Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - EAST SC ANNEX AMEND MC 05-270 (2)Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT I PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: K,2-1 l4tA&2ndkM Le - Item to be presented by: Kai Luoma DATE: November 8, 2005 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONE, SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT AND ANNEXATION OF THE EAST SANTA CLARITA ANNEXATION AREA, MASTER CASE 05-270 DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council conduct a Public Hearing and adopt a Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 05-007; adopt a Resolution of Application to submit to LAFCO an application to annex the East Santa Clarita Annexation Area to the City of Santa Clarita; and introduce an Ordinance approving Prezone 05-001, and pass to second reading on November 22, 2005 an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA TO APPROVE PREZONE NO. 05-001 (MASTER CASE 05-270) FOR THE EAST SANTA CLARITA ANNEXATION AREA GENERALLY LOCATED IN CANYON COUNTRY NEAR THE EASTERN CITY BOUNDARY ABUTTING THE STONECREST ANNEXATION NORTH OF SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD. BACKGROUND This item was was continued from the October 25, 2005 Council meeting. The subject annexation area is located east of City boundaries in Canyon Country in the area where Soledad Canyon Road bisects State Route 14. The approximately 1,885 -acre annexation area extends from the eastern boundary of the soon to be completed Stonecrest Annexation east across State Route 14 to within a few hundred feet of Agua Dulce Road (see Attachment 1). The State of California Cortese-Knox-Hertzburg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that area proposed to be annexed be prezoned consistent with the City's General Plan before annexation. Ordinance passed to gee-%- o s X30 Second reading Mopfed: 4.50 �3� PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City is proposing to amend its General Plan and to prezone approximately 1,885 acres of undeveloped and uninhabited land in anticipation of annexation of the area to the City of Santa Clarita. The City of Santa Clarita owns approximately 906 of the 1,885 acres. The annexation includes a City of Santa Clarita General Plan Amendment (see Exhibit B of attached Resolution) and prezone (see Exhibit A of attached Ordinance) to RS (Residential Suburban), RVL (Residential Very Low), and OS (Open Space) with a MOCA (Mineral/Oil Conservation Area) overlay on a portion of the OS designation. Though the entire site is vacant and undeveloped, entitlements for a residential development and an aggregate mine have been approved by the County and are discussed below. The proposed action consists solely of the annexation (and accompanying sphere of influence amendment), General Plan amendment, and prezoning of the annexation area. No development is proposed as part of the annexation. These actions will not result in the ability to develop any portion of the site with uses or densities beyond what is currently approved or permitted, as the General Plan amendment and prezoning will be consistent with approved and existing land uses currently at the site. In many instances, the City's zoning will allow for fewer and significantly less -intense uses There are two unbuilt projects in the annexation area (see attached map), both previously approved by the County; the Spring Canyon residential development and a large aggregate mine. • Spring Canyon (Tract Map 48086) is located on 548 of the 807 acres west of State Route 14. It consists of 542 single family lots, a potential fire station or similar public facility, 2 parks, a school site, and open space. The project included a land use amendment and change of zoning to County Urban 1 and Residential 1, respectively. An EIR was prepared for this development and was certified by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The developer is in the process of obtaining grading permits from the County and anticipates construction activity to commence in April of 2006. • The aggregate mine is located on about 464 of the 924 acres east of State Route 14. The project will mine up to 69.2 million tons of material to produce and sell 56.1 million tons of sand and gravel over a 20 -year period with annual mining levels of up to 5 million tons per year. The land use designation and zoning were amended to Heavy Manufacturing. An EIR was prepared for this project and was certified by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (SCH # 91111066). This project was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2004. SURROUNDING LAND USES Abutting the site to the west is Stonecrest, an urban residential development of about 600 single family residences. Stonecrest is in the process of being annexed into the City and is expected to be complete in early 2006. The properties abutting the southern edge of the site are largely vacant, save for a small mobile home park across Soledad Canyon Road from the site. The Santa Clara River is located just south of the site but does not abut the site. Across the Santa Clara River are aggregate quarries and the Angeles National Forest. The area to the east and north are vacant and in their natural states. State Route 14 crosses the site. