RVL South . OS County A-2-2 West OS County A-2-2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Land Use Mixed: rural, open space, light resident- ial and commercial Residential Residential and Agricultural Commercial and open space Open space As part of the project review, an Initial Study was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed prezone and annexation. Rincon determined that this proposal would have no adverse environmental impacts and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on February 17, 1998. The Initial Study reflects the entire originally proposed project area before the removal of three properties from the project area. ANALYSIS The project site is currently under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. As such, it is currently subject to the County s land use designations and zoning, which call for predominantly low density and open space development. To date; the revised annexation study area totals approximately 728 acres. This analysis pertains to the entire area collectively for land use compatibility. The zoning designations selected by staff for the properties in the annexation study area reflects a combination of good planning principles with the preferred zoning of the individual property owner whenever possible. 3 MASTER CASE NO. 89-016 Staff Report Page 4 Most of the site is zoned by the County A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, 2 -acre minimum lot size), with A-2.1 (Heavy Agriculture, 1 -acre minimum lot size) generally adjacent to the freeway. An enclave within the southern portion of the site, surrounded by Ed Davis Park, is County zoned R -R (Resort and Recreation), with the intent of expanding the park into that area. A small portion of the site's northeastern comer is zoned C-3 (unlimited commercial) which would allow visitor serving commercial uses. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not in themselves change the land use characteristics 'of the site, and would not result in direct land use impacts. However, future development on the project site that would be accommodated under the proposed prezoning designations could result in changes in on-site land use. In the northern area of the project area, Time -Warner, Inc. owns 232 acres and Charles Taylor owns 119 acres. These properties are proposed to be prezoned SP (Specific Plan.) Both of these property owners have expressed interest and support in being annexed. The properties owned by Time -Warner and Taylor have significant frontage along The Old Road and Interstate 5 that are contiguous for three-quarters of a mile adjacent to the City's existing boundary. The SP zoning proposed for these parcels was desired by the property owners who remain undecided as to what future development on their property will entail and it gives the City and the property owners a reasonable flexibility in proposing, reviewing, and approving any future development. Proposed SP prezoning for this northern portion of the site envisions development of a Specific Plan that would accommodate primarily low density housing (1-2.2 units per acre) with the potential for commercial development adjacent to The Old Road frontage. The southern portion of the site encompassing the existing park would be prezoned OS (Open Space) to reflect the existing land use of the area. The portion of the site adjacent to Interstate 5 near Calgrove Boulevard interchange would be.prezoned CC (Community Commercial) to accommodate visitor -serving and other appropriate commercial uses. The proposed prezoning is largely consistent with the City's General Plan designations. However; General Plan Amendment 98-002 is required to achieve consistency in prezoning the site from REIRVL (Residential Estate/Residential Very Low), RVL (Residential Very Low) and OS (Open Space) to SP (Specific Plan), OS (Open Space), and CC (Community Commercial), respectively Completion of this annexation would bring the City'owned property of Towsley Canyon under its municipal jurisdiction. Final annexation of the project area is scheduled to occur as early as August, 1998, or as late as February, 1998. Staff will recommend that the City Council adopt the Resolution of Application for Annexation. it MASTER CASE NO. 89-016 Staff Report Page 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) .Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. P98-15, recommending that the City Council: 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project with the finding that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment; 2) amend the General Plan from RVL (Residential Very Low), RE (Residential Estate), and OS to City of Santa Clarita RVL (Residential Very Low), CC (Community Commercial), OS (Open Space), and SP (Specific Plan); and, 3) adopt the proposed ordinance approving Prezone No. 89-001 (Master Case No. 89-001, Annexation No. 89-001, General Plan Amendment 98-002 recommending approval to the City Council). ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Proposed Annexation Boundary Map Proposed Prezoning Map General Plan Land Use Map Los Angeles County Zoning Map Proposed Resolution No. P98-15 Ordinance 9844 Proposed Negative Declaration Initial Study S.\pbs\an NSR890zjes RESOLUTION NO. P98-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PREZONE NO. 89-001 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-002 FOR THE AREA LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS GENERALLY WEST OF INTERSTATE 4EXTENDING ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF THE CALGROVE BOULEVARD EXIT, AND TO THE NORTH APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF SAGECREST CIRCLE WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated prezoning of certain property located in the Towsley Canyon area prior to its annexation to the City of Santa Clarita (proposed Annexation No. 89-001); and WHEREAS, such zoning would become effective upon annexation, as described in Exhibit C and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated within and made part of Title 17 of the City's Unified Development Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission set April 21, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 PM in the City Hall Century Room, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, as the time and place for a public.hearing before said Planning Commission, and notice of said public hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that: a. The purpose of the proposal is to amend the General Plan and to prezone the project site from Los Angeles County A-2-1, A-2-2, C-3, and R -R to City of Santa Clarita RVL (Residential Very Low), CC (Community Commercial), OS (Open Space), and SP (Specific Plan) zones to allow for annexation of the site to the City of Santa Clarita; and b. That a General Plan Amendment is necessary to change the land use designation from RE (Residential Estate), RVL (Residential Very low), and OS (Open Space) to RVI: (Residential Very Low), Cc (Community Commercial), OS (Open Space), and SP (Specific Plan) in order to reflect the existing and future uses on-site; and C. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The public review period was from February 17, 1998, to April 21, 1998; and Resolution p98.16 Page 2 d. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended, including the land use designations for the project site of Residential Very Low, Community Commercial, Open Space, and Specific Plan SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained in this resolution, the Planning Commission has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows: a. That a need for the prezone to Residential Very Low, Community Commercial, Open Space, and Specific Plan does exist within the area of the subject property and is largely consistent with the City's General Plan; and b. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice justifies the prezone classification of Residential Very Low, Community Commercial, Open Space, and Specific Plan based upon existing land uses and geographical features; and C. That the project site consists of 728 acres of land which includes 62 acres owned by the City of Santa Clarita separated from contiguous corporate limits of the City of Santa Clarita by Interstate 5. . SECTION 4. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study prepared for the project and finds and determines as follows: a. Said study found that no adverse impact to the existing and future environmental resources of the area would result from the proposal; and b. The proposed prezone would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a proposed Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on February 17, 1998, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and C. The Planning Commission, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds the negative declaration for this project to have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and recommends to the City Council that it adopt the Negative Declaration for Prezone No. 89-001 and Annexation No. 1989-01. Resolution P98-15 Page 3 . SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends to the City Council that it approve the request to amend the General Plan and to prezone the project site to City of Santa Clarita Residential Very Low, Community Commercial, Open Space, and Specific Plan. Resolution p98.16 Page 4 ASSED, APPROVED AND \%F ,1998. ATTEST: en Pulskamp Secretary, Planning Co ssion STATE OF CALIFORNIA' ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) ADOPTED this 5fi day of D`hr Hoback,`Cliairperson Planning Commission I Sharon L. Dawson, CMC ,.City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of April, 1998 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: sAcd\annex\8901rewjes HOBACK, BERGER, KELLAR AND KILLMEYER IMOD BRATHWAITE A "'� CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. P98-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING TILAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PREZONE NO. 89-001 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-002 FOR THE AREA LOCA'T'ED ADJACENT TO AND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS GENERALLY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5, EXTENDING ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF THE CALGROVE BOULEVARD EXIT, AND TO THE NORTH APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF SAGECREST CIRCLE WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has proposed and initiated prezoning of certain property located in the Towsley Canyon area prior to its annexation to the City of Santa Clarita (proposed Annexation No. 89-001); and WHEREAS, such zoning would become effective upon annexation, as described in Exhibit C and designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated within and made part of Title 17 of the City's Unified Development Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission set April 21, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 PM in the City Hall Century Room, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, as the time and place for a public.hearing before said Planning Commission, and notice of said public hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that: a. The purpose of the, proposal is to amend the General Plan and to prezone the.project site from Los Angeles County A-2-1, A-2-2, C-3, and R -R to City of Santa Clarita RVL (Residential Very Low), CC (Community Commercial), OS (Open Space), and SP (Specific Plan) zones to allow for annexation of the site to the City of Santa Clarita; and b. That a General Plan Amendment is necessary to change the land use designation from RE (Residential Estate), RVL (Residential Very low), and OS (Open Space) to RVL (Residential Very Low), Cc (Community Commercial), OS (Open Space), and SP (Specific Plan) in order to reflect the existing and future uses on-site; and C. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The public review period was from February 17, 1998, to April 21,1998; and Resolution p98.15 Page 2 d. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391, and 65854 of the'Government Code of the State of California were duly followed. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended, including the land use designations for the project site of Residential Very Low, Community Commercial, Open Space, and Specific Plan SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained in this resolution, the Planning Commission has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows: a. That a need for the prezone to Residential Very Low, Community Commercial, Open Space, and Specific Plan does exist within the area of the subject property and is largely consistent with the City's General Plan; and b. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice justifies the prezone classification of Residential Very Low, Community Commercial, Open Space, and Specific Plan based upon existing land uses and geographical features; and C. That the project site consists of 728 acres of land which includes 62 acres owned by the City of Santa Clarita separated from contiguous corporate limits of the City of Santa Clarita by Interstate 5. SECTION 4. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study prepared for the project and finds and determines as follows:, a. Said study found that no adverse impact to the. existing, and future environmental resources of the area would result from the proposal; and b. The proposed prezone would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a proposed Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on February 17, 1998, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and C. The Planning Commission, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds the negative declaration for this project to have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and recommends to the City Council that it adopt the Negative Declaration for Prezone No. 89-001 and Annexation No. 1989-01. Resolution p98.15 Page 3 SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends to the City Council that it approve the request to amend the General Plan and to prezone the project site to City of Santa Clarita Residential Very Low, Community Commercial, Open Space, and Specific Plan. Resolution P98-16 Page 4 ASSED, APPROVED AND t '1998. ATTEST: 7 en .. Planning Comession STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) ADOPTED this % St day of i � �i � i✓./��n roti Darla Hoback, Chairperson Planning Commission I Sharon L. Dawson, CMC .City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the PINnning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of April, 1998 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: s:\cd\annex\8901resojes HOBACK, BERGER, KELLAR AND KILLMEYER NONE BRATHWAITE J'a, . CITY CLERK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning & Building Services Contact Person & Phone Number: Vincent Berton!, Senior Planner (805)255-4330 Master Case or CIP Number: 89-016 Entitlement Type(s): Annexation and prezoning Case Planner: Jason Smisko, Assistant Planner II Project Location: 740.7 acres on the west side of Interstate 5, in unincorporated Los Angeles County and immediately southwest of the current City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary (see Figure 1) Project Description and Setting: The project site is located on the west side of Interstate 5, outside but directly abutting the Santa Clarita corporate boundary. It is entirely within the City of Santa Clarita Planning Area, as adopted under the City's General Plan (1991). The site consists of 29 individual parcels under 13 separate owners totaling 740.7 acres, including land owned by the City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy' In 1996, the City of Santa Clarita purchased land within and west of the project site in order to assure its permanent preservation as open space. Most of the site is currently undeveloped, consisting of rolling terrain with scattered oak trees. The site contains three main drainages: Wiley Canyon Creek, Towsley Canyon Creek, and Lyon Creek, all of which ultimately drain into the South Fork of the Santa Clara River. The only developed areas on the site are several parcels along The Old Road frontage in the southeast comer of the site and a small parking area at Ed Davis Park in the southern portion of the site. The parcels along The Old Road are developed with a kennel, an animal training facility, a residence, and other low intensity uses. The proposed project involves the annexation of all 29 project site parcels (under 13 ownerships) to the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed at this time, although the proposal includes prezoning for the entire site. The proposed prezoning designations are shown on Figure 2. The total area dedicated to each proposed zone is shown below: California Environmental Quality Act NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Annexation No. 1989-01 (Towsley Canyon) Project Location: 740.7 acres on the west side of Interstate 5, in unincorporated Los Angeles County and immediately southwest of the current City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary Project Description: The proposed project involves the annexation of 29 individual parcels under 13 separate owners to the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed at this time, although the proposal includes prezoning for each of the parcels. The total area dedicated to each proposed zone is shown below: Zoning Designation Acreage Residential Very Low (RVL) 40.33 Community Commercial (CC) 40.59 Open Space (OS) 223.00 Specific Plan (SP) 351.00 Public Rights -of -Way 85.78 Total 740.70 The attached initial study is a program level evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed annexation and prezoning. Although the currently proposed changes would have no direct effect on the environment, the potential impacts of possible future development on the project site are considered. Nevertheless, because no specific development is proposed at this time, the actual impact of future development on the site will need to be addressed on a case- by-case basis as such developments are proposed. Mitigation Measures to be Incorporated into the Proposed Project: Although the proposed annexation would not have any physical effect on the environment, mitigation measures are recommended to'reduce impacts associated with possible future development on the project site to a less than significant level. See the attached Initial Study Finding of No Significant Effect: Based on the attached Initial Study for the project, it has been determined that, with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures, the proposed annexation and future development on the project site would not have a significant effect on the environment Planning Official Signature - Title Date Zoning Designation Acreage Residential Very Low (RVL) 40.33 Community Commercial (CC) 40.59 Open Space (OS) 223.00 Specific Plan (SP) 351.00 Public Rights -of -Way 85.78 Total 740.70 This initial study is a program level evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed annexation and prezoning. Although the currently proposed changes would have no direct effect on the environment, the potential impacts of possible future development on the project site are considered. Nevertheless, because no specific development is proposed at this time, the actual impact of future development on the site will need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis as such developments are proposed. General Plan and Zoning Designation(s): The current Los Angeles County zoning designations and City of Santa Clarita General Pian land use designations for the project site are shown on Figures 3 and 4. The current County zoning calls for a mix of agricultural, commercial, and recreational uses on-site. The Santa Clarita General Plan calls for very low density residential uses on most of the site, with the southwest portion of the site designated for open space. Project Applicant (Name, Address, Phone): Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (805) 255-4330 North: Low Density residential uses East: Interstate 5 South: Open Space (Santa Susana Mountains) West: Open Space (Santa Susana Mountains) Other public agencies whose approval Is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): W Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission 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' as Indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning (] Transportation/ [ ] Public Services Circulation [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Noise [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Water (] Hazards [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Mandatory Tests of [ ] Utilities and Service Significance System [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources 3 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this Initial evaluation: [ 1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [x] 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 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. Prepared By: (Signature) (Namemtle) (Date) Approved By: (Signature) (NameMtle) (Date) 11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: RI Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Lou than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (] Ixl I1 I I (Source # ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [j IxI I ] I ] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? C) Be incompatible with existing land use in the city? (] I ] [x] I ] d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an [ ] I I [x] [ ] established community (including a low-income or minority community)? e) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)? ( ) [ ] [x] I ] [ ] f) Other ( ) [I I1 I] Ixl II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [ ] I1 Ixj I ] population projections? ( ) b) Create a net loss of jobs? ( ) [ ] I ] I I Ix) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [ j I ] I j (x] housing? ( ) d) Other ( ) I1 [] Il Ixl III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in I I IxI I1 I I geologic substructures? ( ] b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 11 H. Ixl Il overcovering of the soil? ( ) c) Change in topography or ground surface relief [ j [ 1 (XI [ ] features? ( ) d) The destruction, covering or modification of any I I I ] Ix) I j unique geologic or physical features? ( ) e) Any increase In wind or water erosion of soils, [ I (XI I I I 1 either on or off the site? ( ) F) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards I ] (x] I j I1 such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) g) Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ( ) 11 Ix] I ] [ I RI h) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ( ) 1) Earth movement (cut and/orftll) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ( ) j) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25% natural grade? ( ) k) Development within the Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?