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION & ZONING The project area consists of approximately 1,885 acres. Currently, only about half of the site possesses a City General Plan designation. This designation is RE. The existing RE designation includes the entire Spring Canyon development, some undeveloped land east of SR 14, and a portion of the aggregate mine site. The remainder has no designation. The area has not been prezoned. ANALYSIS The following table outlines the existing uses, County General Plan designations and zoning, and the City's proposed General Plan designation and zoning: cfea e ;Use :: COun ]arid use / zonin Cit 'land use i Prezonin 464 Vacant with Approved HM / M2 OS / OS (MOCA) Aggregate Mine (City owned) 124 Vacant HM / M2 OS/Os (City owned) 318 Vacant O / A-2-1 OS / OS (City owned) 548 Vacant with Approved U1 / Rl RS / RS Spring Canyon HM / A-2-1 Development 275 Vacant HM / A-2-1 RVL / RVL 154 State Route 14 n / a n / a Of particular note is the OS prezoning of the City -owned properties. The City's OS zone dramatically reduces the type and intensity of development that may occur. The current M2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning on much of the property, which allows uses such as petroleum refineries, auto wrecking yards, and livestock feedlots, will be replaced by Open Space, which allows parks and riding academies, but no industrial/commercial uses. The MOCA overlay zone accomplishes two things: it accommodates any existing lawfully approved mining entitlement and, if no such entitlement is determined to exist, it preserves the State -designated aggregate resource for possible future extraction. The underlying OS zoning compliments the MOCA overlay by ensuring that future development will not impede possible future extraction of the aggregate resources. The remaining properties will be prezoned consistent with approved development (Spring Canyon) and the existing A-2-1 agricultural zone. Please refer to the Planning Commission's staff report located in the City Clerk's reading file for a more detailed analysis. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS A CEQA- required initial study, evaluating the impacts of the project, was prepared as part of the project review. It was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, resulting in a Negative Declaration. The requested General Plan Amendment and Prezone are consistent with the existing approved land uses and density of development that currently exists in the project area for which environmental review has already occurred. The project will not accommodate or permit any additional use or density that does not already exist at the site. The Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review and comment from September 1, 2005 to September 30, 2005. Both the Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution. COMMUNITY RESPONSE Prior to the close of the comment period, staff received six letters regarding the project. Two of these were from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and State Department of Transportation (DOT). The remaining four letters are from CEMEX, CEMEX's attorney, C.A. Rasmussen Company, and C.A. Rasmussen Company's attorney. The BLM and DOT cited no concerns or opposition to the project. The remaining four letters convey opposition to the project, mainly on environmental grounds. The arguments put forth in these letters are baseless and, at times, ridiculous. All of these letters as well as staff's response to the letters are included in the Response to Comments attached to the Initial Study, which is attached as Exhibit A of the Resolution. The attachments to the letter from CEMEX's attorney were voluminous and are located in the City Clerk's reading file. On October 24th, staff received a second letter form the BLM. This letter, alleging inadequacies with the environmental document, is a complete change of position from their prior letter. It was submitted over three weeks past the comment period and three weeks past the Planning Commission hearing. Due to the extreme lateness of the comments, they, as well as staff's response, will not be considered part of the environmental document, but simply as comments received prior to the public hearing. The letter and staff s response are attached. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING/ACTION The Planning Commission heard the item on October 4, 2005. One neighboring property owner spoke at the public hearing simply seeking information about the project. There were no other speakers. The Commission unanimously adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council follow staff's recommendation for the project. The Planning Commission staff report and resolution can be found in the City Clerk's reading file. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Council may choose not to adopt the Resolutions and Ordinance and not pass the Ordinance to second reading on November 8, 2005. Other direction as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT This action will change the General Plan designation and Prezone the area compatible with existing uses and consistent with the City's General Plan and Unified Development Code upon annexation. No further development is proposed nor would be authorized with these actions. This action will also initiate the annexation of the project area and authorize staff to submit an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission of the project area. A fiscal impact analysis prepared for this project indicates that there would be fiscally positive impact to the City. This is due to the building permit revenue expected as the Spring Canyon development begins construction. These initial funds will end once Spring Canyon is built out. Afterward, the long term impact remains positive as home values appreciate. By 2025 the expected revenues to the City amount to $11.3 