( ) I) Other ( ) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result In: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) C) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity) ( ) d) Changes In the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes In currents, or the course of direction of water movements? ( ) f) Changes In the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) j) Other ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ' existing or projected air quality violation?' ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Create objectionable odors? ( ) d) Other ( ) 7 II Potentially II I1 Slgniticant [I [Xl Impact [] Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mltlgatlon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact [] [XI I1 [] II IX] II IxI II I1 [1 [I [Xl [l [] [I [XI I [l II II IXI 7 J Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Uniess Lesa than Significant Mltlgatlon Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Wouldthe proposal result In: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?( [] [x] I I1 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp [ ] [ I [xI I I curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? ( ) c) inadequate emergency access or access to nearby [ ] [ ] [x] [] uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite oroffsite? (] [] [x] I e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [ ] I ] [x] I I alternative transportation (e.g. bus stops, bicycle racks)( ) g) Disjointed pattern of roadway improvements ( [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] h) Other ( ) I1 tl II Ixl VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, Insects, animals, and birds) ( ) b) Oak Trees ( ) [ ] Ix] [ 1 [ l c) Wetland habitat or blueline stream? ( ) [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?. ( ) [ ] I ] [x] [ ] e) Other ( ) (] I1 I IXI VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. would the proposal: a) ` onfll 1 with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] t ] [ ] [x] b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result In the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] resource that would be of future value to the region' and the residents of the State? d) Other ( ) [1 [1 11 Ixl IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] hazardous substances (including but not limited to 7 J Potarwally SlgnlfiuM Impact Potentlally Unless Leas than significant Mitlgatlon Significant Impact Incorponteo Impact 3 No Impact [1 [1 [x] [I [I [XI [x] oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response [ ] [ ] plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) C) The creation of any health hazard or potential [ ] [ ] health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 11 (x] health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? ( ) e) Increased fire hazard In areas with flammable [ ] (xj brush, grass, or trees? ( ) f) Other ( ) [ ] [ I X. NOISE. Would the proposal result In: a) Increases in existing noise. levels? ( ) (] 1XI b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [ ] [ I vibration? ( ) c) other ( ) [] [] XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect on, or result In a need for new or altered government services In arty of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) (] II b) Police protection? ( ) [] II c) Schools? ( ) [l 1XI d) Maintenance of pubic facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] e) Other government services? Park Land ( ) [] [] XII. UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural'gas7 ( ) ( ] I ] b) Communications systems7 ( ) I ] ( ] c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) (] (( e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) [ ] ( ] g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) [] (] h) Other ( ) [] [] 3 No Impact [1 [1 [x] [I [I [XI [x] W Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista open to public view? ( ) [ ] [x] [ ] I I b) Have a negative aesthetic effect? ( ) [ ] 1x1 [ ] [ I c) Create light or glare? ( ) [ ] [x1 I 1 [ I d) Other ( ) [ 1 [ I [ ] [x7 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological or archaeological [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] resources? ( I b) Have the potential to cause a physical change [ ] [ j [x] [ ] which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? c) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the (] [ ] [x] I I potential impact area? ( ) d) Affect a recognized historical site? ( ) [ ] [ ] 1x1 [ I e) Other ( ) [ 1 [ ] I I Ix] XV. RECREATION a) Will the proposal result In an Impact upon the I1 I l [xl I I quality or quantity of existing recreation opportunities? ( ) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [ ] [x] I I I I 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 the potential to achieve [ ] (] (x] [ ] short-term, to the disadvantage of long -tern, environmental goals? (A short -tern Impact on the environment is one which occurs In a relatively brief, definitive period of time white long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) C) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of W a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [ J [x] [ J [ j individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." XVIII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANDIOR EARLIER ANALYSES: Section and Subsections Potentially I. LAND USE AND The 740.7 -acre project area is located in a rugged canyon area on the significant, northern side of the Santa Susana Mountains. Most of the site is currently Impact Potentially Unleaa Lesa than significant Mltlgation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact those impacts on the environment is significant) wells are relatively far up Towsley Canyon, west of the project site. Although d) Does the project have environmental effects which [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] will cause substantiai adverse effects on human operations, but the few oil wells on the site have been abandoned, and have beings, either directly or indirectly? Surrounding land uses include open space to the west and south, low XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" FINDING density residential development to the north (Stevenson Ranch), and a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [ J [x] [ J [ j individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." XVIII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANDIOR EARLIER ANALYSES: Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact I. LAND USE AND The 740.7 -acre project area is located in a rugged canyon area on the PLANNING northern side of the Santa Susana Mountains. Most of the site is currently undeveloped open space, with the exception of a small area of commercial uses adjacent to Interstate 5 along The Old Road, just south of the Calgrove Boulevard interchange. The southern portion of the site within lower Towsley Canyon contains Ed Davis Park, a County facility that supports hiking trails and a small parking area for park users. The upper reaches of Towsley Canyon supported many active oil wells at one time. Most of these wells are relatively far up Towsley Canyon, west of the project site. Although many of the wells have been abandoned, oil operations have not yet completely ceased. The site itself also once supported oil exploration operations, but the few oil wells on the site have been abandoned, and have been evaluated in a Phase I site assessment for the site. Surrounding land uses include open space to the west and south, low density residential development to the north (Stevenson Ranch), and suburban residential uses to the northeast, across Interstate 5 within the City of Santa Clarita's Newhall community. Additional open space and steep terrain is located directly east across 1-5. The freeway forms a hard boundary to the east, and traffic using that roadway is a substantial source of noise that affects the site. The freeway also is the primary public viewing corridor near the project site. (See the discussions for noise and aesthetics for further details.) The project site is currently under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. As such, it is currently subject to the County's land use designations and zoning, which call for predominantly low density aad open space development Most of the site is zoned A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, 2 -acre minimum lot size) by the 10 Section andI Evaluation of Impact Subsections County, with A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, 1 -acre minimum lot size) generally adjacent to the freeway. An enclave within the southern portion of the site, surrounded by Ed Davis Park, is zoned R -R (Resort and Recreation), with the intent of expanding the park into that area. A small portion of the site's northeastern comer is zoned C-3 (unlimited commercial), which would allow visitor -serving commercial uses. Although the site is currently unincorporated, it ties within the City of Santa Ciarita's planning area, and is identified as a target for annexation.. Under the City's General Plan, the area is designated for a combination of residential and open space uses. Most of the areas near the Interstate 5 are designated RVL (Residential Very Low), which supports residential densities up to 1 unit per acre. The more remote, northwestern portion of the project area is designated RE (Residential Estate), which would allow housing densities up to 0.5 units per acre. The southern portion of the site that contains Ed Davis Park is designated as Open Space. The park surrounds an area designated as RVL (Residential Very Low). The proposed annexation and prezoning would not in themselves change the land use characteristics of the site, and would not result in direct land use impacts. However, future development on the project site that would be accommodated under the proposed prezoning designations could result in changes in on-site land use. Proposed SP prezoning for the northern portion of the site envisions development under a Specific Plan that would accommodate primarily low density housing (1-2.2 units per acre). The southern portion of the site encompassing the existing park and the area to the west would be prezoned OS (Open Space). The portion of the site adjacent to 1-5 near the Calgrove Boulevard interchange would be prezoned CC (Community Commercial) to accommodate visitor -serving commercial uses. a. General Plan Designations and Zoning. Proposed prezoning would be largely consistent with existing city general plan designations. However, some of the residential densities within the specific plan area would exceed those allowed under the general plan, which accommodates densities up to 1 unit per acre. Specific Plan zoning at the proposed densities (up to 2.2 units per acre) may require a general plan amendment to RL (Residential Low) to achieve consistency.. Similarly, proposed CC prezoning near Calgrove Boulevard may be inconsistent with existing RVL (Residential Very Low) designations for the area. Either a general plan amendment or a revision to the proposed prezoning would be required to achieve consistency (see Mitigation Measure 1-1). b and e. Environmental Plans/SERs. Portions of the project site have a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) overlay, primarily to protect the oak trees - within the area. Although the proposed annexation would not affect the SEA, future development that could occur on thQ site could conflict with SEA requirements, depending upon its size, type, and location. However, Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact mitigation provided under Item VII, Biological Resources, would be expected to alleviate any significant impacts. c and d. Land Use Incompatibility/Impacts to Established Communities. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not directly affect environmental conditions. Therefore, they would not create land use conflicts. The proposed prezoning would accommodate low-density residential, visitor-serving commercial, and open space uses. In general, such uses would be compatible with adjacent land uses, and would not result in land use conflicts. Residential development allowed by the proposed prezoning would be largely consistent with the character of that within Stevenson Ranch to the north, as well as other suburban housing on the periphery of the City. The land use pattern that would be accommodated by the proposed prezoning would also represent a logical transition, with more intensive community commercial uses along the freeway frontage in the eastern portion of the site and less intensive residential and open spaces uses farther west. Development adjacent to Interstate 5 could result in significant visual impacts, and could be subject to substantial freeway noise. (Refer to the discussions under Item X, Noise, and Item XIII, Aesthetics, for appropriate mitigation measures.) Development in areas that once supported oil operations could expose future residents to safety-related impacts. (See the discussion under Item IX.d, Hazards, for mitigation related to this issue.) Potential open space uses in the southern portion of the site would be consistent with the existing park in Towsley Canyon, and similar to what is currently envisioned by the County for this area. Potential commercial development adjacent to the freeway would be an appropriate land use at that location. However, the intensity of development would be greater than that currently envisioned by the County. Mitigation measures related to noise, biology, aesthetics, and hazards would mitigate physical land use impacts associated with development that may occur after project implementation. IL POPULATION AND a. Population Projections. The Southern California Association of HOUSING Governments (SCAG) has estimated that the North Los Angeles area (including Santa Clarita) had a 1990 population of 216,000 and a is projected to reach a population of about 629,000 by the year 2010. The City of Santa Cladta is expected to grow from a 1997 population of 142,153 to about 175,000 by 2010 (Minjares, 1997). The proposed annexation and prezoning would not in themselves have any effect upon population and housing in the area. Though future development plans for the area are unknown, the proposed prezoning designations could accommodate both residential and commercial development Nevertheless, because development of this area has bean anticipated in the City of Santa Clarita General Pian, future development of the site would not be expected 12 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact to cause a cumulative exceedance of SCAG population projections for the North Los Angeles area. No mitigation measures are necessary. b. Loss of Jobs. A majority of the existing area is undeveloped. The only existing development on-site are several businesses in the southeast comer of the site along The Old Road. No dislocation of employment or business would occur as a result of the proposed annexation and prezoning. Future development that could occur on-site would not be expected to displace existing businesses because the proposed prezoning designations would allow continued operation of existing on-site.businesses. No mitigation measures are necessary. c. Displacement of Existing housing. No housing currently exists on the project site. Neither annexation nor possible future development would displace existing housing. No mitigation measures are necessary. Ill. GEOLOGIC Upper Pliocene marine sedimentary deposits and middle and/or lower PROBLEMS Pliocene sedimentary deposits underlie the site. The soil association for the northern area of the project site is Balcom-CastaicSaugus Association, the southern project area is the Gavioto-Milsholm Association, and a small portion along The Old Road is the Yolo Association. The soils in the mouth of the canyon and valley are primarily alluvial gravel, sand and clay. The northern upland areas of the site consist of silty clay Ioams that are moderately permeable and have a high runoff rate with a high risk for erosion. A majority of the soils in the souther portion of the project site are on steep slopes and consist of well drained rock foams., The runoff from these soils is rapid and the risk of erosion is high. Active faults that are located within the City of Santa Ciarita, as defined by the Safety Element (1991) and the State of California Earthquake Fault Zones map, include the San Gabriel, Holser, and Stevenson Ranch Faults. Potentially active faults within the vicinity of Santa Clarita include the Whitney, Placerita, Soledad, Mint Canyon, Tick Canyon, Pelona, San Francisquito, Del Valle, and San Felicia faults. None of these faults are within the project area or immediately adjacent to the project area. a. Unstable Earth Conditions. The proposed annexation would not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures. While there are currently no development plans for the area, future development that could occur on-site could affect geologic substructures. Mitigation Measure 111-1 would ensure that future development does not result in potentially significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures. 13 Section andI Evaluation of impact Subsections o ana c. uisruption of SoillChanges in Topography. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not in themselves result in any physical effects; therefore, project implementation would not result in any direct disruption, displacement, compaction or over-govering of the soil, nor would it change the topography or ground surface relief features. Possible future development that would be accommodated by the proposed prezoning designations could, however, result in soil disturbance. The City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code provides minimum standards for grading in the City, while the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance provides development standards for areas with slopes of 10 percent or more. The City Engineer is required to confirm that any development complies with applicable standards. Implementation of standard City requirements pertaining to grading would ensure that future grading activity does not create significant hazards. No mitigation measures are required. d. Unique Geologic and Physical Features. The project site is characterized by hilly topography with several small valleys and drainages. These characteristics are typical for this area west of Interstate 5. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan does not note any unique physical or geologic features for this area. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not result in any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly affect any unique geologic or physical features. Future development of the site may result in the alteration of site topography, depending upon its size and location; however, because all development would be subject to City grading requirements, no significant impacts to unique geologic or physical characteristics are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. e. Erosion. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not create any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project would not directly create an increase in wind or water erosion, either on or off site. Future development of the site could result an increase in exposed soil susceptible to wind or water erosion. Erosion may occur when soil is exposed during and after construction of projects. Depending on the soil type, time of year, and steepness of the site rates of erosion can vary widely. Much of the site, especially the steeper slopes, are at high risk for erosion. The potential for erosion associated with individual development projects will need to be evaluated On a case-by-case basis during subsequent environmental evaluation. To prevent potentially significant erosion from future development on the site; Mitigation Measure 111-2 is required. , 14 Section andI Evaluation of Impact Subsections I ana K. taeologic HazardslAlquist Priolo Zones. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not result in any direct physical effects; therefore, the proposed project would not directly expose people to geologic hazards. No portion of the site is within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone for seismic activity; therefore, Alquist-Priolo studies would not be required of future development projects. However, potential future development on the site could be exposed to geologic hazards that exist on-site. According to the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones map for the annexation area, over 90 percent of the site could experience earthquake induced landslides or liquefaction (see Figure 5) The figure shows areas of previous occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions that indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements requiring mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c). With the majority of the site potentially susceptible to earthquake -induced landslides or liquefaction, Mitigation Measure III -1 would be required for all future development within the annexation area to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. g. Deposition, Erosion, and Siltation. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not create any direct physical effects; therefore, project implementation would not directly create any changes in deposition, erosion, or siltation. The annexation site is hilly and has many small drainages. The largest creek on the site is Towsley Creek located in the southern portion of the site. Future development on the site could create changes in deposition, erosion, and siltation in site drainages because of the hilly topography of the site and the erodible characteristic of the soils. Mitigation Measure III -3 is required for any future on-site development projects. h. Modifications to Water Courses. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly modify a wash, channel, creek or river. Future development that would be accommodated by the proposed prezoning designations could, however, affect watercourses, depending upon the size and location of such development Towsley Creek is within the proposed open space land use prezoning for the annexation project This zoning designation indicates that any development would be of very low intensity. Therefore, Towsley Creek is not anticipated to be affected by future on-site development According to the City of Santa Clarita Uniform Development Code, a specific purpose of the OS zone is to protect natural features such as Towsley Creek. Other washes, channels and creeks on the site could be affected by possible future development on the project site; therefore, appropriate setbacks and erosion control measures will need to be developed on case-by-case basis to mitigate potential impacts of possible future development. 15 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact To avoid potentially significant impacts to channels and creeks within the annexation area, Mitigation Measure III -4 is required. I and j. Earth Movement/Grading on 25 Percent Slopes. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly result in any earth movement or grading. Possible future development projects that would be accommodated under the proposed prezoning designations would, however, allow future increases in land use intensity as compared to the current County zoning designations in some portions of the site. Possible future development could therefore involve movement of more than 10,000 cubic yards of earth and development on slopes of greater than 25 percent, depending upon the size and location of development Future development plans would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for impacts with respect to earth movement and development on slopes greater than 25 percent. The City grading ordinance provides minimum standards for grading in the City. The City also has adopted a Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines. The ordinance provides development standards and requirements for development in areas having average slopes of 10 percent or more. Adherence to these and other applicable building codes and development standards along with subsequent environmental review for future projects would be expected to reduce impacts with respect to earth movement and development on steep slopes to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. IV. WATER a. Absorption and Runoff Patterns. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not result in any direct physical effects; therefore, project implementation would not result in direct changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. Possible future development in the annexation area could create impervious surface area that could incrementally change absorption rates, drainage patterns and surface runoff. However, the types of development anticipated to occur on- site in the future would not be expected to create extensive parking lots and other impervious surfaces that would create a significant change in absorption or runoff. All on-site development would comply with City of Santa Cladta requirements relating to erosion control and provision of appropriate drainage facilities. No additional mitigation is required. b. Exposure to Flooding. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not result in any direct physical change; therefore, project implementation would not result in the direct exposure of people or property to flood hazards. 16 Section andI Evaluation of Impact Subsections Portions of the project site are within the 100 -year flood zone, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (see Figure 6). Therefore, possible future development in low lying areas adjacent to the primary streams of Towsley Canyon, Wiley Canyon, and Lyon Canyon could be exposed to flood hazards. Much of Towsley Canyon is proposed to be designated Open Space; however, the mouth of the canyon and in the vicinity of The Old Road, Calgrove Boulevard and Interstate 5 has the largest area of potential flooding. To reduce flood hazards for future development in the annexation area to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measure IV -1 is required. c. Surface Waters. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change; therefore, project implementation would not result in any direct discharge to surface waters or alter the surface water quality. Because much of the site is at high risk for erosion (see Item Ill.g), possible future development of the area could result in erosion affecting water quality. While development plans for the site are unknown, it is anticipated that development would be low intensity commercial and residential. Discharges into surface waters from future projects are unknown and would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the time projects are proposed. Projects that would result in discharges to surface waters would be required to obtain water quality permits from the Los Angeles Regional Water.Quality Control Board. The permitting process and subsequent environmental review for such projects would reduce potential impacts to surface waters to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 111-3 would be required to reduce erosion -related impacts to a less than significant level. d. Surface Water Quantity. The project site includes three primary. drainages: Towsely Creek, Wiley Creek, and Lyon Creek. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, it would not result in any change in the amount of surface water in any water body. Possible future development that could occur under the proposed prezoning designations could increase impervious surface area and surface runoff. However, any future development would be required to comply with City of Santa Clarita requirements relating to detention or retention of storm water runoff, therefore, no significant increase in surface water runoff to site drainages is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. e. Direction of Water Movement. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, 17 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact project implementation would not directly affect the currents or the direction of water movements. Possible future development in the annexation area would be required to avoid stream channels for the primary streams in Towsley Canyon, Lyons Canyon, and Wiley Canyon because of potential flood hazards (Item "b"). Although individual development projects could create minor alterations of the direction of water movement on-site, impacts are anticipated to be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of standard City of Santa Clarita requirements pertaining to surface runoff. No mitigation measures are necessary. f, g, and i. Groundwater Quantity, Flow, and Supply. The proposed ' annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly affect the quantity of ground waters or the rate of flow. Possible future development on-site would be expected to obtain water service from the City of Santa Clarita, which obtains water from surface water sources. If surface water resources are not available at the time future development is proposed, such development could not be approved. There are no known sole source aquifers in the project site vicinity. Development of the site may incrementally reduce groundwater recharge in the area but, because of the low intensity uses planned for the site, would not be expected significantly affect groundwater resources. No mitigation measures are necessary. h. Groundwater Quality. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly affect the quality of ground water. It is anticipated that the City of Santa Clarita would provide sewer service to any future development on-site(see Item Xlt.e). However, possible future development in the area could potentially rely on septic tanks if the City could not provide sewer service. Septic tanks would be the primary concern for ground water quality, with likely use associated with low intensity residential development Placement of septic tanks is dependent on the soil conditions, percolation rates and groundwater depth. These conditicns vary widely for the project site and it is unknown where development that could require septic tanks may be located. Installation of septic tanks should be evaluated on a case-by- case basis to determine possible risks to groundwater. The Los Angeles County Health Department approves septic tank plans and the City of Santa Clarita issues permits. Compliance with conditions of approval would reduce impacts relating to septic tank operation to a less than significant level. No mitigation measures are necessary. 18 Section andI Evaluation of Impact Subsections a, b, and c. Violation of Air Quality Standards/Exposure of Sensitive Receptors/Objectionable Odors. Because the proposed annexation and prezoning do not entail any physical change to the environment, project implementation would not have any direct effect upon local or regional air quality. Development that could occur in some parts of the project site in the future could, however, result in both short-term construction emissions and/or long-term emissions associated with energy use and automobile trips. The level of impact would depend upon the type and size of projects proposed in the future. Although the proposed annexation and prezoning do not involve any construction activity, construction that could occur under the proposed prezoning designations could generate emissions from heavy equipment, as well as fugitive dust. The level of emissions would depend upon the size and type of development proposed, as well as the amount of grading necessary. Table 6-3 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook lists the types of projects that could have significant construction impacts (see Appendix A). These include single family housing projects with over about 1.3 million square feet of gross floor area and shopping centers of 975,000 square feet or more of gross floor area. Depending upon the specific project proposed on-site in the future, short-term construction impacts associated with future development on the site could exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measures V-1 through V-4 would be expected to reduce construction -related impacts from future development projects on- site to a less than significant level. The SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) includes projections of future air quality in the South Coast Air Basin based upon projections of future development contained in the General Plans of the various communities in the region. Because the land uses that would be accommodated on the project site are largely similar to those allowed under the current City of Santa Clarita General Plan, the air quality impact associated with potential buildout of the project site would be similar to that envisioned in the AQMP. Therefore, annexation and future buildout of the project site would not be expected to hinder progress toward attainment of state or federal air quality standards. Specific developments that may be implemented on the project site in the future could, however, exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for individual projects. The potential for future individual developments on the project site to generate emissions exceeding SCAQMD thresholds would depend upon thetype and size of development proposed. Table 6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook lists the types and sizes of projects that could have significant air quality impacts. Projects considered to have the potential to generate emissions exceeding thresholds include 166 or more units of single family housing and shopping centerp of 22,000 square feet or more. Such projects could be accommodated in some portions of the project site, 19 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact particularly the areas designated "Specific Plan.' Therefore, although the current annexation would have no effect on regional air quality, future on-site development could generate emissions exceeding SCAQMD thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure V-5 would address air quality impacts associated with individual development projects on the site and would be expected to reduce operational impacts associated with such developments to a less than significant level. VI. a. Increased Vehicle Trips, Regional access to the project site is primarily TRANSPORTATION/ provided by Interstate 5, which passes the project site immediately to the CIRCULATION east. Local access is provided primarily by The Old Road. The Old Road is currently a two-lane access road; however, the City's Circulation Element (1997) plans the segment of The Old Road from Pico Canyon Road to Calgrove Boulevard as a secondary arterial, which is typically a four -lane divided road with a daily capacity of about 36,000 vehicles and maintain the desired level of service C. The Circulation Element projects daily traffic of up to about 25,000 daily vehicle trips on The Old Road at full buildout of the City, which is estimated to occur around 2020. Therefore, The Old Road could accommodate about 11,000 additional daily trips. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not in itself generate any vehicle trips; therefore, project implementation would not directly affect traffic . levels or levels of service on the local circulation system. Development that could occur on the project site in the future could, however, generate vehicle trips, with corresponding impacts to the circulation system. Buildout of the commercially prezoned properties with a floer-to-area ratio (FAR) of 0.3 and maximum buildout under the residentially zoned properties would generate an estimated 12,970 daily vehicle trips (see Appendix B, Table 2). When combined with the 25,000 projected daily trips for The Old Road, this would exceed the daily capacity of the roadway by an estimated 1,970 trips. This would be a significant traffic impact. In addition, this buildout scenario does not consider any future development within the areas prezoned 'Specific Plan." Therefore, overall impacts associated with future buildout of the proposed annexation area would be greater, although the magnitude of impact would depend upon the types of uses proposed in the "Specific Plan' areas in the future. It should be noted, however, that, with the exception of the segment from Pico Canyon Road to Calgrove Boulevard, The Old Road is designated a major. highway. Therefore, the segments with a major highway designation . are anticipated to be capable of accommodating up to 45,000 daily vehicle trips and still maintain level of service C (an excess capacity of 20,000 vehicle trips as compared to the 25,000 daily trips projected for The Old Road). Future reclassification of the segment between Pico Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard and construction to major highway standards would provide excess capacity estimated at 7,030 daily vehicle trips (see Appendix B. Table 31. Under this scenario, buildout of the areas designated for 20 Section and Subsections Evaluation of impact Commercial and residential uses could be accommodated. In addition, the areas designated "Specific Plan" could be developed with uses generating up to 7,030 daily vehicle trips and remain within the capacity of The Old Road. Mitigation Measures VIA, VI-2, and VI-3 would ensure that any traffic - impacts resulting from possible future development on the project site are reduced to acceptable levels. b, c, e, and g. Safety HazardslEmergency Access/Road Improvement Patterns. No roads have been proposed or designed. Therefore, the proposed annexation and prezoning would not create any traffic safety or emergency access problems. Individual roads that may be proposed on-site in the future in Conjunction with specific development projects would be required to comply with City design standards relating to safety and access and would be subject to separate environmental review. No mitigation measures are necessary. d. Parking Capacity. The proposed annexation and prezoning do not involve any specific development; therefore, no impacts to parking capacity would occur. Any specific development projects proposed on-site in the future would be required to comply with City parking requirements and would be subject to separate environmental review. No mitigation measures are necessary. f. Policy Conflicts. Specific development projects proposed on-site in the future would be required to comply with City requirements relating to altemative transportation. Any conflicts with adopted alternative transportation policies would be addressed as part of separate environmental review for individual projects. No mitigation measures are necessary. VII. BIOLOGICAL The proposed annexation site consists primarily of Coast Live Oak RESOURCES Woodlands and Semi-Desert Chaparral (City of Santa Ciarita, 1997, Circulation Element Amendment FE/R). The oak woodland Community is dominated by the coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)• which occurs along the canyon bottom and the northerly facing slopes of the annexation area. These oak woodlands are part of a more extensive woodland that extends into the Santa Susana Mountain Range. The steeper hillsides are vegetated' with a mixed sage scrub and chaparral community that is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), California buckwheat (Edogonum fasciculatum), various sages (Salvia spp.), and California sunflower (Encelia califomica). A chamisal chaparral component tends to dominate the hillsides toward the northerly end of the annexation area. This scrub contains chamise (Adenostoma fasglcu/atum), redberry (Rhamnus crocea), and ceanothus (Ceanothus crassifolius) in addition to the sage 21 Section andI Evaluation of Impact Subsections scrub components. Other, more limited vegetation communities found on the site include California Walnut Woodland, Non-native Grassland, Mule Fat Scrub, Southern Willow Scrub, and developed areas. The annexation area includes portions of two Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) that have been designated by the County of Los Angeles: A portion of the southern half of the site, including Towsley Canyon, is part of the Santa Susana Mountains SEA that extends west and south of the annexation area. The Lyon Canyon SEA is partially contained within the northwestern section of the project site. The Lyon Canyon SEA covers approximately 150 acres of a relatively narrow canyon that contains both an oak woodland community and a substantial chamise chaparral community. The oak woodland community found in the southern portion of the SEA contains both the coast live oak and the valley oak (Quercus lobata). The project area includes the southern portion of this SEA (see Figure 7). The three primary intermittent streams on the site are Towsley Canyon Creek, Wiley Canyon Creek and Lyon Canyon Creek. Stream courses are protected under the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Cade Chapter 1600 and through Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act Any proposed disturbance to aquatic or wetland habitat must obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, who oversees permitting under the federal Clean Water Act A streambed alteration agreement is required from the CDFG. The State Water Resources Control Board also has jurisdiction over the discharge of materials within streambeds and potential disturbances though the certification requirements of Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act The woodland communities in the annexation area are important wildlife habitat because the increase in structural diversity created by the trees provides important roosting and nesting locations. Woodlands also create their own micro -climate of cooler temperatures that provide an Important respite for animals from the summer heat of the avid inland Santa Clarita Valley. Oaks juxtaposed with shrublands and nearby grasslands provide ideal breeding and foraging habitat for several birds of prey (raptors), including the red-tailed hawk, red -shouldered hawk, white-tailed kite, Cooper's hawk, great homed owl, barn owl, and American kestrel. The shrubland and oak habitats support many smaller birds, with scrub jay, California quail, phainopepla, bushtit, plain titmouse, mockingbird, California and rufous -sided towhees, and acorn woodpeckers found commonly. Common migratory species that may breed in the woodlands include orange - crowned and Wilson's warblers, ash -throated flychatcher, western kingbird, western wood peewee'and northern oriole. Shrub and grassland areas also provide foraging space for the turkey vulture, common crow, and common raven. Reptiles common to the habitats present in the annexation area include western fence lizard, side -blotched lizard, southern alligator lizard, gopher snake, common kingsnake, and wgstem rattlesnake. Several sensitive plant species are found in the general Santa Clarita area 22 Section andI Evaluation of Impact Subsections rare, endangered, or threatened plant species as listed by the federal or state regulatory authorities are known to occur in the vicinity of the annexation area, though a few sensitive plants that are listed by the California Native Plant Society (List 1 B) are possible. These include Peirson's morning glory (Calystegia peirsonir), Davidson's bush mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonii), and short joint beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada). An estimated 31 species of sensitive animals with declining populations could occur in the vicinity of the annexation area, as listed in Appendix C. Many of the sensitive species that could occur in the annexation area are listed by the regulatory agencies as species of concern, a designation indicating that existing information shows that these animals have declining populations to the extent that they may become formally listed as threatened or endangered species if their populations continue to decline. Only two formally listed species have the potential to occur at the site: the California condor and the southwestern willow flycatcher. Both would likely be rare transient visitors to the proposed annexation area. a, b, c, d. Important Species/Oak Trees/Wetlands/Migration Corridors. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not directly create any physical change; therefore, project implementation would not directly result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, oak trees, wetland habitat, biueline streams, wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. As part of the annexation, open space lands owned by the City would be brought directly into City jurisdiction for more efficient management of recreational lands. The annexation would accommodate future development of portions of the project site, which may.have impacts to the above mentioned biological resources of the site. Ownership area 6 is currently zoned Residential Very Low (RVL) by the County of Los Angeles, Development under this zoning could have a significant biological impact on the resources contained within the Santa Susana SEA. The proposed open space zoning for ownership area 6 would reduce the potential for development and would be anticipated to be beneficial for the important biological resources. Ownership areas 8, 10, and 11 are located between The Old Road and Interstate 5. They have been previously disturbed and contain little habitat value. Therefore, future development that would be allowed following annexation would not be expected to significantly affect biological resources in those areas. Possible future development in the northern portion of the project site could adversely affect important biological resources. Loss and/or degradation of habitat and species could occur depending on the location, size and use of any future proposed project Introduction of new roads on the site and clearing of existing vegetation for development could result in the destruction of habitat, oak trees, and/or plant and anirpal species. Roads and other development projects could fragment and create smaller patches of habitat 23 Section and Evaluation of Impact Subsections Depending on the extent of fragmentation and on the type of habitat, a reduction in the diversity and populations of plants and animals within this local area could occur. Fragmentation of habitat, especially along the riparian corridor of Lyon Canyon could adversely affect migration corridors and degrade species diversity and population.' The City Oak Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance (Section 17.17.090 of the Development Code) is intended to protect and preserve oak trees within the City. The ordinance requires that an oak tree permit be obtained prior to cutting, pruning, removing, relocating endangering, damaging or encroaching into the protected zone (5 feet beyond the dripline) of any oak tree, with specific exemptions. Standard conditions of the oak tree permit require the replacement/relocation of trees either on- or off-site and certification of compliance with the conditions of the permit and the health of all replacement and relocated on-site trees after planting. Future development projects would be required by the City to comply with the Oak Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance.. Compliance with this ordinance would reduce impacts to oak trees to a less than significant level. To reduce the potential impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed annexation to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measures VII- 1 through VII-3 are required. VIII. ENERGY AND a and b. Conservation Plans/Use of Non-renewable Resources. The MINERAL proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical RESOURCES change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly result in additional use of energy on-site beyond that used under current site conditions. Potential future development on the site could increase energy consumption; however, any future development would be required to comply with adopted City policies pertaining to energy conservation. No conflicts with adopted energy policies or use of energy in a wasteful manner is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. c. Availability of Mineral Resources. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not alter physical conditions on the project site; therefore, project implementation would not directly affect mineral resources. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan identifies active oil fields south and west of the project site; however, it does not show any oil fields or other mineral resource areas within the project site boundaries. Therefore, potential future development on the site would not be expected to affect energy production or mineral resource extraction. No mitigation measures are necessary. 24 Section andI Evaluation of Impact Subsections Ix: HAZARD5 a. Risk of Accidental Explosion/Hazardous Substance Release. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not create a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil,, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation). Possible future development at the site is unknown, however, no known sources of explosion or hazardous material spills exist on the project site and the types of development that would be accommodated under the proposed prezoning designations typically do not involve the use of large quantities of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. b. Emergency Response Plans. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not interfere with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Possible future development that could occur under the proposed prezoning designations would not be expected to impede roadways such as Interstate 5 that may be used for evacuation. The increase in population from development of the site may increase the number of people involved in evacuation or responding to an emergency. However, any future development would meet the evacuation and access requirements of the City of Santa Clanta Fire Department No impact to emergency response plans is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. c and d. Potential Health Hazards. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly create health hazards or potential health hazards. Possible future development on the site would consist of single family residential and community commercial uses. Such uses would not be expected to create any health hazards for area residents, employees, or visitors. The Lyon Canyon Field in the northern area of the site and two abandoned wells in Towsley Canyon are located on the project site. In addition, several wells are located outside the project site farther up Towsley Canyon. Several of these wells are being abandoned to avoid potential water pollution problems with Towsley Creek. A previous Phase i Site Assessment completed for ownership area 6, owned by the City of Santa Clarita, did not indicate any oil pipelines through Towsley Canyon (Rincon Consultants, Inc., 1995). This area also contains two abandoned oil wells that have been sealed off. Development that may occur within the Towsley Canyon area or in the northern portion of the site could enpounter abandoned oil wells, pipelines, or other oil related remains or equipment 25 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact To reduce the risk of existing potential sources of health hazards to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measure IX -1 is required. e. Fire Hazards. The proposed annexation would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, it would not create an increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. Possible future development that would be accommodated by the proposed prezoning designations could be exposed to fire hazards. The site is entirely contained within the City of Santa Clarita's Fire Hazard Area, as designated by the Safety Element of the General Plan (1991). The areas of sage, grasslands and other brush that cover much of the project site are susceptible to wildfires that can be exacerbated by seasonally high winds and dry summers. Protecting structures and other property from wildfires could be difficult, depending on accessibility to developments by fire fighting personnel. To reduce the risk of fire hazards for future projects in the annexation area to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measure IX -2 is required. X. NOISE Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A - weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). A doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dB. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dB greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dB change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dB changes are generally not perceived. Typical ambient sounds range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to about 85 dBA (very loud). Typical exterior ambient noise levels away from obvious noise sources are about 50 to 55 dBA. There are many rating scales for noise, the most widely -used being the Day - Night Average Level (Ldn) and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Both methods aggregate noise levels over a 24-hour period, accounting for the annoying effects of sound, particularly at night In general, interior sound levels exceeding 45 dBA CNEL are considered intrusive. Typical building construction materials filter out about 15-20 dBA. Consequently, an exterior noise level exceeding 60 dBA CNEL would be considered significant (City of Santa Clarita Noise Element), and would require additional mitigation to reduce interior noise levels to comfortable levels. The City's exterior threshold for commercial structures is 70 dBA CNEL. a and b. Increases In Noise/Exposure to Severe Noise. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not increase noise OW Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact or result in direct exposure to severe noise levels. Possible future development that could be accommodated under the proposed prezoning designations could, however, result in exposure to noise exceeding normally acceptable levels, depending upon its type and location on the site. The primary source of noise affecting the project site is traffic using Interstate 5. Based upon projected traffic levels on Interstate 5 contained in the City's Circulation Element, the 60 dBA CNEL contour adjacent to the project site would be about 2,500 feet from the freeway centerline (see Figure 8 for contours and Appendix D for calculations). The 70 dBA CNEL contour would be considerably closer, about 500 feet from the centerline. These contours present a worst-case scenario, as they assume no barrier attenuation from topography. In actuality, the rugged terrain of the site would block much of the freeway noise, and the distance to the threshold contours, particularly the 60 dBA contour, would vary depending on the local topography. There are currently no noise -sensitive land uses on the site {homes, schools, hospitals, for example). However, development that could be accommodated as a result of the proposed annexation could be exposed to substantial noise from Interstate 5. Much of the potential' commercial development along the freeway would be within 500 feet of the 1-5 centerline, and would likely be exposed to noise levels exceeding the 70 dBA CNEL threshold. Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigabie through implementation of Mitigation Measure X-1. Potential residential development would include much of the northern portion the project site. The Specific Plan zone could accommodate homes well within 2,500 feet of the freeway, which is the worst-case 60 dBA CNEL threshold contour. It is likely that intervening terrain would block noise in portions of the site within that contour, particularly in Lyon Canyon. However, other areas would be directly exposed to freeway noise, as some homes would likely overlook the freeway from an elevated location. Because noise levels could exceed the maximum "normally acceptable" level for residential uses, impacts are considered potentially significant Implementation of Mitigation Measure X-2 would be required to reduce potential noise impacts to a level considered less than significant XI. PUBLIC a. Fire protection. As part of the Consolidated Fire Protection District, the SERVICES City of Santa Clarita and the planning area receive fire protection and emergency medical service from the Los Angeles County Fire Department The proposed annexation area would be served by County Station 124 located at 25111 Pico Canyon Road about 3 miles from the Towsley Canyon area. The station currently has one engine and one paramedic unit and is staffed by five people. ' 27 Section andI Evaluation of Impact Subsections i ne proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly affect fire protection service. Possible future development on the site could, however, require additional fire protection service. Of primary concern in this area is the potential for brush fires (see Item IX, Hazards). Any future development within the fire hazard area should be designed to minimize risk from wildfires. With incorporation of standard building and landscaping practices for fire hazard areas, no significant impacts to fire protection services would be anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. b. Police Protection. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department services the area west of Interstate 5 between Castaic and State Route 14. Over a 24-hour period there are three 2 -person cars and two 1 -man cars patrolling this area west of 1-5, including the proposed annexation. The current level of police service is considered adequate for the area. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly affect fire protection service. Possible future development on the site could, however, require additional fire protection service. Possible future development at the site would likely be low intensity residential and commercial developments. Police services would not be significantly affected by future development at the site. No mitigation measures are necessary. c. Schools. Of the seven elementary schools (K-6) within the Newhall School District, the four closest to the proposed annexation area are Valencia Valley Elementary, Wiley Canyon Elementary, Old Orchard Elementary, and Peachland Avenue Elementary. With the exception of Old Orchard Elementary School, the schools in the vicinity of the proposed annexation are near or exceeding capacity. New schools, in agreement with developer contracts for the district, will be constructed in four to five years. Three of the above schools will be converted into a multi -track year-round calendar in 1998/1999 due to overcrowding and extension of class size reduction into Yd grade. The Placenta Junior High School and William Hart High School within the Hart School District would serve students in grades 7 —12. Currently, the William Hart High School has 2,240 students enrolled and a capacity of 2,274. Placenta Junior High School has a current enrollment of 1,179 and a capacity of 1,104. Both of the schools are currently at or overcapacity. 28 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct change to the environment: therefore, project implementation would not directly create any physical effects to schools. Student generation from future development at the site may contribute to overcrowding of elementary, junior high and high school facilities. The extent of student generation is unknown because there are no current development plans for the area. However, . future developments would be required to estimate student generation and would be required to pay development fees to the school districts to mitigate student generation. California Government Code § 65995 was enacted in 1990 to generate revenue funds to school districts for capital acquisitions and improvements. The maximum allowed for development projects is a one-time fee of $1.84 per square foot of residential floor area and $0.30 per square foot of commercial and industrial space. These fees are not considered by the school districts to meet the full cost of accommodating students from development projects_ Case-by-case evaluation of future development with respect to student generation and implementation of measures from these evaluations including development fees and possible mitigation agreements between the school districts and developers would mitigate impacts to schools to a less than significant level. No mitigation measures are necessary. d. Public Facilities. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical effect on the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly create the need for additional maintenance of public facilities. Future development plans for the project site are unknown. However, future development of the area would likely be loyr intensity residential and commercial. This type of development would not result in a significant effect to maintenance or public facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. XII. UTILITIES a. Power and Natural Gas. The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas service to the Santa Clarita Valley and electric service is provided by Southern California Edison Company. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not result in a significant need for new supplies, systems or alterations to these utilities. Possible future development on the site would be expected to increase the demand for natural gas and electricity. However, power and natural gas supplies are considered sufficient to meet future demands of the City. No significant impact to these utilities and distribution systems is anticipated. No mitigation measures are.necessary. b. Communication systems. Communication systems, such as telephone lines, are owned and operated by various companies. The proposed 29 Section andI Evaluation of Impact Subsections annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly alter demand for these utilities. Possible future development on the site would increase the demand for communications systems; however, communication systems are currently adequate and are anticipated to meet future demands of the City. No significant impact to communication systems is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. c and g. Water Treatment, Distribution, and Supply. The project area is served by the.Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA), which also serves the City of Santa Ciarita and areas around the City. CLWA owns and*operates water conveyance pipelines and water treatment facilities that supply local water purveyors within its boundaries. The Los Angeles County Wayside Honor Rancho Company is the water purveyor for the project site. New water delivery pipelines are proposed for the western area of Santa Clarita. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not cause any physical effects to water systems or supplies. Possible future development of the site would create demand for water. Extensions of water distribution facilities would be made as needed to serve future development Because current and planned water treatment systems and water supplies are adequate to meet current and future demands, no significant impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. d. Sewer and Septic Tanks. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not require any new sewer service or septic tanks. Possible future development at the annexation site could require sewer line extensions to primary or secondary sewer lines. It is unknown whether or not septic tanks would be used in any portion of the project site because development plans have not been prepared. Wastewater treatment for. any future on-site development could be provided by Los Angeles County Sanitation District 32. The treatment plant currently processes about 9.5 million gallons per day and has a permitted capacity of 12.6 mgd. There are plans to expand the facility over the next 5 to 10 years to meet the demands of future growth. Therefore, future development on the project site is not anticipated to adversely affect wastewater treatment capabilities. Sewer lines would be upgraded as needed in conjunction with future development = No mitigation measures are necessary. e. Storm Water Drainage. The County of Los Angeles provides and maintains major storm drain facilities in the City. The current storm drainage 30 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact system consists of natural drainages, main storm drainage collection lines and drainage channels maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), and local storm drainage systems and on-site retention or detention ponds typically required of developers. Storm drain facilities are upgraded as needed to provide adequate drainage for new development in the City. The annexation area is generally drained by Towsley Canyon Creek, a tributary of.the South Fork of the Santa Clara River. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly affect storm water drainage at the site. Possible future development at the site may require drainage facilities, depending upon their type and size. Since there are not currently any development plans for the site, specific drainage effects are unknown. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure XII -1, impacts to the storm drainage system would be less than significant f. Solid Waste Disposal. The City of Santa Clarita generates about 240,000 tons of solid waste per year. About 50 percent of the disposed waste stream is commercial, industrial, constriction and demolition debris. The Chiquita Landfill primarily serves the City of Santa Clarita and Northern Los Angeles County. The landfill receives about 3,000 tons per day of solid waste. Currently, Laidlaw, the company that operates the landfill, is in the process of obtaining permits to allow an additional 22 years or 23 million tons of solid waste capacity. Under the existing permits the landfill would reach capacity in about one year. The permits to allow expansion are anticipated in the summer of 1998. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not result in a direct increase in solid waste generation. Possible future development at the project site would generate more solid waste than would be generated by buildout under current County zoning. However, assuming that the currently planned expansion of Chiqufta Landfill is implemented, landfill space is anticipated to be available to serve any future development on-site. Impacts to solid waste disposal facilities are anticipated to be less than significant, although subsequent environmental review of specific individual projects on-site could be necessary if the planned landfill expansion is not implemented. No mitigation measures are necessary. XIII. AESTHETICS The project siteL is located in a rugged canyon area on the northem side of the Santa Susana Mountains, adjacent to the southwesternmost portion of the City of Santa Clarita. The undeveloped steep slopes and varied topography of the site provide a gateway to more remote mountainous areas to the west and south. Much of the site is not visible from Interstate 5 because of its rugged terrain. As a resuit,'it is also difficult to see much of 31 Section andI Evaluation of Impact Subsections me low-lying Santa Glarita Valley to the northeast from the site, except from the ridges above the canyons, which range as high as 1,800 feet Three canyons (Towsley, Lyon and Wiley) are the.major visual features of the site, all of which open up to the east to provide access to the Interstate 5 corridor. Most of the project site is undeveloped, with the exception of limited commercial uses adjacent to the freeway. Much of the site retains a largely natural character, with dry brushy vegetation on the upland area, with more trees in the canyons. Small, lightly -used and largely unpaved roadways currently provide access to the canyons, which had been the site of historic oil operations. a and b. Scenic Vistas/Aesthetic Effects: The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not in itself alter the existing visual character of the site. However, the annexation would allow for the future development of the area with planned residential, commercial and open space uses. About 40 acres directly adjacent to the freeway could include commercial development, visually similar to the restaurants and gas stations near the Lyons Avenue off -ramp about 2 miles north of the site. It would be the intent of such development to.be visually prominent from the freeway, mainly to attract passing motorists. Such development would likely be similar to that of much of the Interstate 5 corridor, nevertheless, because high visibility of the freeway frontage area, mitigation measures are required. Much of the northern portion of the project site is anticipated to accommodate residential uses under a specific plan. About 340 acres generally between Lyon and Towsley Canyons could eventually be developed for rural/suburban scale housing, at densities of about 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre. The overall development intensity in this area would be slightly less than the Stevenson Ranch development south of Six Flags Magic Mountain. Much of the residential area would be within the low-lying canyons, and would not be visible from the freeway or other off-site public viewing areas. However, ridgetop development within the site could be visible from the freeway and even more distant areas of the valley, which could be visually intrusive. Mitigation would be required to minimize the impact of possible future on-site development The southern and most visually prominent portion of the site would remain in open space. This 220 -acre area includes much of Towsley and Wiley Canyons. No visual impacts are expected in this area because it is anticipated to be preserved as open space. Mitigation Measures XIII -1 through XIII -3 would be required to reduce potential visual impacts to a less than significant level. c. Light and Glare. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would have no direct effect on light or glare conditions in the 32 Section and Evaluation of Impact Subsections site vicinity. Possible future development on-site could, however, generate nighttime lighting that would be visible from various locations, including Interstate 5. The potential effect on nighttime lighting could be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure X1114. XIV. CULTURAL a, b, c, d. Paleontological/Archaeologica!!Historic!Religious RESOURCES Resources. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly affect any identified cultural resources. To determine whether or not future development of the site could affect any identified historic or prehistoric resources, a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center at the UCLA Institute of Archaeology (see Appendix E). The search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites on the project site, as well as all known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. Historic maps, the California State Historic Resources Inventory, the National Register of Historic Places, the listing of California Historical Landmarks, and the California Points of Historical Interest were also examined. The records search found no historic archaeological sites or other designated historic resources on the project site. One prehistoric archaeological site (LAN802) has been identified on the project site. Three isolated prehistoric artifacts have also been reported on the site. Therefore, future development on-site could significantly affect cultural resources, depending upon the importance of the resources on-site and type and location of development proposed. Six surveys and/or excavations have been conducted on the project site. Combined, these surveys have covered the majority of the project site. Nevertheless, because some of the surveys are more than 20 years old and resources are present in the site vicinity, the South Central Coastal Information Center recommends that Phase I survey work be conducted for any development proposal on the site (Mitigation Measure XIVA). XV. RECREATION The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment therefore, project implementation would not result in any direct impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. Future development of the project area in the Towsley Canyon portion of the site (ownership area 6) may result in the expansion of parklands for the City of Santa Clarita. Ownership area 6 is proposed to be zoned as open space and could be used to enhance recreational opportunities for the: City. Possible future development on the remainder of the site would not be expected to affect existing recreational opportunities. Impacts to existing recreational opportunities are anticipated to be less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. 33 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact XVI. MANDATORY a. Degradation of the Quality of the Environment. The proposed FINDINGS OF annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to SIGNIFICANCE the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly affect the quality of the environment or on the habitat of any species.. Possible future development on the project site would alter environmental conditions on portions of the site, although much of the southern end of the site would remain in open space. Implementation of the measures required to mitigate impacts to biological resources, earth, and aesthetics, including future studies of specific development proposals, would be expected to reduce any impacts to important biological resources to a less than significant level. b. Short -Term vs. Long -Tenn Goals. The proposed annexation and prezoning would achieve the long-term goal of preserving the southern portion of the area around Towsley Canyon as permanent open space, as well as giving the City control over future development in the remainder of the project site. It is therefore specifically intended to meet the long-term, rather than the short-term goals of the City. c. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed annexation and prezoning would not involve any direct physical change to the environment; therefore, project implementation would not directly contribute to any cumulative environmental impacts. Possible future development on the site could incrementally contribute to cumulative effects in such areas as transportation, biology, and aesthetics. However, the mitigation measures required in this document, including the preparation of environmental studies on specific future development proposals on the project site, are anticipated to fully address and mitigate both project and cumulative impacts. 34 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Mitigation: The following mitigation measure would be required to achieve consistency between the City's General Plan and proposed prezoning. 1-1 The City of Santa Clarita shall either adopt a General Pian Amendment to reflect the prezoning designations proposed for the project site or revise the prezoning designations to reflect the current General Pian land use designations. Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Monitoring Action/Timing: Adoption of a General Plan Amendment that reflects proposed prezoning or development of zoning that is consistent with the City's General Plan prior to annexation. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services II. POPULATION AND HOUSING Mitigation: None required. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Mitigation: The following measures are required to mitigate potential impacts relating to geologic and seismic hazards: 111-1 Appropriate soils and geotechnical investigations shall be conducted for all specific future developments within the proposed annexation area. Any additional recommendations contained in such investigations beyond compliance with standard Uniform Building Code (UBC) shall be fully implemented. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Action/Timing: Evaluation during subsequent environmental review/plan check for individual projects. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services III -2 At the time of subsequent environmental review of specific projects within the proposed annexation, the potential for erosion shall, be evaluated and any recommendations for erosion control shall implemented. Patty Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Evaluation during subsequent environmental review/plan check for individual projects. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services 35 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities III -3 At the time of subsequent environmental review of specific projects on the project site, the potential for erosion shall be evaluated and any applicable recommendations for erosion control shall be implemented. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Actionmming: Evaluation during subsequent environmental review/plan check for individual projects. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services IIIA Future development in the vicinity of drainages should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis during subsequent environmental review. Appropriate setbacks from creeks and channels shall be developed for future development Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Action/Timing: Evaluation during subsequent environmental review/plan check for individual projects. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services IV. WATER Mitigation: The following measure is required to mitigate possible Flooding impacts: IV -1 Future development on the project site shall avoid siting of permanent structures within Zone A flood hazard areas, as depicted in Figure 6. Any development adjacent to Zone A shall be subject to further detailed evaluation with information from the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Actionrriming: Evaluation during subsequent environmental review/plan check for individual projects. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services and Transportation and Engineering Services V. AIR QUALITY Mitigation: The following measures would be required to reduce air quality impacts associated with future development that could occur on the project site to a less than significant level: V-1 Water trucks shall be used during future construction of any individual development projects on the project site to keep all areas of vehicle movement sufficiently damp to prevent dust from leaving the construction site. At a minimum, this will require twice daily applications. Grading shall be suspended whenever wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. 36 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Action/Timing: On-site monitoring periodically during construction Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services V-2 Whenever importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is involved in any construction activity on the project site, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Actionlriming: On-site monitoring periodically during construction Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services V-3 After clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation is completed for any on-site construction proposed in the future, the disturbed area shall be treated by watering or revegetation, or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Action/Timing: On-site monitoring periodically during construction Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services V-4 An analysis of construction -related air quality impacts shall be conducted for any specific development project proposed on-site that is equivalent to one of the projects listed in Table 6-3 of the South Coast AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (see Appendix A). Any additional mitigation requirements recommended in the air quality study shall be fully implemented. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Action/Timing: Review of project design during environmental review/pian check for individual development projects. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services V-5. An analysis of operational air quality impacts shall be conducted for any specific development project proposed on the project site that is equivalent to one of the projects listed in Table 6-2 of the South Coast AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (see Appendix A). Any mitigation requirements recommended in the air quality study shall be fully implemented. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Action/Timing: Review of project design during environmental review/plan check for individual development projects. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION` Mitigation: The following measures would be required to mitigate potential impacts to the local circulation system: 37 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities A traffic study shall be undertaken for any specific development project on-site that is projected to generate 50 or more peak hour vehicle trips. At a minimum, future traffic studies shall evaluate impacts upon The Old Road, Pico Canyon Boulevard, and Lyons Avenue: Any mitigation recommendations contained in the traffic study shall be fully implemented. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Action/Timing; Review of project designs during environmental review/plan check for individual development projects Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning & Building Services Department VI -2 If determined to be necessary at some point in the future to maintain level of service C on The Old Road, the City of Santa Clarita shall amend the City's Circulation Element to classify the segment of The Old Road from Pico Canyon Road to Calgrove Boulevard as a major arterial to allow construction of that road segment to major arterial standards. An assessment of this need will be made as part of future traffic studies required under Mitigation Measure VI -1. ' Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita/future project applicants Monitoring ActionlTiming: Review of projects during environmental review/plan check for individual development projects and, if necessary, adoption of a General Pian amendment Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning & Building Services Department VI -3 The total number of daily vehicle trips generated by all uses proposed in the areas on- site prezoned "Specific Plan" shall not exceed 7,030 unless the traffic studies required in Mitigation Measure VIA demonstrate that all affected roads can accommodate more trips without deteriorating to below level of service C. Trip generation rates for proposed future developments within the areas prezoned Specific Plan shall be obtained from the most current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip General manual or other source approved by the City of Santa Clarita. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants/City of Santa Clarita Monitoring Actionmming: Review of projects during environmental review/plan check for individual development projects Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning & Building Services I VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I Mitigation: To mitigate the biological resource impacts associated with possible future development of the project site to a less than significant level, the following measures are required: VII -1 Future residential or commercial development in the annexation area shall be designed to avoid or otherwise mitigate impacts to the important biological resources within the Significant Ecological Areas of Lyon Canyon and thb Santa Susana Mountains. 38 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring ActionfTiming: Review of development plans as part of the environmental review/plan check for individual projects Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services VII-2 All future development plans on the project site, with the exception of ownership areas 8, 10, and 11 on Figure 2 (between The Old Road and Interstate 5) shall be subject to a detailed biological study to determine impacts to biological resources. Biological studies shall include, but are not limited to, an evaluation of potential habitat fragmentation, impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species, impacts to oak tree woodlands, wetland, and stream habitats. The biological studies shall detail mitigation measures to be incorporated into the design of any future development projects in the area sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Such measures shall then be incorporated into the development project design and implementation. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Action/Timing: Review of development plans as part of the environmental review/pian check for individual projects Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services VII-3 Based on the biological studies described in Measure VII-2, future projects shall be designed to limit habitat fragmentation from roads and buildings by retaining connectivity habitats and use of buffer zones along riparian areas and other sensitive habitat, including SEAS. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring ActionlTIIming: Review of development plans as part of the environmental review/plan check for individual projects Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Mitigation: None required. IX. HAZARDS Mitigation: The following measures would be required to mitigate potential impacts relating to oil wells and fire hazards: IX-1 A phase I site assessment shalt be completed for future individual development projects within the proposed annexation area. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring ActionMming: Verification of study in conjungtion with subsequent environmental 39 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities review/plan check for individual development projects Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services IX -2 All future development proposals within the annexation area shall be evaluated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department to develop wildfire protection plans. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Actionfriming: Review of development plans as part of the environmental review/plan check for individual projects Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Las Angeles County Fire Department X. NOISE Mitigation: The following mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential freeway impacts to a less than significant level: X-1 Site-specific noise studies shall be required for commercial development within 500 feet of the centerline of Interstate 5. The studies shall include a combination of modeling and actual noise measurements to verify expected noise volumes at individual sites. The recommendations of such studies, which may include the use of setbacks, berms or specific building materials and orientations, shall be implemented. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Actionffiming: Site specific noise study, prior to project approval . Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning & Building Services Department X-2 Site-specific noise studies shall be required for residential development within 2,500 feet of -the centerline of Interstate 5. The studies shall include a combination of modeling and actual noise measurements to verify expected noise volumes at individual sites. The recommendations of such studies, which may include the use of setbacks, berms or specific building materials and orientations, shall be implemented. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring ActionMming: Site specific noise studies, in conjunction with environmental review of individual on-site development projects Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services XI. PUBLIC SERVICES Mitigation: None required. Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities XII. UTILITIES Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to ensure that local storm drain facilities are adequate to serve any future development on the project site: XII -1 At the time future projects on the project site are proposed, the local storm water drainage system shall be evaluated to ensure that adequate capacity exists. Any . needed improvements to the local drainage system shall be implemented in conjunction with future development. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Action/Timing: Verification of adequacy of storm drain system in conjunction with environmental review/plan check for individual development projects. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Transportation & Engineering Services XIII. AESTHETICS Mitigation: The following mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential visual impacts to a less than significant level: XIII -1 The Specific Plan that would guide development in the northern portion of the project site shall include architectural and landscaping design guidelines. The guidelines shall require the use of materials`and styles that blend in with the natural surroundings, including the terrain and vegetation. Obtrusive design that is out of scale with the rural setting of the site shall be prohibited. Landscaping shall incorporate drought -tolerant, native vegetation consistent with that found in the region. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring ActionMming: Verification that the Specific Plan for the area includes these requirements during environmental review of the Specific Plan, Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services XIII -2 Ridgetop development, or any other development (including excessive grading, or building on slopes greater than 25%) that visually obscures the natural contours of the site, shall not be permitted. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring ActionfTiming: Review of project designs during environmental review/plan check for individual development projects. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: -City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services XIII -3 Commercial uses shall minimize light and glare, subject to the conditions of a lighting plan prepared for such development. The lighting plan shall incorporate lighting that directs light pools downward to prevent glare on adjacent and surrounding areas. In addition, lights shall have solid sides and reflectors 10 further reduce lighting impacts by 41 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities controlling light spillage. The lighting of free-standing commercial signs shall be directed away residential and open space areas within the project site, and toward freeway motorists. Non -glare lighting shall be used. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future project applicants Monitoring Action/Timing: Review of project designs during environmental review/plan check for individual development projects. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Ciarita, Planning & Building Services XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation: The following mitigation measure would be required to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources associated with development that could occur on-site in the future to less than significant level: XIV -1 A Phase I archaeological survey shall be conducted for any specific development project proposed on the project site. Any recommendations resulting from the Phase I surveys shall be fully implemented. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Future Project Applicants Monitoring Actionfriming: Environmental review for specific projects on-site Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning & Building Services XV. RECREATION Mitigation: None required. 3 :1cdkxformsVim cpb 11f97 UN T NORTH NOT TO SCALE ■ � ■ M Planning Area Boundary City Limit Regional Location Figure 1 0 Ownership ID Note: Ownership boundaries are approbmate. RVL Residential - Very Low CC Community Commercial OS Open Space SP Specific Plan Proposed Prezoning r SCNd N IF.ET NORTH Figure 2 �' l •r13 r i�. �. I , - — . --:� 11 <�), Sr! �0` rr O b Y •� a s ; ftft•.` s _ ESS 1J j th O Ownership ID Note- ownership boundaries are approximate. A-2-1 Agriculture, Heavy -1 acre min. Lot A-2-2 Agriculture, Heavy - 2 acre min. Lot C-3 Commerical - Unlimited R -R Resort and Recreation r a m• rov erxa r/lecr NORTH Current Los Angeles County Zoning Designations Figure 3 O Ownership ID Note: Ownership boundaries are approximate. A-2-1 Agriculture, Heavy -1 acre min. Lot A-2-2 Agriculture, Heavy - 2 acre min. Lot C-3 Commerical - Unlimited _. R -R Resort and Recreation A a m wm SCALE N fECT NORTH Current Los Angeles County Zoning Designations Figure 3 O Curren i Ownership lD Note: Ownership boundaries are approximate. RVL Residential 11Very Low RE Residential Estate OS Open Spaceli --- 1. - Current Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Designations r V e m am SG4E W FEET NORTH Figure 4 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map O Ownership ID Note: Ownership boundaries are approximate. ® 100 -Year Flood Plain (Zone.A) Flood Hazard Areas r � • m BVla N fFET NORTH Figure 6 Source: City of Santa Cladta General Plan, 1991 Ownership ID' Note: ownership boundaries are approximate. ® Santa Susana Significant Ecological Area ® Lyon Canyon Significant Ecological Area,. Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) 8G1! N fEEf NORTH Figure 7 0 y so a L� 1� 'i\'FSS ! J�•�L 1 i7.i_ ��n�.!� ° Ownership ID Note: Ownership boundaries are approximate. 70 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contour so 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour a Projected Noise Contours a N sI ® M••• ° FEET ED NORTH Figure 8 J. �t 1 ' a N sI ® M••• ° FEET ED NORTH Figure 8 REFERENCES Bibliography Bailey, Thomas L., and Richard H. Jahns. Geology of the Transverse Range Province, Southern California, In Geology of Southern California, edited by Richard H. Jahns. Division of Mines Bulletin 1970:83-106. California Department of Natural Resources, San Francisco, 1954. Dibblee, Thomas W, Jr. Geologic Map of the Oat Mountain and Canoga Park (North half) Quadrangles. 1992, California Division of Mines and Geology. Geologic Map of California (Los Angeles). San Francisco, 1969. California Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazards Zones Map for the Oat Mountain Quadrangle. 1997. Harris, Cyril M. Handbook of Noise Control. 1979. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Fifth Edition. 1991. Rincon Consultants. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 53 Acre Rivendale Property, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for the City of Santa Clarita Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department: 1995. Santa Clarita, City of. General Plan. 1991. Santa Clarita, City of. Ridgeline Preservation and Hills Development Ordinance and Guidelines. March 1992. Santa Clarita, City of. Oak Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance (Section 17.17.090 of the Development Code). 1991. Santa Clarita, City of. Unified Development Code. 1992. Santa Clarita, City cf. Circulation Element Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Rincon Consultants. 1997 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993. Southern California Association of Governments. Regional Plan and Guide. 1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey for Antelope Valley Area. 1970. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service _(USFWS)..1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Proposed Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 40., February 28, 1996. Persons Contacted Chaffin, Jeffery, Department of Public Works, City of Santa Clarita Edelman, Paul, Ecologist, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Maskol, Steve, City of Santa Clarita Minjares, Javier, Southern California Association of Governments Rachal, Dina, Assistant Coordinator, South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology Shedd, Michael, Law Enforcement Technician, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Staff, Hart High School District Winger, Marc, Ph.D., Superintendent, Newhall School District Walter, Rod, Engineer, Laidlaw Inc., Chiquita Canyon Landfill J Appendix A PROJECTS WITH POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Tabk 6-T. Scree; , Table for — Dofi Thresholds r "oteatfd for Air bvoI4 ... ....oak ... ...:v a.. k: .... NCTESs e Trip peoeraiba rotas Gam the 5th E" ITE hknud Were hosed upas moll WRV6 sins. These sb mastrvdoe prgeds has the powltal so toad dw doily err"m sigaif'scance tlsreshd& tocol p"miriselt slwuld ass dose thr@Adds os siieening Wk rhea a project propmeat fast approaches du lead ogeary for a pemq to determine rhsther or act 16 proposed pref ed rill be signdkoat WreoveR using dsese . dsrsslsalds, o project proponent should bt adr'sed b iackde feassble miligotlaa meawns of she project design lave( rodsr tlaa w dss titer stages of the project DUINf OK- 'klaaufaduri g means to maks goods and articles by hand or by machinery, ohm Goa large sale and with d6was of labat 'IssdasW mesas any la gosmis business activity or manufacturing productive enterprises mGectively, espedah as 6finguklied From ogrsculture. . 6-10 {fIl[Yli�""GNli'{M(if ]Ul[CVAIM1MPACf> RESIDENTIAL Single Family Housing 165 units Apartment$ 261 units Condominiums 291 units Moble Homes 340 units Retirement Community 612 units EDUCATIONElementary. School 220,000 sq. h. High School 177000 Community College 150,0 0 sq. h. ' University 813 students COMMERCIAL ' Airport 15 Daily Commercial Flights Business Park 136,000 sq. h. Day (are ' 26,000 sq. h. Discount Store 32,000 sq, h. Fast Food w/o Drive•Thru 3,500 sq. ft. Fast Food with Drive-Thru 2 B00 sq. h. ' Hardware Store 28,000 sq. h. Hotel 213 roams Metkol Office 61,000 sq. h. 220 roams ' Movie Theatre 30,000 sq. h. ' Car Sales 43,000 sq. h. 0 ' e {sma11,10-1001 96,221 sq- h. Office lmedium,100-200) 139,222 sq. h. Office (large, 200—>).. Office 201,000 sq. h. Park 111,000 sq. h. Racquet Dub 98 000 h. Research Center 245,000 sq. h. Resort Hold 199 rooms Restaurant 23,000 sq. ft. ' Restaurant (high•tumover) 9,000 sq. h. Shopping Center (smog,10-500) 22, 000 sq. h. ShoShopping rge t 000 Center (later 1,000-1,600)1 64,00 sq. h. (continued on next page) Y^' t �Ai�oN-�Ol.`�'»�y .ry..�a✓�. T33in ..cw9 � ha�.�ili.tiroT ssYbtW Jw�...ilua �H ,t ; J1�ertaApyet�z�[aratethadatag%saadass�aptk�xased>tr�tepo�t�s�Cr= f ... ....oak ... ...:v a.. k: .... NCTESs e Trip peoeraiba rotas Gam the 5th E" ITE hknud Were hosed upas moll WRV6 sins. These sb mastrvdoe prgeds has the powltal so toad dw doily err"m sigaif'scance tlsreshd& tocol p"miriselt slwuld ass dose thr@Adds os siieening Wk rhea a project propmeat fast approaches du lead ogeary for a pemq to determine rhsther or act 16 proposed pref ed rill be signdkoat WreoveR using dsese . dsrsslsalds, o project proponent should bt adr'sed b iackde feassble miligotlaa meawns of she project design lave( rodsr tlaa w dss titer stages of the project DUINf OK- 'klaaufaduri g means to maks goods and articles by hand or by machinery, ohm Goa large sale and with d6was of labat 'IssdasW mesas any la gosmis business activity or manufacturing productive enterprises mGectively, espedah as 6finguklied From ogrsculture. . 6-10 bbb 6.2. Sctetliog Tai`- for Operation — Daily TiraiM of Potea'14 S'igaii'Kaace for Air Daai'tty (continued) �.�iiili:WB! Wi11: USG 3,�...�u"• sx x.ara;i: a - _.R.,. .'Se. ''•. <i.�°.¢..v+..«:. w`Fa:.4 /�y���}y'y�/� =' A. ..<�wlWlY iI.il�I(R�i.t 3w (OM AERC1AL 'Special Activity (enters 87 Empkyees (continued) (Stadiums and Amusement Parks) Supermarket 12,500 sq, h. INDUSTRIAL./ light Industrial 276,000 sq. h. MINING ' Henry Industrial 1,284,000 sq. h. Industrial Park 276,000 sq. h. Aircraft Manufacturing & Repairs •• Bulk Terminate •• Cement Plant (heroical Plant •• Hazardous Waste Treatment & Storage •• Manufacturing 500,000 sq. ft. Mining •• Puiaper Milk•• Refinery •- INSTITUTIOHAV ' (Gnic 94,000 sq. h. . GOYERNMENTAL ' Government Center 83,000 sq h. ' Hospital 176ss��Beds Nursisi 51,0741 g Home Beds U.S. Post Office 26,000 sq. h. Freeway Lane Addition All Designation of a New All Transportation Corridor New Fr Autctk' ryanesi9s Beyond One Romp Waterport •. Sewoge Treatment Plant •• Rai All tion Pro �epe ject •• .. lttarteration Hazardous, Medical or Municipal Waste Power GerteraiinQ Ftt�lrty •• Waste -Ta -Energy Plant _ .• t•1I.f; 6 1* Pwdw fft From i4 SA E&Sm ffE Momod w o 6osod WA tmol wrfh riot. » ISM ('off of 4*0.&AP im mw Ruh is bliw a oxn$&" & SipairraK4 t6ra6 wL Tsar *m mmstndfo/ p ojods lan i4 potMfol to wood dr d* w*s1oes Op hum insktds, local Promlwtt shah rs4 6w ewoAotds 16 =Min took AN a prof Kt propowt rfst ogroo ft 16 Wd "MY lot W* to ddomio4 rr6em of mot it prapowl projrd wl 64 sipt=L lilom% vs g itse ivlo* a polo pnpmat s6uH 6 odrW to 6" 646 m3gotioo momm at du projod dosipa Lrol mdw dM in b k* stops of im prof Ki aE1,11(moNss VMdWkKbf' mMm b nab ponds 4441 OfA& by hand of by MXhnn oftU 44 a Grp scab and rids &OW04 of UK '�y'rtro4s Mr brpo•smi bRirfss 4c5viry er martfacturirg prod+rciro MUwg'sa to{�c5nf f apKiah 4sdifyt asbodfromogrkuhurn. 6.11 Table 6.1 Samir, idle for.utlaw TlresfA of Poland fa 1i pmk NOTTX Il) Ytli � e (eadio. of ieeer road looyli cad crcrope dc�r,rp,. r6ae eae eaeshocfoe Rn;.ds hart �. polrid b Bund de gcarferiP u,issbas t6resl+okft of sipoifconn. lom! porcrertrrrh siaN � t6esc tlndtddt os sacwiep bole s8a a Profs Propacet fist opprooc6as dr bel op ary (or a pw* b ddcmi m v66 at met & proposed projcd wl 6e sipehuL Mormons miep im 6m6 * a Propd Propoomt s600ld 6 oJYW b bciodc hm1A ffi*bs mmum of the pr* design Mrd mdw t6a in *A low slopes of dr project. Fa dole dim6oW; &mile thmhokls 6r is, at 91. 6.12 RESIDENTIAL Single Fanaly Hous q 1,309,000 sq. h. GFA' e 1,410,000 sq. h. GFA (andominiums 1,455,000 sq. h. GFA Mobile Homes 1,455,000 sq. h. GFA EDUCATION Schoak 660,000 sq. h. GFA (OMMERCIAL Business Park 559,000 sq. h. GFA Day (ore (enter 975,000 sq. h. GFA Discount Store 975,000 sq. h. GFA Fast Fwd 975,000 sq. h. GFA Government Office Complex 559,000 sq. h. GFA Hardware Store 975,000 sq. h. GFA Hold 745,000 sq. h. GFA Medical Office 559,000 sq. h. GFA Mold 745,000 sq. h. GFA Movie Theatre 975,000 sq. h. GFA Office 559,000 sq. h. GFA Resort Hold 745,000 sq. h. GFA Resmtuam 975,000 sq. h. GFA Shopping Center 975,000 sq. h. GFA SupermarW 975,000 sq. h. GFA INDUSTRIAL 1,102,520 sq. h. GFA UNPAVED ROADS PosSenger Vehicle 1,750 Yehkk Ales Traveled (r) loaded Truck 430 Yehkk Wes Traveled nt PAYED ROADS lad Rand 24 000 Vehicle Miles Traveled n t stru Conction Road' 3,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled (11 DEMOLITION 23,214,000 Cubic Feet of Binding GRADING 111.00 Aces WD "uW-1 NOTTX Il) Ytli � e (eadio. of ieeer road looyli cad crcrope dc�r,rp,. r6ae eae eaeshocfoe Rn;.ds hart �. polrid b Bund de gcarferiP u,issbas t6resl+okft of sipoifconn. lom! porcrertrrrh siaN � t6esc tlndtddt os sacwiep bole s8a a Profs Propacet fist opprooc6as dr bel op ary (or a pw* b ddcmi m v66 at met & proposed projcd wl 6e sipehuL Mormons miep im 6m6 * a Propd Propoomt s600ld 6 oJYW b bciodc hm1A ffi*bs mmum of the pr* design Mrd mdw t6a in *A low slopes of dr project. Fa dole dim6oW; &mile thmhokls 6r is, at 91. 6.12 Appendix B TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Towsley Canyon Initial Study Table 1, Trip Generation at Buildout (maximum buildout except for Specific Plan area) Zone Acres Density (max.) Res. Total Comm. Total Trip Rates Total Trips RVL CC OS ROW 40.33 40.59 223 85.78 1 per acre 0.5 FAR 0.05 per acre 0 40 11 884,050 9.8 23.5 9.8 0 395 20,775 109 0 Total - 389.7 51 884,050 21,280 Available Capacity on The Old Road (36,000 trip capacity - 25,000 projected trips) 11,000 Maximum Trips That Can Be Generated in the Specific Plan Area -10,280 Note: Residential rates area per unit; commercial rates are per 1,000 square feet of building area Table 2, Trip Generation at Buildout (0.3 FAR commercial) Zone Acres Density (max.) Res. Total Comm. Total Trip Rates Total Trips RVL CC OS ROW 40.33 40.59 223 85.78 1 per acre 0.3 FAR 0.05 FAR 0 40 11 530,430 9.8 23.5 9.8 0 395 12,465 109 0 Total 389.7 51 53A,430 12,970 Available Capacity on The Old Road (36,000 trip capacity - 25,000 projected trips) 11,000 Maximum Trips That Can Be Generated in the Specific Plan Area 1,970 rvvte:. nesivenaai rates area per unit; commercial rates are per 1,000 square feet of building area Table 3, Trip Generation at Buildout (0.3 FAR commercial - major highway designation) Zone Acres Density (max.) Res. Total Comm. Total Trip Rates Total Trips RVL CC OS ROW 40.33 40.59 223 85.78 1 per acre 0.3 FAR 0.05 FAR 0 40 11 530,430 9.8 23.5 9.8 0 395 12,465 109 0 Total 389.7 51 530,430 12,970 Available Capacity on The Old Road (45,000 trip capacity - 25,000 projected trips) 20,000 Maximum Trips That Can Be Generated in the Specific Plan Area 7;030 note: Residential rates area per unit; commercial rates are per 1,000 square feet of building area, Appendix C SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurring in the Project Vicinity Species Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Western spadefoot toad Scaphiopus hammondi CSC SC Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale and P. CSC SC c. blainvillei Coastal western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus CSC SC lizard Silvery legless lizard Aniella pulchra pulchra CSC SC Rosy boa Lichanura Invirgata CSC SC Coastal patch -nosed Salvadora hexalepis virguitea CSC SC snake Two -striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondd Special Animal SC San Bernardino ring- Diadophis punctatus modestus None SC necked snake San Diego mountain Lampropeltis zonata pulchra CSC SC kingsnake San Bernardino mountain Lampropeltis zonata parviruba CSC Sc kingsnake California condor Gymnogyps califomianus Endangered Endangered Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos CSC None Cooper's hawk Accipitercooperi CSC None Northern harrier Circus cyaneus CSC None Sharp -shinned hawk Accipiterstriatus CSC None White-tailed kite Elanus caeruleus CSC None Long-eared owl Asio otus CSC None Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugea CSC SC Southwestern willow Empidonax trailli extimus Endangered Endangered Flycatcher Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus CSC SC California homed lark Eremophiia alpestris actia CSC SC Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza bepii bellii CSC SC Southern CA rufous- Aimophila ruffceps canescens CSC SC crowned sparrow California leaf -nosed bat Macrotus californicus CSC SC Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus CSC None California mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus CSC SC Long-legged bat Myotis volans None SC Pale big -eared bat Plecotus townsendii pallescens CSC SC San Diego black -tailed Lepus californicus bennetti CSC SC hare San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia CSC Sc Southern grasshopper Onychomys torridus ramona CSC SC mouse CSC= California Species of Special Concern; SC=Federal Species of Concern Source: Rincon Consultants, 1996, Planning Consultants Research, 1996, California Department of Fish and Game, August 1994. Appendix D TRAFFIC NOISE CALCULATIONS ROADWAY TRAFK-� NOISE Project! Towsley Canyon IS/MND Project No. Date: 22 -Dec -97 Roadway: Interstate 5 at Calgrove Boulevard PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Distance to Receptor: 300 feet Site Condition (Hard or Soft): soft Upgrade longer than 1 mile: % Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 106,000 vehicles Ambient Growth Factor. Carrrans Future Year: Total Project Volume (ADT): vehicles Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): vehicles Source of Traffic Data CaUrans Daily Vehicle Mix Existing Automobile 90.0% Medium Truck 5.0% Heavy Truck 5.0% Source: Carrrans Percentage of Daily Traffic Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Average Speed Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Day (7 am -7 pm) 77.5% 84.8% 78.4% Source: DefaultAssumpUon Day (7 am -7 pm) 77.5% 84,8% 86.5% Source: Default Day (7 am -7 pm) 65 '65 65 Source: speed limit Day (7 am -7 pm) 65 65 65 Source: defouM assumption Project 90.0% 5.0% 5.0% Existing and Future Evening (7-10 pm) 9.6% 10.3% 10.8% Project Evening (7-10 pm) 9.6% 10:3% 10.8% Existing Evening (7-10 pm) 65 65 65 Future Evening (7-10 pm) 65 65 65 Future 90.0% 5.0% 5.0% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 9.6% 10.3% 10.8% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 9.6% 10.3% 10.8% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 65 65 65 Night (10 pm - 7 am) 65 65 65 Page 1 Rincon Consultants ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project Towsley Canyon IS/MNO Date: 22 -Dec -97 Roadway: Interstate 5 at Calgrove Vehicle Noise Emission Levels% RESULTS DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE LEVEL (Ldn) FHWA Ldn at Site 300 feet from road centerline Project No. Distance to dBA Contour Line from roadway centerline, feet 70 1 . 65 1 60 Existing 72.8 dBA 213 459 988 2129 4587 Existing + Project 72.8 dBA 213 459 980 ' 2129 4587 Future with Ambient Growth 72.8 dBA 213 459 988 2129 4587 Future with Ambient Growth and Project 72.8 dBA 213 459 988 2129 4587 Future with Ambient Growth and Cumulative Projects 72.8 dBA 213 459 988 2129 4587 Future with Ambient. Cumulative, and Project Growth 72.8 dBA 213 459 988 2129 4587 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient Growth 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient and Cumulative 0.0 dBA Due to All Future Growth 0.0 dBA 'NOTES: Based an methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic CNEL at Site Distance to dBA Contour Line COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) 300 feet I from roadway centerline, feet from road centerline 75 1 70 1 65 1 60 1 55 Ewstmg 73.2 dBA 229 493 1063 2290 4934 Existing+Project 73.2 dBA 229 493 1063 2290 4934 Future with Ambient Growth 73.2 d8A 229 493 1063 2290 4934 Future with Ambient Growth and Project 73.2 dBA 229 493 1063 2290 4934 Future with Ambient Growth and Cumulative Projects 73.2 dBA 229 493 1063 2290 4934 Future with Ambient, Cumulative, and Project Growth 73.2 dBA 229 493 1063 2290 4934 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient Growth 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient and Cumulative 0.0 dBA Due to All Future Growth 0.0 dBA 'NOTES: Based an methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic - Noise Moder, FHWA-RO-77-108, December, 1978. qWA- Not Applicable Page 2 Rlncon Consufrants Appendix E SOUTH CENTRAL COAST INFORMATION CENTER, CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM, UCLA INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY, RECORDS SEARCH Los Angeles Orange Ventura Cali" nia Historical Resources Information - -tem UCLA Institute of Archaeology A163 Fowler Building Los Angeles, California 90095-1510 (310) 825-1980 / FAX (310) 206-4723 / sccic@ucla.edu December 17, 1997 Joe Power Rincon Consultants 790 E. Santa Clara St. Ventura, CA 93001 RE: Records Search Request for Oat Mountain Parcel Dear Mr. Power, As per your request received on December 17, 1997, we have conducted a records search for the above referenced project. This search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within the project area, as well as a review of all known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. In addition, we have examined our file of historic maps, the California State Historic Resources Inventory, the National Register of Historic Places, the listing of California Historical Landmarks and the California Points of Historical Interest. The following is a discussion of our findings for the project area. Due to the sensitive -nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. PREHISTORIC RESOURCES: One prehistoric archaeological site has been identified within the project area. (LAN802) Three isolated prehistoric artifacts were also reported within the project area. HISTORIC RESOURCES: No historic archaeological sites have been identified within the project area. Inspection of our Historic Maps- Santa Susana 15' series -1903 (reprint 1908) and 1941 showed unimproved roads along the several canyons cutting through the vicinity of the project area and a few scattered structures by the tum of the century. The 1941 map indicates an improved road along Towsley Canyon and State Rout 99. The California State Historic Resources Inventory lists no properties that have been evaluated for historic significance within the project area.: The National register of Historic Places lists no properties within the project area. The California Historical Landmarks (1990) bf the Office of Historic Preservation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, lists no Landmarks within the project area. The California Points of historical Interest (1992), of the Office of Historic Preservation California Department of Parks and Recreation, lists no properties within the project area. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS: Six surveys and/or excavations have been conducted within the project area. Eight additional investigations have been conducted on the Oat Mountain quadrangle, but lack sufficient locational information. RECOMMENDATIONS Although the majority of the project area has been surveyed some of these surveys are more than twenty years old and cultural resources are present in the area. Because of these factors and the topography of the area, our office recommends a Phase I survey be conducted for the project area to identify and reassess cultural resources in the vicinity. If you have any questions regarding our results of this records search, please feel free to contact our office at (310) 825-1980. Invoices are mailed approximately two weeks after records searches are completed. This enables your firm to request further information under the same invoice number. Please reference the invoice number listed below when making inquiries. Requests made after invoicing will involve the preparation of a separate invoice with a $15.00 handling fee. Sincerely, Dina Rachal Assistant Coordinator Enclosures: (3) Map (X) Bibliography ( ) Invoice 7051 KFIfvl/City of Santa Clarita Towsley. Canyon 06115/98 REPORT SCHEDULE Fiscal Impact Analysis Towsley Canyon City of Santa Clarita Scenario: Tax Transfer - .06 Scenario Description: Final Draft TITLE PAGE NUMBER A Summary of Fiscal Impacts 1 B Analysis Assumptions 2 C Residentlal Development Profile 3 D Commercial Development Profile 4 E Development Potentials by Land Use Type 5 F Projected Development Absorption 6 G Summary of Projected Revenue Sources 7 H Summary of Projected General Fund Expen< 8 Prepared For: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Prepared By: Michele Hansen, Accountant June 15, 1998 File: TOWSLEY.WK4 Tax Transfer -.06: Final Draft KRM/City of Santa Clarita Towsley Canyon 06/15198 Summary of Fiscal Impacts NET PRESENT VALUES Discount Rate: 10 -Year Time Period (Annex through Year 2008) eoM ..ff n Yearl Year2 Vear3 Vear4 Years Yearb Vear7 VeorB Yeor9 Yeor10 IMPACTS OF AREA DEVELOPMENT 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2008 2006 2007 2008 DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS Population Growth 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Employment Growth 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FISCAL IMPACTS (millions of constant 1998 $) 1/ Annual Revenues to City General Fund $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual Service Expenditures Incurred by City $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 - $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 SURPLUS OR (DEFICIT): ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) NET PRESENT VALUES Discount Rate: 10 -Year Time Period (Annex through Year 2008) - 7.0% Revenues to City (millions of 98 S) $0.00 Expenditures Incurred by City (millions of 98 $) $0.04 Difference 20 -Year Time Period (Annex through Year 2018) ($0.03) Revenues to City (millions of 98 $) $0.00 Expenditures Incurred by City (millions of 96 S) $0.05 Difference ($0.05) 30 -Year Time Period (Annex. through Year 2028) Revenues to City (millions of 98 $) $0.00 Expenditures Incurred by City (mlllions of 98 $) $0.06 Difference ($0.06) 1/ Average annual consumer price Index value of 3.0% used for discounting projected revenues and expenditures. Year20 I Year 30 2018 1 2028 3 3 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 ($0.00) ($0.01) Tax Transfer - .06 Millions $ FISCAL IMPACT OF ANNEXATION • Gen. Fund Revenues 4+ City Service Demand 0 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2020 Years File: TOWSLEY.WK4 Tax Transfer -.06: Final Draft KRM/City of Santa Clarita Towsley Canyon 06/15/98 Schedule B: Analysis Assumptions PROJECT IDENTIFICATION GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS City Jurisdiction: Study Identlflcatlon: Scenario: Scenario Description: Analyst Identification: Current Calendar Year: Year of Annexation to City: DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS Santa Clarlta Towsley Canyon Tax Transfer - .06 Final Draft Michele Hansen. Accountant 1998 1998 Ratio of net to gross project acreage (Net excludes R 85% HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION Efficiency Rate: - 85% Average Room Size (sf) 500 Average Dally Room Rate $65 Estimated Average Occupancy Rate, 70% - Santa Clarlta Transient Occupancy Tax Rate 10% Santa Clarlta Population as of Jan. 1, 19 143,800 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ABSORPTION SCHEDULE Current Private Employment In Santa Clc 41,223 Ston CalenaorYt.. years RESIDENTIAL USES Yearf#) For Develop to Atnorb ECONOMIC PARAMETERS Mulfi-Famlly Rental 1 1999 1 Inc Rate - Sale Prices for New Constructk 3.0% Muttl-Family Sale 1 1999 1 Int. Rate -Taxable Retall Sales 3.0% Mul l-Famlly Seniors 2 2000 1 Inf. Rate - Hotel Room Rates: 3.0% Single Family High Density 6 2004 2 Inf. Rate - State Subvention Revenues 2.0% Single Family Medium Density 2 2000 3 Inf. Rate - misc. local fees and taxes 2.0% Single Family Low Density 3 2001 10 Inf. Rate- City Provided Services 3.5% Single Family Estate 10 2008 3 Inf. Rate - Avg. C.P.I. (used for dlscounfir 3.0% RETAIL AND RELATED PROPERTY VALUE ASSUMPTIONS Local Retail 2 2000 5 Value per sf of Improved commercial kai $9.00 Community Retail 3 2001 10 Regional Retail 3 2001 1 Cgpltalizatlon Rates Automobile Dealership 1 1999 1 Apartments 10.5% Service Station 1 1999 1 Retail 10.0% - Commercial Office 9.0% OFFICE, BUS. PK, INDUS. & HOTEL Business Park 9.0% ' Light Industrial 10.5% Commercial Office 1 1999 5 Business Park 10 2008 15 Monthly Rents for Commercial Space (NNNen r SFT Light Industrial 10 2008 15 Hotel 15 2013 1 Local Retail $1.63 Community Retail $1.25 CITY STREET AND PARK ASSUMPTIONS Regional Retail $1.45 Commercial Office $1.10 Total MIles of Public Streets w/1 Santa Clarlta: 258.6 Business Park $1.00 Acres of City Serviced Park Land w/i Santa Clarlta 400.5 Light Industrial $0.45 New Park Development (for project area) Develop new park acreage every "X" years: 3 Construction Value Per Unit First year of new park development: (4) 3 Auto Dealership (sq. ft.) $55 MUNI. SERVICE EXPENDITURES (Fiscal Year 98/99 Budget) Service Station (sq. ft.) $75 Hotel (sq. ft.) $125 Police and Fire Contract Services $9,595,000 Public Works - Streets &Roads $11,823,536 Real Property Aopreclafion Assumptions General Governmental Services City Council $171,140 Residential property resale every"X" p 7 City Manager $1,066,840 Commercial property resale every" X' 10 City Attorney $705,000 Max. AV escalation for unsold proper( 2.0% City Clerk $430,730 Avg. yearly residential appreciation rc 3.0% Personnel $4111890 Avg, yearly commercial appreclatior 3.0% Finance Administration $1,043,455 General SerAces $5,417,595 TAXABLE SALES ASSUMPTIONS Computer Services $1,575.095 Parks and Recreation $8,602.695 Local Retail (per sf): $225 Community Retail (per st): $185 MISC. MUNI. REVENUES (Fiscal Year 98/99 Budget) Regional Retail (per sf): $250 Automobile Dealership (per sf): $1 Business License Tax Revenues $182000 Service Station (per sf): $75 Cigarette Tax Revenue $1 Commercial Office (per st): $1 Motor Vehicle License Fee Revenue $5.277,000 Business Park (per sf): $15 Off -Highway Motor Vehicle License Revenue $2300 Light Industrial (per st): $5 Highway Users (Gas) Tax Revenue $2679,390 Motor Vehicle Fines $106,000 Hotel (per hotel guest): $15 Other Fines, Penalties $6,120 Franchise Fee Revenues $3,462800 TOTAL TAXABLE RETAIL SALES FOR CITY: $1,470,000,000 Parks and Recreation Service Charges $1.630,940 File: TOWSLEY.WK4 Tax Transfer -.08: Final Draft KRWCity of Santa Clarita Towsley Canyon 06/15/98 Schedule C: Residential Development Profile Plan Area By Name Anticipated Land Use By Residential Property Type Total Gross Acres Total Units Existing or Planned Estm. AV.. at Completion of Dev (Constant 1998 $) Vacant SP - No known proposals 451.0 Existing Sin le-Famll est of the Old RoocD Single Famll -Low Density 3.9 1 S66,000. Vacant RVL- No known proposals 40.0 40 Source: City of Santa Clarita File: TOWSLEY.WK4 Tax Transfer • .06: Final Draft KRM/City of Santa Clarita Towsley Canyon Schedule D: Commercial Development Profile Plan Area By Name Existing or Planned Land Use (000's of SF) Total Retall I Off./Bus Pk I Light Ind. I Hotel Acres Source: City of Santa Clarita File: TOWSLEY.WK4 Tax Transfer - .06: Final Draft 06/15/98 Estm. AV.. at )mpletion of Dave (Constant 1998 $) KRM/City of Santa Clarita Towsley Canyon 06/15/98 Schedule E: Development Potentials by Land Use Type RESIDENTIAL LAND USE Residential Use Multi -Family Rental Mulfi-Family Sale Multi -Family Seniors Single Family High Density Single Family Medium Density Single Family Low Density Single Family Estate Subtotals COMMERCIAL LAND USE Retail and Related Local Retail Community Retail Regional Retail Automobile Dealership 1/ Service Station Office/Business Park/Light Industrial Commercial Office Business Park Light Industrial Commercial Lodging Hotel Subtotals NOTES Residential Units Existing Planned Units Units Gross Acres Existing Planned Development Development Ava. Assd, Value Per DU Existing Planned Development Development 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 451.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 1 40 3.9 40.0 $66,000 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 1 40 3.9 491.0 0.0 0.0 Total Potential Sq. Ft. Existing Planned Development Development Gross Acres Existing Planned Development Development Assd. Value Per SF Built Existing Planned Development Development 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1 / Dealerships consists of a surplus lot used to house excess Inventory. No new structures are planned. ERR File:TOWSLEY.WK4 Tax Transfer -.06: Final Draft KRM/City of Santa Clanta Towsley Canyon 06/15/98 Schedule F: Projected Development Absorption TOTALNEWUNRS Annexafloni Vearl Vear2 Vear3 Veard VearS Vear6 Vear7 vear8 Vear9 Vear 10 Vear 7D Veor30 LAND USE BY CATEGORY POSSIBLE 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 200d 2005 2006 2007 2008 2018 2028 Residential Uses Multi -Family Rental Multi -Family Sale Multl-Family Seniors Single Family High Density Single Family Medium Density Single Family Low Density Single Family Estate Subtotal: All dwellings Cum. Subtotal: All dwellings Subtotal: For -Sale dwellings Cum. Subtotal: All For -Sale dwellings Retall and Related Local Retail Community Retail Regional Retail Automobile Dealership Service Station Office/Business Park/Ught Industrial Commercial Office Business Park Light Industrial Commercial Lodalna Hotel Subtotal: Commercial Cum. Subtotal: Commercial 0 DUs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DUs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DUs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DUs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 DUs 1 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 DUs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 1 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 1 1 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 41 41 1 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 1 1 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 41 41 0 S.f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S.f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S.f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S.f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S.f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s.f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S.f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S.f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S.f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S.f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CUMULATIVE TOTALS Cumulative Population within Annexed Area Cumulative Children of School Age Elementary School Age . Jr. High School Age High School Age Cumulative Private Sector Employment Cumulative Built Hotel Rooms 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 File: TOWSLEY.WK4 Tax Transfer•.06: Final Draft KRWCity of Santa Clarita Towsley Canyon 06/15/98 Clty Revenue Sources (millions of Current Yr. S) Property Tax Revenue I/ Sales Tax Revenue 2/ Other Local Taxes Property Transfer Tax: Business License Ta): Transient Occupancy Tax 3/ State Subventions Cigarette Tax: Motor Vehicle License Fee: Off -Highway Motor Vehicle Ucense Fee: Highway Users (Gas) Tax: Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties Motor Vehicle Fines: Other Fines Penalties: Franchise Fees: Parks and Recreation Service Charges NET ANNUAL REVENUES TO CITY Estm. Investment Income @ 4% of Total Revenues: TOTAL REVENUES TO CITY ( Current Year $ ): TOTAL REVENUES TO CITY (1998 Constant $ ) 4/ Schedule G: Summary of Projected Revenue Sources Amexotlon Vea t Veor 2 Year 3 Veor 4 Vea 5 Vea 6 Vera 7 Veor 8 Yeo( 9 Vea 10 Yea 20 year 30 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2(x18 2018 2028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 (0100) (0-00) (0.00) (0•00) (0100) PDO) (0.00) (0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1/ resold every 10 years. Resale price averages 12% above prior year's assessed value. Taxable assessed value for residential property excludes $7,000 homeowner's exemption on all non -rental properties. 2/ Projected sales tax revenues are for on-site, pointof-purchase transactions only. 3/ Assumes an average daily room rate of $65, average daily occupancy at 70% and a Santa Clarita hotel tax rate of 10%. 4/ Average annual consumer price Index value of 3.0% used for discounting projected revenues. File: TOWSLEY.WK4 Tax Transfer -.06: Final Draft KRM/City of Santa Clarita Towsley Canyon Schedule H: Summary of Projected General Fund Expenditures O6/t 5198 ResldenHal Properly 80% . Commwooi Proper 20% SERVICE EXPENDITURE BURDENS 1/ Annexation Yeorl Vear2 Year3 Vear4 Years Year6 Yeor7 Year8 Vea9 Year 10 Year 20 Year30 (millions of Current Yr. $) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2016 2028 Police and Fire Contract Services Per Capita Factor at $53.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Per Employee Factor at $46.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Annual O & M Expenditures: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Public Works - Streets & Roads Roadway Development Schedule: Existing streets on. miles): 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 New Streets (cum In. miles): 2/ . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Annual O & M Exp. at $46.000 per In. m 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N121ie Works - Administration Average of 3.8% of program budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 General Governmental Services City Council Per Capita Factor at $0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Per Employee Factor at $0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Annual O & M Expenditures: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Manager Per Capita Factor at $5.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Per Employee Factor at $5.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Annual O & M Expenditures: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Attorney Per Capita Factor at $3.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Per Employee Factor at $3.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Annual O & M Expenditures: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Clark Per Capita Factor at $2.40 ODD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Per Employee Factor at $2.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Annual O & M Expendltures: 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE) File: TOWSLEY.WK4 Tax Transfer -.06: Final Draft KRWCity of Santa Clarita Towsley Canyon 06/15/98 Personnel Per Capita Factor at $2.29 Per Employee Factor at S 1.99 Total Annual O & M Expenditures: Finance Administration Per Capita Factor at $5.81 Per Employee Factor at $51)6 Total Annual O & M Expenditures: General Services Per Capita Factor at $30.14 Per Employee Factor at $26.28 Total Annual O & M Expenditures: Computer Services Per Capita Factor at $8.76 Per Employee Factor at $7.64 Total Annual O & M Expenditures: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 010.4,6 1 1 trr 0.00 0.00 100 10 001 0100 0.00 1 1t 011 00 0.20 0.00 tt/ tIt tIt 0.00 0,00 100 0.00 tIt 0.00 0.00 10 0.00 0.00 11 0.00 1I0 rIt 100 0.00 0.00 eel tIt 00 .0 0.01 0.00 111 1I0 011 111 0.00 011 110 100 /11 00 Irr $0.01 .0 .0 00 .0 0.0 .0 err ,0 rrr .0 rss 00 $0.00 0 .00 100 100 000 10 100 tr tIt 100 111 0.00 t1/ tIt 111 0100 100 10 000 111 000 110 atl trr trs 011 1rr 111 101 t0 100 0.00 tIt 0.00 00 100 111 0.00 10 100 It• .0 101 011 1e0 10 ttl .0 0.00 11t 10 rrr t1t 0.00 a11 a11 1rr t1t 11 110 100 tIt 00 111 rr tIt 011 tIt 0.00 tI 100 011 Parks and Recreation Park Development Schedule (in cum acres) 3/ Existing Park Acreage within Project Area 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 New Park Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Annual O & M Exp. at $21,000 per acre 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 TOTAL EXPENSES TO CITY (current yr. $) $0.00 $0.00 $0.D0 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 TOTAL EXPENSES TO CITY (1998 Constant $ ) 4, $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 $0,01 NOTES 1 / Residential density at buildout projected at 0.07 persons per household. Employment density projected at 0.00 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercialfndustrlal space. 2/ Project area highways, collector roads and local streets estimated at 0 gross acres. Total R -O -W acreage estimated to be approximately 0.0 linear miles. 3/ approximately 0 acres of new park area will be added every 3 years, beginning in year 2001. 