million. The fiscal impact analysis is located in the City Clerk's reading file. ATTACHMENTS Site Map Approved Project Map Response to Oct 21, 2005 BLM letter Resolution Approving GPA and adopting Neg. Dec. Resolution of application to LAFCO Ordinance Fiscal Impact Anlaysis available in the City Clerk's Reading File PC Staff Report and Resolution available in the City Clerk's Reading File Attachments to September 29, 2005 letter available in the City Clerk's Reading File INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Smyth and Members of the City Council Curl Newton, City Attorney FROM: Kai Luoma, Senior Planner r;;, BATE. November 8, 2005 SU-BJECT: RESPONSE TO BLM LETTER OF OCTOBER 21, 2005 (MC 05-270, EAST SANTA CLARITA ANNEXATION) As indicated in an October 25, 2005 memorandum to you from Iden Pulskamp, City Manager, the Council and staff received a last minute letter from the Bureau of Land Management (131✓M) citinor several concerns with the East Santa. Clarita Annexation and the environmental document prepared for the project. 'These comments were received over three weeps past the end of CEQA-mandated comment period and will not be included as part of the environmental document, but simply as comments received prior to the public hearing. The letter is attached and staff's response to it is below. The cover letter is mainly background information about BLM's contracts with CEMEX that allow the removal of aggregate from a portion of the annexation area. Page 3 contains a summary of 13LM's concerns with the project. 'These concerns are detailed in an attachment to the letter as Enclosure 1. Staff's response will focus on the detailed concerns of Enclosure 1. Staff's Response Item I. The project description is not deficient as discussed. below. Item I.1. The City currently owns the property on which the approved mine is located. If operation of the mining project begins, it will have the same impact on the City owned property regardless of whether the mine is located in the City limits or not. The impacts to the City's property from the raining operation is not a function of annexation, but of the mine's operation. Annexation will not be the cause of these impacts to the City's property, the mine will be. Such impacts were evaluated as part of the mine's approval process. Because the annexation will not create these impacts, it is not necessary to include such impacts in the Initial Study for annexation. In addition, the citizens of Santa Clarita are well aware of the impacts that will occur from the mine's operation as evidenced in the thousands of signatures and post cards received by the City in opposition to the mine. November S, 2005 Page 2 of 4 Item I.2. The urine is not a "related activity" to the annexation; it is a separate activity that has no bearing on the annexation. The initial study does acknowledge and evaluate how the mine may be impacted by the annexation and concludes that it will not be affected. As noted by the commenter, both an EIR and EIS have been prepared to evaluate the approved mine. It is not necessary to reevaluate it, especially as part of a project that is not associated with it and will not impact it. As indicated above, the thine is what will cause impacts to residents of the Santa Clarita, not the annexation. If operation of the Training project begins, it will have the same impact on City residents, regardless of whether the thine is located in the City limits or not. The impacts to residents from the mining operation is not a function of annexation, but of the mine's operation. Annexation will not be the cause of these impacts, the mine will be. Such impacts have been evaluated as part of the mine's approval process. Item 1.3. It is, in fact, acknowledged in the Initial Study that the State has designated the site as containing the aggregate resource. The City acknowledges this resource and intends to protect the current or future extraction of the resource through appropriate zoning. The commenter again acknowledges that both an EIR and EIS have been prepared and adopted for the mine. Further environmental analysis of the mine for the purposes of this annexation is not required, especially in a project that will not impact it. Item 1.4. CEQA does not require the identification of property owners. Such information is not relevant: in the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment. Item 1.5. See response to Item I.4. Item II. The City did not pre -pare an EIR because an EIR is not necessary or required dace to the fact that the Initial Study determined that there would be no potential impact to the environment as a result of the project. The commenter fails to establish such an impact as discussed below. Iters 11.1. The project is a General Plan Amendment, prezone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation. It is not a mining operation. The environmental document does not need to include an evaluation of impacts that it will not create. The City acknowledges that not only is there "substantial evidence" that the mine will have significant environmental impacts, it is certain that it will have significant impacts to the environment, as indicated in the ElIZJETS prepared for it and the statement of overriding considerations adopted by the Board of November 8, 2005 Page 3 of 4 Supervisors. The annexation is a completely separate project from the mine. There is "substantial evidence" that the mine will result in significant impacts, but this same "substantial evidence" cannot be applied to the annexation. The project that is beim analyzed is an annexation, not a 76 million tone sand an gravel mining project. The mine will have the same impacts whether the city annexes the property or not. Furthermore, the mine is approved and the EIRMS certified: no further evaluation of it is needed. Item I1.2. The commentator's citation of Public Resource Code section 21080.3 is misleading. The City did not consult with the EI M because it is not required to do so. The above code section requires consultation with "responsible" and "trustee" agencies. The BLL is neither of these as defined by PRC sections 21069 and 21070. Item 11.3. Federal ownership of the mineral resources is not a description of the physical setting of the environment. Failure to describe who owns the mineral resources does not create a potentially significant impact to the environment There is no need to evaluate environmental impacts from the mine. See responses to Items 1.1., I.2., 1.3., and 11. 1. Item. 11.4. The City is not required to reevaluate the raining operation as part of an annexation project that will have no bearing on the mine's operation. The mine is approved. It will have the same impacts on the environment whether in the City or not. See all previous responses. Item II.5. This is correct, as there are none. The annexation does not authorize nor is it associated with any residential development. This comment contains no evidence that there is a potentially significant impact that would require preparation of an EIR Item 11.6. The commentator does not establish that there are or may be cumulative effects and provides no evidence that there may be such impacts, let alone that they may be significant requiring the preparation of an EIR. The Initial Study evaluated all potential, reasonably foreseeable, and cumulative impacts. Item II.7. Negative Declarations are not required to provide alternatives, only EIRs are. Item 11.8. CEQA does not require that a Negative Declaration provide project objectives. The commentator provides no code section requiring this. November 8, 2005 Page 4 of 4 Itern 11.9. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR only if the project may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment. Alleged deficiencies in an Initial Study do not mean that there will be significant impacts to the environment. If deficiencies are found in the negative declaration, such deficiencies may simply be corrected without preparation of an E1R. As indicated in the responses above, the commentator has not established that there are any deficiencies in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, much less any potentially significant impacts resulting from the project. United. States Department of the Interior In Reply Refer To: 1120 (920) P BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT California State Office 2800 Cottage way, Suite W1834 Sacramento, CA 95525 0 Cwww.ca.b1m.g ov T 2 1 2005 The Honorable Mayor Cameron Smyth City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Via fax Dear Mayor Smyth: a„ - ,., ON fi>; U&, 0€9M1Wi912liOF40H Ri4WJA The purpose of this letter is to provide background information and comments for the upcoming City Council hearing on October 25, 2005 concerning the proposed annexation (Master Case 05270) of unincorporated areas in Soledad Canyon and the CEMEX Sand and Gravel Minim Project. The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for administering a substantial amount of Federal mineral estate in Soledad Canyon, specifically in the area of the proposed annexation. As you are aware, the BLM has been involved in a series of lawsuits involving a former surface estate owner of the Soledad Canyon property, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Santa Clarita itself, to defend the federal government's right to administer the Federal mineral interests in the Soledad Canyon area. The land which overlies the Federal mineral estate was the subject of a 1934 patent issued pursuant to the Stock -Raising Homestead Act of 1916 (SRIIA). The patent passed title to the surface estate, but reserved title to "coal and other minerals" to the United States, In 1983, the United State Supreme Court held that sand and gravel was a mineral reserved to the United States in patents issued pursuant to the SRHA (Watt vs. Western Nuclear, 462 U.S. 36 (1983). As a result of this decision, BLM issued a Trespass Notice to Canyon Country Enterprises, Inc. and ultimately filed suit in Federal district court to protect the Federal mineral estate from unauthorized mining. In 1988, the parties reached a settlement agreement which rewired that the sand and gravel resources in the project area be offered for public competitive bid. Transit Mixed Concrete Company (now CEMEX) was the successful bidder. After the results of the bidding process were released, Canyon Country Enterprises challenged the bidding process in Federal district court which ultimately upheld the bidding process, BLM issued contracts to CEMEX in 1990, more than 15 years ago. The two ten year contracts between the BLL and CEMEX provide for the sale of approximately 56.1 million tons of sand and gravel. The first contract is for 14 million tons, and the second contract is for 42.1 million tons. The contract area is approximately 640 acres and is located within the proposed annexation area. The contracts incorporate BLM's Mineral Materials Disposal regulations, which are found at 43 C1 -0R Group 3600. These regulations require BLM to ensure that reasonable mitigation measures are in place and those applicable environmental statutes and regulations are being followed. Each contract includes a Special Stipulations