4/ Average annual Consumer price Index value of 3.0% used for discounting projected expenditures. File: TOWSLEY.WK4 Tax Transfer -.06: Final Draft !OO nC.CrTrcC 'JT.. M.C.. STC. S.Oo A*L.MT., CEOIIeIA 10308.8jj3 TLLP»CNE '.0.1 BIS -2•C0 ass TCW- CCMTCR OG1re COST. MECO CALI.OR»I. 1111E1111 TeI,C..IOMC 171.1 Oea.OPOe TryC NTe RM.roM.I FM.NCI.L r'LM1YC CLO "CAD STREBT LONDON EGM Ino TCLCP. ONL .r IOII SiE-.O.. 399 .ARK Av E.WC NEW TOG., MET/ :OC38•bef TCL cerONr 121 1121 e1 31YGOoo �.Rtn'L urwCCT ACCL31 (213) 683.6103 mswoodward@phjw.com LAW OFFICES or PAIII.. & WALKER LLP :•.••TC6 .r-.WM1 hvM6%-rP gCLYOdG �PoIC39Oha cOasOP..rOMi sSS SOUTH FLOWER srRECT LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071-2371 TELEPHONE (2131 663.0000 VIA FACS .. 1(804)259-gi 251 Santa Clarita PIanning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 FACSIMILE 12131 687.0708 I NTERN CT .W.FN�R,SOT Roas n rAanwca uaro-roaG. COVwML LCC O..AYL LCO»MO S. I.NOT32• CnAALLa Y �.L.0 April 20, 1998 SAM CAI Wo.". """ a.. IR.MCISCO. C.L rom.J. 9+IO�•2333 TCLCPMO.0 1.111 111Mcoo IS" OccA- SANT. -O-'CA. G FO -NIA Y --1010 TCLCPMOMC 131013M.=00 Ios1 Nr.SNINOTON \p ULLv.nO STAMPORD. GONNCCTICUT Opgpl.jlCl •cyePreMe mo119a1-).ee ARR YOGI YVILDING r2-3., .AASA.A I�MONC MIN.TO-KU. TOKYO 107•JAPrr TCLCPwONc le3131C�+7N ass .Eh MSTw.NI..yeMy c, w W AB MI NOTON. O.C. 3eeer)AOf1 TCLCPNONC ........-s CUR F6e .O. 19974,73982 Re: Pre -zoning and General Plan amendments related to proposed Towsley Canyon Annexation Dear Chairperson Hoback and Honorable Commissioners: We are writing on behalf of Warner Bros. regarding the City's proposed pre - zoning and general plan amendment for our.elient's approximately 230- acre property, known as the Warner Bros. Ranch, Iocated west of Interstate 5, north of the Calgrove Boulevard exit. The staff has proposed a pre -zoning of SP (Specific Plan) and a corresponding general plan amendment for the property as part of its proposal to process the annexation of this parcel, along with 24 other parcels. Beginning in 1996, Warner Bros.' representatives -have had a continuing discussion with City staff regarding potential future development of the property and its possible inclusion into the City of Santa Clarita. Those discussions were based on various formulations of a conceptual mixed commercial/residential development of the property, which would be the subject of a pre -annexation development agreement and a pre -zoning that would allow the development. In the absence of such pre -annexation approval, Warner Bros. indicated that it would not be in a position to willingly participate in any annexation proceedings. Consequently, the statements in the staff report before you on this matter, which indicate that Warner Bros. supports the City's annexation efforts, are premature and should be further qualified with the foregoing comments. In December, 1996, Warner Bros. suspended its active dialogue with City staff on annexation and entitlement issues in order to allow it to consider a couple of pending offers to acquire and develop the property. Naturally, any future Z d L009MZfi'ON/SZ:ZI'IS/6Z:Z1 86,OZ'6 (HOW) ONI,M'Ifldd W05d Santa Clarita Planning Commission April 20, 1998 Paee 2 development of the property would be guided by the wishes and desires of its ultimate owner. Warner Bros. is still in this position and is currently considering pending offers to acquire and develop the property. Consequently, Warner Bros. is concerned about being included in an annexation proceeding, at this time, while it is still assessing its future plans for the property. Your staff has been most patient and considerate of the fact that real estate development is not Warner Bros.' primary business and that therefore, its decision on what to do with this property will not be easily made. Given the City's desire to annex the property that it owns to the south as soon as possible, we submit that such an annexation should proceed without the Warner Bros. Ranch property. We will be present at your meeting on this matter to respond to any questions. Very truly yours, Michael S. Woodward for PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP cc: Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager Daniel P. Garcia, Warner Bros. John Matthews. Warner Bros. E 4 L0609N9Z6 'ON/SZ: Z i '1S/OE: Z 1 H :OZ '6 (NON) ONIUM Inva 710EI P A U L, HASTINGS, f A N O F S R Y 9% WA L E E R LLP 1 w UMITtO Ya�tJn' PwgtrvtgYNo iNRYDMO PROFESSIONAL;0MP0aATICNS l TWENTY-THIRD FLOOR 555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-2371 TELEPHONE: (213) 683-6000 FACSIMILE: (213) 627-0705 r CONFIDENTIAL FROM: Michael S. Woodward DIRECT DIAL #; To: NAME (213)683-6103 RUSH X DATE: August 21, 1997 I MSW ! JEFF LAMBERT ( Santa CIarita Planning Dept 805 259-8125 CLIENT NAME: Warner Bros. - Santa Clarita 805 255-4330 CLIENT #: 19974.73982 M- - I --�. MM�IrIMNA. UK 111h EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR NG THE ESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION. DSTR BUTION OR COPYING Or -n IIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROH181 fED. IF YCU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE. AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL 3ERVICE,. THANK YOU. FAX OPERATOR: MESSAGE: Total number of pages, including this cover sheet: v` -- IF YOU DON T R92Elyff_ALL pAGrS PLF-ASE CALLIMMEDIATELY FACSIMILE CENTER: (213) 683.5059 ORIGINAL WILL FOLLOW VIA: DATE: I d LOMM9Z� 'ON/SZ : Z I IS/6Z:ZI 86:OZ'� (NOW) TIME: MIISVH.lavd Woul Bow, ARNESON, WILES & GuNNONE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALEXANDER BOWIE' JOAN C. ARNESON WENDY H. WILES- PATRICIA B. GIANNONE ROBERT E. ANSLOW ARTO J. NLTITINEN DANIEL G. STEVENSON DANIEL J. PAYNE JULIE MCCLOSREY ISABELLA ALASTI DEBORAH R.G. CESARIO BRIAN W. SMITH 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Via Facsimile (805) 259-8125 ALS. Mail Mr. Jason Smisko City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714) 851.1300 3403 TENTH STREET, SUITE 715 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (909) 222.2750 2307 FINE AVENUE, SUITE 101 FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727 (209) 4524101 April 21, 1998 (800) 423-6054 FAX (714) 851-2014 RESPONDTOME RTBF m RFF.OI.RF 8028 B I Re: Master Case Number 89-016: Towsley Canyon Annexation (Prezone 89-001, Annexation 89-001, General Plan Amendment 98-002, Resolution No. P98-15) Dear Mr. Smisko: On behalf of the William S. Hart Union High School District ("District"), we submit the following comments regarding Master Case Number 89-016: Towsley Canyon Annexation (Prezone 89-001, Annexation 89-001, General Plan Amendment 98-002, Resolution No. P98-15) ("Project"). It is our understanding that the City of Santa Clarita ("City") Planning Commission will be considering adoption of Resolution No. P98-15 at its April 21, 1998, meeting, recommending that the City Council: 1) Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this Project with the finding that this Project will not have a significant effect on the environment; 2) Amend the General Plan and prezone the Project area from Los Angeles County A-2-1, A-2-2, C-3, and R -R zoning to City RVL (Residential Very Low Density), CC (Community Commercial), OS (Open Space), and SP (Specific Plan) to allow for annexation of approximately 728 acres; BA WG/JMC/ 601!.%vpd 4/21/98 BOWIE; ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Mr. Jason Smisko City of Santa Clarita April 21, 1998 Page 2 3) Adopt the proposed ordinance approving Prezone No. 89-001 (Master Case No. 89-001, Annexation No. 89-001, General Plan Amendment 98-002) recommending approval to the City Council. The purpose of these comments is to identify, on behalf of the District, the adverse environmental impacts of the Project on the grade 7 - 12 school facilities of the District ("School Facilities"), the inadequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as to propose mitigation measures necessary to reduce the School Facilities impacts to a level of insignificance. Such mitigation is required in order to achieve consistency with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ["CEQA", Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). The District respectfully requests that the City Planning Commission require, as a condition of approval of the Project, that the developers of any residential units on the Project site enter into agreement(s) with the District mitigating in full the impacts that development of this Project will have on the District's School Facilities. Absent execution of such agreement(s), the District respectfully requests that the Project be denied until such time that an environmental impact report ("EIR") is prepared for the Project. An EIR is necessary for purposes of evaluating the significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project and identifying the necessary measures to mitigate such impacts to a level of insignificance. Request for Notice: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and Public Resources Code Section 21092.2, and the relevant Government Code provisions, we hereby request that copies of all notices and other documents mailed or distributed in relation to the above -referenced Project be furnished to our offices to the attention of Julie McCloskey, and to the District, attention Superintendent Robert Lee. If there are any fees or charges required for the provision of such notice(s), please provide our office with an invoice for such costs. This request for notice specifically includes, but is not necessarily limited to, notices of all hearings, proposed actions to be taken with regard to the developmental process, requests for information, draft or final environmental documents, staff reports or commentaries, and, in particular, any Notice of Determination prepared, famished or filed with regard to this Project pursuant to CEQA. Significant Adverse Impact on School Facilities The Project will have a significant adverse physical impact on the grade 7 - 12 education services and School Facilities of the District. This Project includes a proposal for a General Plan Amendment, Prezone, and Annexation of approximately 728 acres of partially inhabited land to BAW G/JMC/ sO1!.wpd 412!/98 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Mr. Jason Smisko City of Santa Clarita April 21, 1998 Page 3 the City, in order to allow for development of twenty-five (25) individual parcels of land under nine (9) separate owners. No development is proposed at this time. Although the proposed annexation and prezoning would not in themselves change the land use characteristics of the Project site, future development on the Project site that could be allowed under the proposed prezoning designations could result in changes in on-site land use. The proposed annexation area is located immediately west of Interstate 5 extending approximately one (1) mile to the west, and extending to the south approximately one-half mile south of the Calgrove Boulevard exit, and to the north to approximately 500 feet south of Sagecrest Circle. The annexation area is currently under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. As such, it is currently subject to the County's land use designations and zoning, which call for predominantly low density and open space development. Completion of this annexation would bring the City -owned property of Towsley Canyon under its municipal jurisdiction. Existing Capacity of School Facilities. The District currently operates four (4) junior high school and five (5) high schools (four (4) traditional high schools and one (1) continuation high school) which collectively have a capacity often thousand ninety one (10,091) students. Of these seats, 3,521 are at the junior high school level and 6,570 are at the high school level. Enrollment data from the California Basic Educational Data Systems ("CBEDS") indicates that the District's fall enrollment for school year 1997-98 was 13,610 students, excluding continuation and alternative education high school students. Current District enrollment exceeds capacity by almost an entire school at each school level. The District has no seats available to house students generated from future residential units. The District's consultant, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. C DTA'D projects that the District can expect the construction of approximately 66,468 additional residential units within the District's boundaries. Of these future residential units, 27,016 have mitigated their school facility cost impacts and 39,452 have not mitigated their school facility cost impacts on the District. The District's student generation factors ("SGF's") are determined by grade level (ie; junior high school and high school), as well as the product type of residential dwelling unit. The District's current SGF's, as determined by DTA, are as follows: BAWC/JMC/ s01!.wpd 4/21/98 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Mr. Jason Smisko City of Santa Clarita April 21, 1998 Page 4 STUDENT GENERATION RATES SCHOOL LEVEL PRODUCT TYPE SGF Junior High School Detached Unit .1046 Junior High School Attached Unit .0494 High School Detached Unit .1985 High School Attached Unit 110888 Inapplicability of Statutory School Fees and Joint Valley -Wide Agreement In 1986, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2926, Chapter 887 of the Statutes of 1986 (Government Code Sections 53080 et seq. and 65995, et seq.) ("Statutory School Fee Legislation'). The Statutory School Fee Legislation specifically granted authority to school districts to impose statutory school fees upon development projects. The Statutory School Fee Legislation also included a cap on the amount of statutory school fees. The District is currently authorized to levy school facilities fees pursuant to Government Code Sections 53080 et seq. and 6599.5 et seq. The District receives 55% of $1.93 per square foot of residential development. The remaining 45% goes to the Saugus Union School District. Statutory School Fees will not provide the District with the funds required to adequately house the students generated by the Project ("Project Students"). Subsequent to the enactment of the Statutory School Fee Legislation, a trio of cases held that the Statutory School Fee Legislation did not apply to land use decisions involving legislative projects. [Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201, 252 Ca1.Rptr. 825; William S. Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 277 Cal.Rptr. 645; and Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1212, 279 Ca1.Rptr. 421.1 The District rescinded its participation in the Joint Valley -Wide Fee Resolution, as evidenced by Resolution 95/96-12 adopted by the District Board of Trustees on November 8, 1995, based upon a finding that the school mitigation payment provided for in the Joint Valley - Wide Fee Resolution could no longer adequately provide School Facilities to accommodate students generated from new residential development within the District. Therefore, the Joint Valley -Wide Resolution is not a feasible mitigation alternative to be considered. DAWG/JMC/ s01!.wpd 4/21/98 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Mr. Jason Smisko City of Santa Clarita April 21, 1998 Page 5 Proposed Mitigation Measures Mira, Hart, and Murrieta all hold that the limitations set forth in the Statutory School Fee Legislation are not applicable to land use decisions involving legislative approvals such as general plan amendments, zone changes and specific plan amendments. Accordingly, because the Project involves an application for legislative approvals, including a general plan amendment and prezoning, the Statutory School Fee Legislation does not preempt or prohibit the City from requiring mitigation measures that fully mitigate School Facility impacts.' According to DTA in their "Residential Development Mitigation Payment Justification Study for William S. Hart Union High School District ("Fee Justification Study"), dated February 9, 1998, and their Supplemental Study dated April 1, 1998 ("Supplemental Study"), copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, the District's mitigation cost calculated on a per dwelling unit basis is Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Seven Dollars ($6,487.00) per Detached Dwelling Unit and Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six Dollars ($2,956.00) per Attached Dwelling Unit. The District requests that the City include as a condition of approval of the Project that any developers of the Project be required to execute an agreement with the District providing for mitigation of School Facility impacts consistent with the amounts established by DTA as full mitigation. Unfunded School Facilities result in a substantial physical adverse environmental impact to the District. School districts have a statutory mandate to educate the students within their jurisdiction. If the District is required to educate students without an assured source of funds and without available capacity, policies underlying the enactment of CEQA are undermined, including the policy to consider critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of California [Public Resources Code Section 21000(d).] Expressions of legislative policy should be considered in acting upon general plans and amendments thereto. [Schaeffer Land Trust v. San Jose City Council (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 612, 263 Cal.Rptr. 813.] If new housing is to be ' With regard to Mello -Roos districts, the California Supreme Court has stated that Government Code Section 65995 expressly excludes special taxes levied pursuant to the Mello - Roos Community Facilities Act of 1992 from the dollar limitations set forth in the Statutory School Fee Legislation (Government Code Section 53080 et seq. and 65995 et seq.). [Grupe Development v. Superior Court (1993) 4 CalAth 911, 921, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 226, 232.] Accordingly, there is no legal limitation prohibiting the City from utilizing a Mello -Roos district as a mitigation measure. BAWG1VMC1 s0l!.wpd 4/21/98 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Mr. Jason Smisko City of Santa Clarita April 21, 1998 Page 6 approved without adequate school capacity to accommodate new development, the entire existing community is degraded. Cumulative Impact Review In the absence of applicable mitigation agreements, the District requests that an EIR be prepared to examine the cumulative impacts of the Project and other development on the District. The cumulative impact analysis performed with respect to the Project must address the adverse environmental impacts to schools and School Facilities, upon which there will be a cumulative impact by means of the Project and other development: The District requests that as part of the City's analysis of this matter (and proposed mitigation) that the cumulative impacts be specifically considered, reviewed and mitigated, as required under CEQA. This cumulative analysis should include other projects presently in the approval stage, or projects which have or may receive approval but have not yet been built. The contribution of additional student population resulting from the Project and future cumulative projects, will cause overcrowding of School Facilities and will further impact the limited area of the District's existing school sites. Such overcrowding will have an adverse effect on students in terms of the quality of education which they receive; the effectiveness of the student -teacher relationship; and health, safety and related concerns. Correspondingly, a significant effect based on a cumulative impact, separate and distinct from direct project impacts, must be found to exist where additional students will be generated by such a project regardless of ratios or quantity of students generated. Conclusion The Project clearly will have significant adverse environmental impacts on the School Facilities of the District. The City, as the lead agency, is obligated, under the provisions of CEQA, to provide adequate mitigation measures for such significant adverse impacts. Moreover, California law allows, and requires, the City to provide full mitigation for projects involving legislative decisions. Accordingly, the District respectfully requests that the Planning condition approval of the Project upon the execution of an agreement(s) mitigating the Project's impacts to a level of insignificance. Furthermore, any such mitigation agreements must be incorporated into subsequent conditions of approval of the Project. The District requests that no approvals be granted to the Project absent the execution of a mitigation agreement between developers of the Project that will fully mitigate the impacts of the Project on the District. The District alternatively requests that this Project be denied until an EIR may be completed sufficiently BAwG/JMC/ s01 !.wpd 4/21/98 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Mr. Jason Smisko City of Santa Clarita April 21, 1998 Page 7 analyzing the adverse impacts of this Project and conditioning approval on full mitigation of School Facility impacts. If you have any questions or require additional information with respect to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Bj y lie McCloskey JMC:ad Enclosures cc: Robert Lee, Superintendent, William S. Hart Union High School District Alexander Bowie, Esq DAWG/JMC/ s01!.wpd 4/21/98 April 23, 1998 George and Debra Tash 5777 Balcom Canyon Rd. Somis, CA 93066 (805)529-8108 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Planning: Jason Smisko Dear Mr. Smisko: RE: Annexation, Towsley Canyon For the most part we support the proposed annexation of our parcel into the City of Santa Clarita. We have only one reservation, and that is the fear of being down -zoned from CC, Community Commercial, at some later date. if we could obtain some sort of assurance from your office in regards to our reservation, we would have no further objections to this process. Please, advise us what can be done. Also, we will be expecting the complete annexation document, along with detailed maps, to be mailed to us. Thank you for your time.