Section with seven special stipulations. The stipulations require CEMEX to comply with rules and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). Following the submission of a mining and reclamation plan by CEMEX, as required by the contracts, the BLM conducted years of environmental analysis of the project environmental impacts in accordance with the Federal Ideational Enviromnental Policy Act (NEPA). This culminated in the issuance of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in May, 2000 and Record of Decision (ROD) to approve the project in August, 2000. The FEIS and ROD included a broad range of mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts, The FEIS and RCD are enclosed with this letter. During this time period, the County of Los Angeles also reviewed the plan in accordance with SMARA and their related environmental regulations, as required by the contract stipulations. The County ultimately approved the CEMEX project in 2004. The Federal contracts were issued by the BLM pursuant to Federal laws and processes. The County is not a party to the contracts. The contracts however require that CEMEX comply with SMARA and the County is the lead agency for SMARA. The contracts represent a Federal decision regarding the use of Federal property within County boundaries (in this case, the Federally owned mineral interest and accompanying right to use the surface for mining purposes). Although the BLit determined that the County could impose reasonable environmental restrictions on the proposed mining operations, the County could not prohibit raining on the contract area. Igor could the County change the terms of the Federal contracts. Soledad Canyon has been an important commercial supply of construction aggregate since the 1960'x. The CEDEX mine site (arid surrounding area) has been designated by the State of California as a Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Area and is zoned by Los Angeles County for sand and gravel extraction and processing. Since the 1960's the area has supplied high quality construction aggregate for the Los Angeles market. These resources are extremely valuable since the market is located close to the production area,, significantly reducing haul costs and air emissions. The California Geological Survey estimates that current permitted reserves in the San Fernando Production -Consumption Region are depleted and current permitted reserves in Los Angeles County will be depleted by year 2016. CEMEX will operate an aggregate processing plant and a concrete batch plant to produce and deliver construction aggregate and ready -mixed concrete to satisfy the substantial demand for these resources in the N greater Los Angeles market area. The project will support 300-500 jobs in Los Angeles County. The BLL is concerned about the lack of environmental review and analysis performed by the City for the proposed annexation and rezone as it relates to the Federal mineral interests within the annexation area. The existence of the Federal mineral interests and the BL M's Final Environmental Impact Statement for the CEMEX project were not discussed in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the annexation. Nor were the environmental impacts of the approved CEMEX project analyzed in the Initial Study. General concerns about the Initial Study include, but are not limited to the following. The project description. is inadequate, inasmuch as the Federal mineral estate, the regionally significant sand and gravel resources, and the CEMEX project are not described. ® The Initial Study does not analyze the impacts of annexation on the Federal and County approved CEMEX project. There is no analysis of the enviro=ental impacts and mitigation measures to the City from the Federal and County approved CEMEX project. The conclusion in the Initial Study that the annexation project will have no impacts to mineral and enemy resources is not supported by the fact that the City has continuously opposed the CHMEX and other raining projects in the Soledad Canyon area. The Initial Study does not evaluate the impacts of the annexation to the EL.M's management of the entire Federal mineral estate in Soledad Canyon, both within and adjacent to the CEMEX project. 0 We have enclosed more specific comments as an enclosure to this letter. In summary, we believe the City should consider- the rights, title and interest of the Federal minerals and the importance of the CBMEX project in your environnlenta.1 review and antnexation decision. Based on the above, we have tremendous concerns about the annexation being approved by the City until the environmental impacts have been fully analyzed and mitigated in an BIR. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed annexation. Sincerely, Mike Pool State Director Enclosures l)Rcview Comments on City's Initial Study 2) BLA4, 17irial Bnvironniental Impact Statement, Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining project, May, 2000. 3) BIM, :record of Decision for the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project, August, 2000. cc: Mayor Pro -`fern L,aurene Weste Councilmernber Frank Perry Councilmember Marsha McLean Council ember Bob Kellar Kai L Lorna, Senior Planner, City of Santa. C'larita, Planning Department EI Enclosure I REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE CITY'S INITIAL, STUDY/NEGATI7E DECLARATION FOR. PROPOSED SOLEDAD CANYON ANNEXATION #05-001 MASTER CASE 05� �27® e D" 4 Oct 24 I. The project description is deficient. - OP ����� There is no specific recognition of the fact that a federally approved QAR/r4 mineral extraction project exists within the proposed arae:-lexation footprint. At a minimum, the residents of the City of Santa Clarita, and other interested parties should be provided informaation sufficient to understand the impacts the approved shining project may have on City property should the proposed annexation be approved. 2. There is no evaluation of the swine as a related activity. The initial study should describe the future mining activity, how it relates to the proposed project, and briefly explain the types of actions the related mining project might produce. This information is readily available to the City and is found in the County EIR and Federal EIS for the Soledad Canyon mineral extraction project. There is no evaluation of the impacts that the federally and County approved mining activity weight have on the residents of the City of Santa. Clarita and surrounding corni-nunities, 3. There is no evaluation of the fact that the State of California has declared the Soledad Canyon area an area of regionally significant construction. aggregate resource. This designation should put the City on notice of the importance of the area for mining these reserves, dining within the boundary of the City may result in environmental impact. The project and potential impact were fully analyzed in the federal EIS and County EIR for this project. These issues were not recognized or analyzed by the City in the Initial Study/legative Declaration. 4. The City does not recognize the legitimate property interest of the United States in the mineral reserves in the project area. The City fails to discuss the "split estate" characteristic of these interests. The federally owned mineral interest in this area extends beyond the federally approved Soledad Canyon project. 5. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration does not identify the relationship between ownership of the "surface estate" and the "mineral estate". II. The City of Santa Clarita has failed to prepare an EIR.. 1. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration omits the specifics of the federally and County approved shining project, the environmental effect of that project as detailed in the federal IIS and County EIR for the project, and the 'federally owned G6split estate" is relevant information to be taken into consideration by the City in its deterruination. whether to prepare an SIR for this proposed action.. This body of information qualifies as "substantial evidence" warranting the preparation of an EIR. In addition, the information presented by the City in its Initial Study/Negative Declaration does not support its' conclusion of no potential for significant impact. This lack of substantial evidence to support its conclusion depicts an evasion of comprehensive environmental review. &e :Yundlstrom v. C'ouqy cf Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296. 2. The City of Santa Clarita did not consult with the federal Bureau of Land Management. A lead agency is required to formally consult with responsible and trustee agencies. A lead agency is authorized to consult inforrually with any other agency with jurisdiction over resources affected by the proposed project. Pub. Res. C=ode sec. 21080.3. The purpose of consultation is to provide an opportunity for all affected agencies to voice concerns in the initial determination whether to prepare an ET.R. The federal government owns substantial amounts of mineral resources in the project area. As the owner of a substantial mineral resource within the proposed project area., the City is required to consult with the managing agency, the BLM, prior to making a determination to prepare an EIR. 3. The document does not include a description of the physical condition in the vicinity of the project from a local and regional perspective. Withih the boundary of the proposed annexation, the federal goveinment owns a substantial mineral reserve, A portion of that substantial mineral reserve is under contract for removal. An exhaustive environmental review of that removal project has been conducted and completed by both the federal government and the County of Los Angeles. The mineral resource in this area has been declared regionally significant by the State of California. The Initial. Study/Negative Declaration fails to describe the approved project or evaluate its potential impacts. It fails to recognize state designation of this regionally significarzt mineral resource. This deficient environmental setting forms the baseline against which the lead agency determines whether an impact is significant, Failure to accurately discuss the physical condition of the proposed project renders false the conclusion that impacts are insignificant. 4. The document does not disclose the environmental effects that might result from construction and operation of the federally approved mineral project. This future action has been formally approved and is reasonably foreseeable. The failure to disclose potential environmental effects of a reasonably foreseeable action violates CEQA. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the UniversitY of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376. 5. The document does not disclose any potential conflict between proposed residential use and the federally approved ruining project. I 6. The negative declaration does not adequately disclose cumulative effects. Previously approved environmental documents must be addressed, and although those docaunents nay be incorporated by reference, the City must summarize the expected potential environmental effects to be produced by relevant projects. 7. Farther, the document does not discuss a no pproject alternative and fails to compare the impact of retention of jurisdiction by the County of Los Angeles over the proposed prgject arca. 8. The document does not provide a clear statement of project objectives. The Initial StudyNegative Declaration does not include an underlying purpose for the project. 9. The above list of deficiencies in the City's Initial Study/Negative Declaration warrant the preparation of an EIR. CEQA is to be interpreted to provide the fullest possible protection to the environment. See Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 247. M 11 u_£. ",®BP;T cw United States Department of the Interior mimed m� Bureau of Land Management California Desert District Record of Decision for the Soiedad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project Laos Angeles County, California Prepared by® I ENCLOSURES FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL .''_' . -i... .`ACT ... AND AfPqjNQ PR CT ® :' 8 Dear Rtader: United. States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAIRD MANAGEMENT California Desert District 6221 Box Springs Boulevard Riverside, CA 4250'-0714 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1745F CA -066.21 Enclosed for your review is the Final Environmental Impact Statement. (EIS) for Transit Mixed Concrete (TMC) Company's proposed sand and gravel mining project (Project). This Project is located off of Soledad Canyon Road and State Highway 14, in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, California. TMC proposes to produce 56 million tons of sand and gravel over a 20 -year period. The Project site is located on "split -estate" lands where the surface is privately owned and the minerals are federally own'ed and administered by the BLNI. Since 1990, when BLL awarded the competitive bid contract to TMC, the BLM has been engaged in analyzing alternatives of how to mine in a manner that minimizes adverse environmental impacts. BLM's Final EIS assesses the environmental impacts of implementing TMC's proposed rninin,g and reclamation pian and several alternatives, in compliance with the gyrational Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Draft EIS was released for public review on May 6, 1999, and the Supplement to the Draft EIS (SDEIS) was released November 17, 1999. The public comm. ent period for both of these documents closed January 10, 2000. The Final EIS incorporates changes based on public comments received on the Draft EIS, SDEIS, and technical appendices, including conformity determination for air quality. The Final EIS also includes responses to written comments received during the public comment period for the DEIS and SDEIS, responses to the BI. M public hearing held July 2, 1999, and responses to comments on Los Angeles County's Draft EIR for the Project. In response to public concerns and changes by TMC, the ELM preferred alternative is identified as the `.`Reduced North Pines Storage .area Alternative" in order to substantially reduce fugitive dust and diesel exhaust emissions in comparison to the proposed action. BLM will be rendering a decision on the proposed action no sooner than July 3, 2000. For more information regarding TMC's Project or the Final EIS, co=ntact Ives. Elena Misquez at (760) 251- 4810. We appreciate your interest in shared Stewardship of the public lands and resources. Sincerely, 4 .1 Tire Salt District Manager i � � �:. ;�., >:::r .. :®, : �> EXHIBIT A CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: MC 05-270 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: East Santa Clarita Annexation APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita Staff Contact: Kai Luoma, AICP, Senior Planner 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 PROJECT LOCATION: The East Santa Clarita Annexation area is located in the unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles, abutting the eastern boundary of the soon to be completed Stonecrest annexation. The subject annexation area is located east of City boundaries in Canyon Country in the area where Soledad Canyon Road bisects State Route 14. The approximately 1,885 -acre annexation area extends from the eastern boundary of the Stonecrest Annexation east across State Route 14 to within a few hundred feet of Agua Dulce Road. About 807 acres are located west of State Route 14, about 924 acres are located east of the freeway, and about 154 acres are occupied by the freeway. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City is proposing to amend its General Plan and to prezone approximately 1,885 acres of undeveloped and uninhabited land and annex the area to the City of Santa Clarita. The annexation includes a City of Santa Clarita General Plan Amendment and prezone to RS (Residential Suburban), RVL (Residential Very Low), OS (Open Space) with a MOCA (Mineral/oil Conservation Area) overlay on a portion of the OS designation. There is no development associated with the project and the project will not result in any additional development capability beyond what currently exists. 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 [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Planning and Economic Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached Prepared Approved by: Kai Luoma. AICP, Senior Planner (Name/Title) Paul Brotzman. Director of Community Development (Name/Title) Public Review Period From September 1 2005 to September 30 2005 Public Notice Given On Seotember 1. 2005 [X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice ______'—_____ CERTIFICATION DATE: