HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-14 - RESOLUTIONS - NEGDEC SOUTH SC SPHERE AMEND (2)'— RESOLUTION NO. 05-67
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND THE RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS
TO ADOPT THE SOUTH SANTA CLARITA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
AMENDMENT FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita desires to initiate proceedings
pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000,
Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code;
WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has been given, and
the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public hearing on May 10, 2004,
pursuant to applicable law, to consider the proposed sphere of influence amendment;
WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed sphere of influence are as follows:
1) The Sphere of Influence Amendment will serve to enhance the City's ongoing
_ planning activities; and
2) Facilitate orderly growth in the unincorporated area adjacent to the City of
Santa Clarita and in the Santa Clarita Valley;
3) Coordinate property development standards and encourage timely provision of
adequate and essential services such as streets, sewer, water, police and fire
protection, parks and recreation, flood control, and solid waste disposal as
urbanization of unincorporated areas occurs;
4) Promote cooperative planning between the City of Santa Clarita, the County
of Los Angeles, various public/private service entities, and major landowners,
and so facilitate proper implementation of their respective general or master
plans;
5) Assist all government agencies and private entities in planning and scheduling
the logical, orderly and economical extension of their facilities and services,
thus avoiding expensive and unnecessary duplication of effort; and
6) Promote, assist and enhance property owners' ability to plan
comprehensively, and with reasonable assurance, for the ultimate use and
development of their lands.
WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the spirit and intent of California
Government Code commencing with Section 56425;
Resolution No. 05-67
Page 2
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be included in this sphere of influence amendment
is inhabited, and a map of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit "A", attached
hereto and by this reference incorporated;
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2001, the Local Agency Formation Commission for the County
of Los Angeles approved the City's sphere of influence;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, based upon the
testimony and other evidence received, finds as follows:
1) A Negative Declaration, attached as Exhibit `B", has been prepared for this
project and circulated in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and adopted as certified as required by that Act.
2) The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected
governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received have been
considered. Responses to said comments are attached to the Negative
Declaration. The public review period was from April 8, 2005, to
May 9, 2005;
3) Said study found that no adverse impact to the existing and future
environmental resources of the area would result from the proposed sphere of
influence amendment;
4) The proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and a Notice of Intent to adopt the proposed Negative
Declaration was posted and advertised on April 8, 2004, in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
5) The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of
Santa Clarita.
6) The City Council, based upon the finding set forth above, hereby finds the
Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with
CEQA.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, has considered all
evidence, oral and documentary, and is advised in the premises.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Santa
Clarita, California, does hereby determine and find as follows:
SECTION 1. The Negative Declaration, attached as Exhibit `B", prepared for the
Sphere of Influence Amendment is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita.
Resolution No. 05-67
Page 3
-- SECTION 2. This Resolution is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the
City of Santa Clarita, and the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Los
Angeles is hereby requested to initiate proceedings to adopt a sphere of influence amendment as
mapped in Exhibit "A", which exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference, according to the
terms and conditions stated above, and in the manner provided by the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg
Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Clerk of the City
of Santa Clarita to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Executive Officer of the Local
Agency Formation Commission of the County of Los Angeles.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 2005.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK:
STA'L'E OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was duly ado
,Xted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 14 day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ferry, McLean, Weste, Kellar, Smyth
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 05-67, adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, California on June 14, 2005, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this _ day of
20_.
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
By
Susan Coffman
Deputy City Clerk
i
i
i
W/
-F19 «
asi E 5 iiTw3c� u
t
CITY OF SANTA CLARPTA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO: MC 05-078
PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Sphere of Influence Amendment
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
Staff Contact: Kai Luoma, AICD, Senior Planner
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
PROJECT LOCATION: The South Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence Amendment Area is locited in
the unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles between the southern
boundary of the City and Interstate 5 beginning on the north at the City's
boundary and extending south to within approximately a/ mile of the
Interstate 5/State Route 14 interchange. Assessor Parcel Numbers 2827-
028-005 through 008, 010, 014,0)9 , 0Z0, 900 and 2827-029-004, 008,
012, 016, 900 and 2827-036-001, 004,006 through 014.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is an amendment to the City of Santa Clarita's Sphere of
Influence to include approximately 595 acres of area in order to establish the
probable ultimate boundary of.the urban service area of the City of Santa
Clarita. A sphere of influence modification is not an annexation, nor does
modification to an adopted sphere initiate annexation proceedings. No
changes to jurisdictional boundaries, regulatory authority, public or private
services, tax revenue distribution, or land use would ensue as a result of
adopting the sphere of influence proposed.
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 ] CityCouncil 0 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
Kai Luoma, AICD, Senior Planner
(Names Title)
Approved
Public Review Period From April 8, 2005 To May 9. 2005.
Public Notice Given On April 8. 2005
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
LETTER 1
AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLL.P
mmmmmw� Aaw"mwLm
OARLYLE W HALL, ly.
Yt s"22La292
Oc 229.220 e
•�
May 9, 2005
VIA MESSENGER, FACSIMII,E, AND E-MAIL
Santa CLrita City Cound
City of Santa Claris
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Cluita, CA 91355
Re: Master Cane Number MCOS-079 (Sphere ofli luanee Plan AmendmentlNegative
Dechumion), City Coxmcil MeetiugMay 10, 2005
Dear Council Members:
This firm represents the Los Lomas Land Company ("Lay Lomas"), developer of the Las
1 Lomas Specific Plan Project (the "Las Lomas Project"l which proposes aanmtation of the
_ Project arca into the City of Los Angeles, The 555 -nae Las Lomas Project site is situated in
Wesendy uoiornxporatad territory between the City of Santa Clarity to the north and the City of
Loa Angeles to the south.
During 2003-2004, this firm also represented Las Lomas in a Superior Court lawsuit
brought by Les Lomas under the Califomie Envitoymemal Quality Act ("CEQA") succeasfuliY
challenging certain discretionary actions by Santa Clarity These disputed actions — approval for
a proposed Sphere of Influence Plan Amendment, a proposed Annexation and a proposed Pre.
zoning were designed to hdtiam and implement Same Clarita's control over the Las Lomas
Project area. That CEQA litigation resulted in the Superior Comfs April 13, 2004 writ of
mandate ordering Santa Clarita to set aside its discretionary aetiore, because Sams Clarity had
imMPerlY approved those actions based on a mere Negative Declaration ("ND's. The Superior
Court specifically ordered Sema Clarion to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report ("ETR`)
in any further proassing of discretionary actions Waking to gain control and authority over the
Las Lomas Project area. Santa Clarity did not appeal the Superior Court's ndhrg Now, despite
the Superior Court's decision and mendat&, Santa Clarity is proposing to process, based on yet
another men ND and without the mandated EM one of the sea discretionary approvals that
the Cunt had previously act aside— the sphere of influence pian amendment .
This letter explains how Sam" Clarim's CEQA environmental processing of the newly
Proposed Sphere of Influence Plan Amendment blatantly flies in the face of the 2004 Superior
Corot order, thus running a serious risk of placing Seat& Clarity and its Council members in
contempt of that order, indeed, the current ND is largely a carbon copy of Ste ND flat Judge
2029 C"XW Part WI !8002 24001 L00A60010, G 9a20r•2021210.229.1000 f far !10.229.1001 I ww.YMp,,,q,mm
AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLLP
===� Aaotnys n Liv
Santa Clarita City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 2
Dzintra Janays ruled legally inadequate in the 2003-2004 Court proceedings, and it repeats the
3 same fundamental errors that mtdered Santa Clarita's earlier environmental review fatally
defective. A brief summary of the earlier proceedings, juxtaposed against the cutrem
Proceedings, easily demonstrates the profound errors that Santa Clarita is again making.
BACKGROUND
A. In Mid -2002, Los Angeles Launched Administrative Proceedings by Which It
Would Potentially Gain Control over the Ins Lomas Project Area and
Would Determine Appropriate Development Entitlements.
In June 2002, Los Angeles circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP'l of an EIR for the
Las Lomas ProjecE The NOP plainly indicated that Las Lomas was requesting, inter alfa, the
following discretionary actions by Los Angeles: Sphere of' lydluence Plah Amendment
Annexation, General Plan Amendmenk Zone Change and Specific Plan approval. Through these
4 requested discretionary actions, Los Angeles would first gam control over the Las Lomas Project
area, and then would provide entitlements for a requested mixed-use project for 5,800 dwelling
units, 23 million square feet of officakesearch and development, a 300 -room hotel, 225,000
square feet of retail uses, 250,000 aqua= feet of community facilities (including public schools),
and 285 acres of open space. (See Exhibit A —Los Angeles' Jere 27, 2002 NOP materials.)
Responding to the NOP, Santa Clarita submitted detailed comments demanding that Los
Angeles' EER evaluate a host of environmental issues. The Santa Clarita City Council then
adopted a resolution proclaiming that "any development in the Las Lomas Project area will have
a significant environmental impact...," and alleged, among other matters, that any development
could result in potentially significant impacts to the subject parcel's Significant Ecological Area
and its wildlife corridor resources, cultural resources, wetlands, steep slopes, earthquake fault
lines and wildland fire bazard areas. (See Exhibit B —Santa Charita's August 9, 2002 comments
on Los Angeles' NOP, Exhibit C —Santa Clarity City Council Resolution No. 02-175 dated
December 10, 2002.)
B. In Late -2002, Santa astrita Launched Administrative Proceedings to
Implement Its Own Rival Proposal to Gain Control over the Las Lomas
Project Area.
In December 2002, Santa Clarita decided that it would like to gain control over the Las
6 Lomas Project area and downzone it dramatically, thereby preventing anything close to the
intensity of development proposed by Las Lamas. Accordingly, Santa Clarita proposed to
undertake the following discretionary actions: a Sphere oflnffuence Amendment an Annexation
2020 Conk" Pug Eut / aWt9 2400 / W. M9Nq, G 90097 t012101a239.10001 /ere ]10.239.1001 / "vw.�44qumP.eem
L
AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLLP
mmwwwm� A7arng9 r Law
Santa Clarita City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 3
and a Pre -zone. These actions would encompass an 825 -sae area that included the proposed
555 -acre Las Lomas Project area. (See Exhibit D — Santa Clarita's December 17, 2002 ND, at P.
1, 2 [providing its proposed projca description including a sphere of influence plan amendment];
Exhibit E — Santa Clarity Planning and Building Services' December 10, 20M agenda report to
the City Council, at pp. 1-2, 5; Exhibit F — Santa Clatita's February 4, 2003 ND, at pp. 1-2.)
Repudiating its own oadier representadone that any development within the Las Lomas Project
area would necessarily have sigui'ficant enviromnental impacte, Sema £fatita proposed to take
these discretionary actions based on a mere ND, rather than a full EHL In fact, Santa Clarity's
ND repeatedly took the position that its effort to gain control ova the Las Lomas Project area
was not "linked" to any particular development proposal; that Las Lomas' development proposal
pending before the Los Angeles decision-mikets was purdy speculative; and that, absent a
particular development proposal by Las Lomas to Sanaa C/arita, no development at the site was
"reasonably foreseeable" and, consequently, no impacts of such development had to be
evaluated. (See Exhibit F — Santa CladWs February 4, 2003 ND,pasxhn}
For Its part, Las Lomas duly informed Santa Clarity that it "intends to promptly and
diligently develop the Las Lomas site regardless of what jurisdiction may govern the site....
-- Consequently, site development is not only foreseeable, it is imminent" (See Exhibit G —
7 February 25, 2003 comment letter from Allen Matkins, on behalf of Las Lomas, regarding Santa
Clarita's proposed ND.) Nonetheless, on February 25, 2003, Santa Clarita approved the
proposed discrationary actions based on its mere ND, and forthwith presented its actions to the
Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCo") for that agency's
consideration and approval.
C. In the 2003-2004 CEQA Litigation Proceedings, Judge Dziotra Janays
Determined that Santa Cbtrits Must Prepare a Full EM Before Pe-luitlating
Any Efforts to Control the Las Loma Project Area.
Throughout the ensuing CEQA litigation, Las Lomas argued to the Superior Court that
Santa Clarim's abbreviated ND took a prohibited "piecemeal" approach toward the Las Lomas
Project Rather than looking at "the whole of the action" and preparing an Ent "at the earliest
stage," as CEQA requires, Santa Clarita proposed "chopping a large project into many little onus
$ — each with a minimal potential impact on the environment" in order to avoid full eavitomneutal
review through an EIR. (See Exhibit H — excerpts from Las Lomas' Opening Brief, citing, inter
alfa, Boning Y. Ventura County LAFCo (1975) 13 Cal3d 263 and Rural Landowners Assn v.
Loll Clay Council (1983) 143 CalApp.3d 1013.) As Las Lomas argued, Santa Clarice. could not
"delink" its proposed discretionary approvals seeking jurisdiction and control over the subject
parcel from Las Lomas' pending development proposals, because the Las Lomas Project, or an
alternative development configuration, is reasonably foreseeable, irrespective of which
2029 Con" Pork ant / Sus" 2400 / L" Anp"49. CA 90067-0012 / 310.239.1000 /!n: 310.229.10011 w"wAkin0urn0•,n,
AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLLP
■n� Atlutneys at Late
Santa Clarity City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 4
jurisdiction ultimately gains control over the Project area (See fel. at pp. 14 to 21.) (Lag Lomas
$ hereby incorporates by reference the entire administrative record and court file from the 2003-
2004 CEQA litigation proceedings,)
Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janays agreed entirely with these CEQA arguments put
forward by Las Lomas. The Court's April 13, 2004 Statement of Decision ruled that the
administrative record. contained "substantial evidence to support a fair argument that [Sama
Clarita's] actions may have significant environmental impacts'
As Judge Janays noted, future
9 development of the site by Las Lomas was, in fact, "reasonably foreseeable" no matter which
jurisdiction ultimately gained control over the subject parcel. Further, Santa Chuita had
explicitly conceded that `any development in the Las Lomas Project area will have a significant
environmental impact,^ and Santa Clarites commem on Los Angeles' NOP had enninerated an
extensive list of potential environmental impacts. (See Exhibit I — the Superior Court's April 13,
2004 Statement of Decision, at p: 3.)
Judge Janays therefore mandated Santa Clarita to set aside its February 2003
10 discretionary approvals seeking jurisdiction and control over the Las Lomas Project site, and
ordered Santa Clarita to prepare a full EIR "in any subsequent processing" of those discretionary
approvals. (See Exhibit J —Final Judgment and Writ of Mandate.)
D. In 2000-2005, Los Angeles Undertook Processing of its Presently Pending
Area -wide Sphere of kiluence Plan Amendment Application.
Meanwhile, in November 2000, Los Angeles had begun processing an area -wide Sphere
of Influence Plan Amendment Application that would encompass the remaining unincorporated
area within the San Fernando Valley within Los Angeles' sphere of influence. (See Exhibit K —
11 November 14, 2000 Los Angeles City Council motion.) As eventually released to the public,
this Los Angeles Sphere of Influence Plan Amendment Application would encompass fully
19,242 acres, or slightly more than 30 square miles. According to Los Angeles, these proposed
sphere of influence boundaries would generally "follow the natural ridgeline of the San Gabriel
and Santa Susana Mountains, so that the Los Angeles River watershed generally would be placed
into Los Angeles' sphere of influence." (See Exhibit L — April �6, 2005 Staff Report and
"Mitigated Negative Declaration" ("MND'), at p. 2.) .
Los Angeles has recently prepared an environmental document for this proposed Sphere
12 of Influence Plan Amendment Application. It appears from the map attached to the ND, that,
where the proposed boundary line crosses the Las Lomas Project area, it vaguely approximates
2020 Century PSM East / Suits 2400 /Los Angeles. CA 90067-30121310.229.1000 / fax: 310.229.1001 / www.sking"p.mr,
4
AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLLP
Aawlwyaa taw
Santa Clarita City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 5
12 in some ways the ridgeline, and the Project area appears to be divided ro that about 25 to 30
percent would be within Los Angeles' proposed boundaries. (See Id. st p. 10.)'
Importantly, a December 15, 2004 front-page news article in the Dally News reports that
certain Santa Claris and Lw Angles officials have held a series of behind-closeddoon
meetings and "quietly cat a deal" that would split the Las Lomas Project area between the two
13 cities. According to the Daily News articlq under this backroom deal, a new sphere of influence
line was to be drawn between the two cities so that Los Angeles would obtain approximately 25
percent of the Project area and Santa Clatita would obtain approximately 75 percent, The article
further describes bow the proposed sphere of influence boundaries would be designed to block
the Las Lomas Project by making development of the Project arra far more difficult. (Ste
Exhibit M — December 15, 2004 Dally New atticle.)2
E. Santa Clarity Has Now Begun Processing.Its Own Las Lomas Project Parcel.
Specific Sphere of Influence Phu Amendment Application.
Santa Clnrita also now proposes to extend its own sphere ofinfluence southward so that it
would encompass about 75 to 80 percent of the Las Lomas Project area. According to Santa
Clan WS recently released April 8, 2005 ND, Santa Clarity is now processing a 595-sorc parcel -
14 Specific Sphere of Influence Plan Application that would essentially complete Santa Clarity's
side of the Daffy News -repotted "back -room deal," The area in question includes the majority of
the Las Lomas Project area, over which Santa Clarita had previously sought to extend in sphere
Of influence, annex and pre -zone, based on a more ND (ie., the February 2003 ND invalidated
by Judge Janays), instead of a fug EUL Notably, Sam Clarity's current ND provides no
mention of Judge Jartays' order commanding it to prepare a full EL
m Although the Los Angeles Planning Depressant's slattreport peparad in oommecdnn with Its pending
Sphere of InOvamce Plan Amendment Application specifically Identities the Las Loma Project arts, it dean a s
15 Provide any taxon or other analyst of the mawos for deawhrg the boundary Her In ate peop sed location awn the
middle of due Prejeet she nor any anelysis of the poumdAl environmental impacts that my result hamthe
sphere of influence plan boundaries, meg
Las L'umas has d that LOS Angeles include mane of the Project area within within Los Angela' proposed
sphae of
developmentfIn fln 0f, Ila L U Loma ate' important decisions about the fanne jur"Cliond «nmol over, and
Project ars would be made only after as approprfatq rdnint envfmnmraal data
16 has been gathered and after fill CEQA analysis has been completed with respect an the proposed development site
Under a second approach, all of the Pmjed seen would be placed ion the proposed Los Angela sphere of influence,
w that lac Lomas could continue d5ciandy planning its Project influence" mQuhenmrrts and mitigation
menus, consistent with La Lama' pending application for project entitlements.
1020 CeWwy Perk rap I SWme 2400 1 Lm Aaselw, CA 100{7-3012 1 7/0.7]0.10001 fu; 310.239.10011 w .tlingmp.wm
AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLt-P
Anorngeu Lew
Santa Clarita City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 6
I. The Determination of Boundary Lines for a Proposed Sphere of Influence Plan
Amendment May Have Profound Environmental Impacts and Planning
Implications, and Is Subject to CEQA.
Under the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Reorganization Act of 2000 (the "Act'),
LAFCo decisions approving proposed sphere of influence plans for particular areas can
Profoundly influence the way the affected areas are h1cly to develop. Under section 56076 of
the Act, a sphere of influence plan constitutes the LAFCo's "plan for the probable physical
boundaries and service area of a local agency." Section 56375.5 requires that every LAFCo
decision relating to changes of organization, including proposed annexations by cities, "shall be
consistent with the spheres of influence" of the pertinent local agencies.
17 In determining the appropriate sphere of influence plan for a given area, the LAFCo must
follow policies that are designed to "promote the logical and orderly development within the
sphere." (Section 56425(a)-) Recognizing the key importance of the sphere of influence plants
the Act dictates that, before the LAFCo approves or amends any such plan, it must make specific
factual determinations regarding the following:
(1) The present and planned land rues in the area, including agricultural and open -
space lands.
(2) The present and probable needfor public facilities and services in the area.
(3) The present capacity ofpublic facilities and adequacy ofpublic services that the
agency provides or is authorized to provide.
(4) To the extent they are relevant, the existence of any social or economic
communities of Interest in the arca.
o As one example of the sphere of influence plan's practical importance, if an ane is to be placed within a
city's sphere of influence, the affected city and county mpaesentativca must mea to reach agm onnt on how, prior
to am"' annexal ne by the city, the county will make its fume land use decisions (ag., zoning and other
development standards) in that portion of the unincorporated area in a manna aha "reflects the concerns of the
18 affected city" and that "promotes logical and orderly development within the sphere." (Section 56425(b).) Once
that agreement is approved by the LAFCo, the city and county must adopt 1t. and, themafter, "airy development
approved by the county within the sphere shall be consistent with" the agreement. (Section 56425(c).) If no such
agreement is reached, the LAFCo must implement its own planning policies regarding the sphere. (Section
56425(d).) .
2029 Gne"y Pwk East / 11-1 a 240Q/L--M941", GA 900074012 1310.229.1000 1 fu: 310.229.10011. .tlnVu.p.a
"— AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLLP
BBBEEEMBBW� AlmmBra at taw
IF
Santa Clarita City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 7
(Section 56425(e).)
Furthermore, when the LAFCo initially prepares, and then later updates, its sphere of
influence Am for an nen, it must conduct a "service review of the municipal services" being
Provided within the county, Perdeubuly within the affected area, with respect to the following:
(1) Infrastructure needs and deficiencies.
(2) Omwth and population projections for the affected snx.
(3) Financing constraints and opportunities.
(4) Cost avoidance oppottunitieL
(5) Opporumities for rate restructuring.
(6) Opportunities for shared facilities.
(7) Government structure Options.
(8) Evaluation of management efficiencies.
(9) Local accountability and governance,
(Section 56430(a).) Ibis service review must be completed before the LAFCo acts upon a city's
sphere of influence amendment application. (Section 56430(c).)
Because these sphere of influence plan amendment issues have important environmental
19 and Planning implications, the Act expressly provides that, whenever a city requests that the
pertinent sphere of influence plan be amended, the LAFCo cannot comider the request Without
first aamPfYntgWith ICEQII•" (Section 56428(b)•)
In City of Uvermore v, LAFCo of Womeda County (1986) 184 Cal.App3d 531, a
LAFCo's sphere of influence guidelines had provided generally that existing and fittma urban
development belong$ in cities, malting it difficult for special districts to extend their service area
20 to ProPosed urban development in the unincorporated areas. A private developer pmposel an
urban development pm3ect "Las POSitas" in the unincorporated area near Livermore's
boundaries. As here, Livermore sought to extend its sphere of influence boundaries into the
proposed Las Positas development area, but, in that case, the LAFCo rejected its application.
The LAFCo then modified the former sphere of influence guidelines by deleting the former
2029 C"Nury Pah aaµ / BµW 2400 / WAq J". CA OOOpJO12/ 2/0.278.1000 If. 210.220.1001 f waw.aglpOm0.0oM
26
AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLLP
A#On ys at Law
Santa Clarity City Council
May 9, 2005
Page g
urbanization -in -cities policy, thereby facilitating future development of Las Posims within the
unincorporated area
The Court ruled that a full EIR was required before the LAFCo could properly amend its
sphere of influence guidelines as proposed. The Count explamed the importance of CEQA
compliance in connection with LAFCo sphere of influence decisions:
The sphere ofuijluence guidelines influence LAFCo decisions about development
plans rued fimor growth of eilies and service areas. The guidelines play a pact in
determining whether growth will occur in unincorporated areas and whether
agricultural land will be preserved or developed. They may charge the focus of
urban development by promoting county plans over city plans. These potential
effects will "certainly Impact the environment. It is time, that the precise effects are
difficult to assess at this stage, but it is because impact is so easily foreseen that
the revisions just be considered a project under CEQA.
As to the argument that the revisions are not a tangible physical activity, CEQA
and its guidelines focus on the ultimate impact of a project, not on whether the
project is tangible or intangible. The CEQA [guidelines] already include actions
that are not physical activities.... just as the amendment of a general plan will
influence the future growth and development of cities, so too will the sphere of
influence guideline revision have such an effect.... The `^act or decision" we
review here is not the decision that the project may or may not have a significant
environmental impact, but the decision that it can or cannot be fairly argued that
the project may have a significant environmental impact ... 4
" In Muzzy Routh Co. Y. Solaro County Abport Land Use Ca"'m (2005) 125 CaLApp.41h 510, 926-830,
the Court of Appeal recently reiterated that CEQA requires M be prepared early in the decision-making proeau—
in dust eau, at the point in time when an airport land use plan was adopted by an Airport Land Use Commission
("ALUC"1. There, the ALUC had adopted its plan that would preclude jurisdictions surrounding an airport from
approving residential development in a large ares that would potentially be exposed to highnoise levels from
2 aircnR using the airport. In ruling that the ALUC's decision was subject m CEQA, the appellate court explained
that the approved plan had the potential to displace housing development outside the affected area, a potential that
was not are "speculative or remote" that it mid not be considered a'lwonably foreseeable com equence of the
ALUC's new plan. The ALUC's plan was "a necessary step in the chain of evens" that "set in motion a process and
are be expected to carry Some authority." The Court found the Livermore decision about sphere of influence plan
gi ideliees to be directly on point, beaux the sphere of influence guidelines "play a part in determining" when
growth will ocau, even though the precise effects might be difficult to assess. The critical factor must be to avoid a
2029 Century Pr! East / suite 24001 Lea Anaslss. CA 90007 10121310.229.100016. 310.229.10011 wwr akNpanp.e"m
'- AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLt.P
Aawneya at Lew
Sante Clarity City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 9
II. Without Adequate Evaluation Under CEQA of How Ra -drawing the Sphere of
Influence Phan Boundaries Codd Potentially Impart the Environment Generally
and the Las Lomas Project In Particular, Santa Clarita's Proposed Sphere of
Influence Plan Amendment Ice Premature,
A.
As explained above, sphere of influence plan decisions play a key part in determining
22 where growth will occur, and the potential effects will certainly Impact the environment, even
though the precise effects may difficult to assess. These important CEQA considerations led
Judge Janays to rule in the earlier Superior Court proceedings regarding the Las Lomas Project
area that Seam Clarity must prepare a full EIR before it can undertake further discretionary
action to obtain jurisdiction and control over the subject area. These pilings, of course, are res
Judie -ata as to the Las Lomas Project area and Santa Clarita's action, because Santa Clarita did
"— not appeal the Superior Court's final judgment.
For reason that now appear to be explained by the desire to implement the reported
"beck -room deal," Santa Clarfta again proposes to amend its sphere of influence to obtain 70 to
75 percent of the Las Lomas Project area .within its boundary. leaving the remainder to Los
23 Angeles, based on a mere ND, in direct contradiction with the Superior Court's May 2004
judgment and order commanding it to comply with CEQA and prepare a full EIIt Indeed, Santa
Clarity's ND for the current proposed sphere of influence action does not even mention Judge
Janays' order. Nor does Same Chrita attempt to develop a new approach or a new rationale for
its proposed sphere of influence action over the Las Lomas Project area based on a mete ND.
The reader of the Santa Clarita's current ND perceives an unfortunate sense of dija vu,
encountering the same previously rejected rationale that the proposed sphere of influence plan
24' amendment action initiating Santa Clatfta's jurisdictional control over the subject area "is not
associated with any site-specific development proposal," and thus "no reasonably foreseeable"
impacts would occur. The current Santa Clarity ND again advises that it does ant need to
consider or evaluate "the impacts of speculative development projects that may be proposed on
the project site through municipalities having no jurisdiction over the slit." Santa Clarita's
L 'pieeenteal environmental review^ by which Initial decisions about an overall project aro approved early without
21 adequate environments! review.
2029 G Iuy atl EMI Subs 2400 / La9 Angdw, CA 900440121310.279.1000 rbc 310.329.1001 I wwua"mp.mm
W
24
25
26
AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLLP
Attorneys at taw
Santa Clarita City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 10
current ND simply resurrects the same previously invalidated "party line" that, because its
proposed sphere of influence action is "not related to any proposed development on the site, no
"reasonably foreseeable impacts" will supposedly ensue from its discretionary approval, and the
proposed sphere of influence boundary change "cannot and will not" have any foreseeable new
environmental impacts. (Compare Exhibit F - Santa Clarity's February 4, 2003 ND, at pp. 2, 12,
27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56
[Santa Clarita's February 2003 sphere of influence related actions are "not linked to a
development proposal"; "there is no development proposal associated with" Santa Cladta's
proposal"; Santa Clarita's proposed actions "are not associated with any site-specific
development proposal". therefore It is not possible to identity any site-specific impacts.'I with
Exhibit N - Santa Clarita's April 8, 2005 ND, at pp. 8, 9, 10, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36,
37 [Santa Clarita's 2005 proposed sphere of influence action is "not related to any proposed
development on the site"; "no development is being proposed as part of the project"., "no
development is tieing proposed in conjunction with the proposal". the project "does not propose
development of any sort'; the project "does not include development proposals"; "(t)herefore, no
negative environmental impacts... are anticipated."])
Santa Clarita's 2005 ND for its currently proposed sphere of influence action is directly
contrary to Judge Janays' order that Santa Clarita can proceed with discretionary approvals to
initiate and implement its control over the Las Lomas Project parcel only after Santa Clarita has
fast completed a full EDL Therefore, Santa Clarita is once again proposing to act prematurely
on its on its proposed sphere of influence plan amendment, before the necessary EIR data
gathering and analysis are completed.
B. Sante Clarita's Proposed Sphere of Influence Plan Amendment Raises a Host of
Environmental Issues Relating to the Las Lomas Proiect Area
Since 2002, Las Lomas has been cooperating with Los Angeles to prepare a draft EIR in
support of the required discretionary actions by Los Angeles and the LAFCo to bring about the
Las Lomas Project. Las Lomas has expended nearly $1.5 million in fees to the environmental
consultants who are assisting in preparing the draft Elft, and*has paid mote than 525;000 in
processing fees directly to Los Angeles. Today, Las Lomas still My intends to develop the Las
Lomas Project or whatever lesser development entitlements may finally be granted to it by
whichever governmental authority is ultimately awarded long-term jurisdiction and control over
the Las Lomas Project area.
As the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Reorganization Act's provisions relating to sphere
of influence amendments dictate and as Judge Janays has commanded, Santa Clarity must
comply with CEQA and prepare a full EIR before it takes action to initiate its jurisdiction and
20M G Wq PW Gut l au110 2400 / 1.e0 A"0 ., CA W067-30121310.229.10W/f.= 010.220.1001 I wwwaY4pump.m
[U
AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLLP
- � Monlep at Law
Santa Clarita City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 11
control over the Las Lomas Project area, including approving proposed sphere of influence plan
amendments and proposed annexations. Ibis full EIR should gather all relevant data and
information, and should evaluate, among other matters, the ways that Santa Clarites assumption
26 of government control over the Las Lamas Project area may influence the nature and intensity of
development, as well as the ability of the developer and the governing city to deliver urban
services and to formulate and implement mitigation measures in connection with that
development.
Santa Clarita's ND reganibog the proposed Sphere of influence Plan Amendment
27 Application provides essentially no infornation and analysis regarding bow the sphere of
influence should deal with the Las Lomas Project area, which are needed on a host of
envirommrental issues. A few examples suffice.
• First and foremost, by encompassing the great majority of the Las Lomas Project
area into its sphere of influence plan, Santa Clarita would prematurely succeed in
establishing, without the benefit of the full E311 envisioned by Judge Janays, that
70 to 75 percent of that area should be within the "probable physical boundary
and service area" of Santa ClatibL This determination would influence further
decisions regarding the provision of services, and development of, the Las Lomas
28 Project area Not only has Santa Clarita previously indicated its desire to down -
zone the Project area to an ultra-low density level, but Santa Clerita knows that,
unlike Los Angeles, it cannot make available sufficient water to serve the Las
Lomas Project Los Angeles' Department of Water and Power has adequate .
water supply to serve the entire proposed Project development. Santa Clanta
and/or Los Angeles County would rely on special districts to secure and provide
water The availability of sufficient water to serve sizable development through
these special districts is highly questionable.
• Absent comprehensive traffic mitigation measures, the traffic that the Las Lomas
Project will lrotCWWIy generate on the 70 to 75 percent of the Isnd that is north of
the watershed line will primarily flow south into Los Angeles. Los Angeles'
Department of Transportation has informed Las Lomas that the great majority of
29 the traffic expected to be generated by Las Lomas will be, southbound, requiring
extensive mitigation within Los Angeles. Certainly, Los Angeles will have
greater impacts from any unmitigated traffic generated by the Las Lomas Project,
and Los Angeles should have direct authority and control over the boundaries of
the Project area, so that it can more directly monitor and implement traffic
mitigation measures that will address project -related traffic.
303e Cmrtie GM / OWN 3430 / Ln Mpbc CA DOWNM131310.339.1000 I fu: 310339.1001 1 cow ,kLVump.e
11
AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLLP
Adwrap at Law
Santa CMta City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 12
• The proposed Las Lomas industrial -center and hotel am proposed to be located in
the northern portion of the Project area. If Santa Clarita obtains jurisdiction and
30 control over that area and pursues its long -staging plans to approve only ultra-
low density single family residential land uses the thousands of jobs and millions
of dollars in taxes annually that would be generated by these important project
components would be lost.
• The Las Lomas elementary school and one of the two proposed high school
academies are on the north aide of the watershed line, while the other proposed
31 high school academy is on the south side of the watershed line. Dividing these
schools into separate jurisdictions would hamstring the schools' ability to plan
coherently for new lgilities and their construction and operations.
• Several existing and proposed major public iu&astructure systems presently
straddle the watershed line, including: the existing MTA commuter line tunnel
and the proposed MTA station; the existing high pressure gas lines; the existing
California aqueduct; the existing Sunshine Canyon landfill; the proposed wildlife
32 corridors that Las Lomas is presently designing with the assistance of the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy; the existing high tension power lines and the
proposed realignment•, the existing and proposed internal access roads; the
proposed freeway improvements providing access both to the proposed park and
ride multi -modal transit station and to the project site, the existing and proposed
hiking and equestrian trails meander across the watershed line several times.
• LAFCo as well as both Santa Clarita and Los Angeles each have long-standing
traditions of respecting landowner requests not to be split into multiple
jurisdictions, while also attempting to honor landowner preferences as to which
33 jurisdiction would best serve their public serves and facility needs. The
underlying landowners of the Las Lomas Project area unanimously desire
annexation to Los Angeles, and not to Santa Cladta, either in whole or in part.
C • For time reasons, existing jurisdictional boundaries in the vicinity do not follow
34 the precise watershed line, but rather weave around these major +•structure
systems and other features, generally avoiding dividing any single land ownership
into multiple jurisdictions.
Numerous significant environmental considerations come into play in formulating a
35 sphere of influence plan boundary: wildlife and other environmental issues, regional
infrastructure issues, demographic issues, economic development issues, ownership patterns that
2029 Csnunr Park Ent 19u0. 74001 Las Mnln, CA 00007-00121310.320.1000 10w: 010.129.1001 I www.WMVm0.eam
12
-- AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELDLtP
Atl9tng9 at taw
Santa Clazita City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 13
do not mirror the natural features, and fiscal issues, just to name a few, am highly important
The purpose of a sphere of influence plan is to integrate environmental and planning information
35 on all such major issues, before mal king the decision on how thm governmental jurisdictions
and service areas should be shaped This is precisely why Judge Isom ordered Santa Ctarita to
complete a full EIR before undertaking farther discretionary actions to obtain jurisdiction and
gain control over the Las Lomas Project area.
CONCLUSION
Santa Clarita cannot act on the currently proposed Sphere of Influence Plan Amendment
Application without first preparing a full ER. That MR must analyze how the proposed sphere
36 of influence plan boundaries would impact the environment generally and the Las Lomas Project
in particular, as well as how the proposed sphere of influence would deal with the Las Lomas
Project area Any attempt to proceed without an ER will be directly flying in the face of Judge
Janays' April 13, 2004 mandate.
Enclosures
2019 Cuury Pok am I3au."001L99 AMPWC CA 0000r-0012 1310.210.10001 h,: 310.229.10011 ww "a "wpm
1191
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLAN AMENDMENT / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS
LETTER NUMBER 1
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP, MAY 9, 2005
Comment Response
1. It is noted that the speculative Las Lomas project is located on land which is
currently located in the unincorporated portion of Los Angeles County between
the City of Santa Clarita to the north and the City of Los Angeles to the south.
The City of Los Angeles is the Lead Agency for the Las Lomas project. The Las
Lomas project requires approval of Las Lomas's annexation request by both the
City of Los Angeles and LAFCO, the adoption by the Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors of a tax transfer resolution between the Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors and the City of Los Angeles and approval of the development
application by the City of Los Angeles before this highly speculative project
could go forward.
2. This paragraph incorrectly states the nature of the Las Lomas Superior Court
lawsuit and the resulting ruling. The petitioners in the Las Lomas Lawsuit
challenged the adoption of a Negative Declaration (ND) by the City of Santa
Clarita for its pre -zoning of 825 acres of unincorporated territory and proposed
annexation of the land into Santa Clarita. The court concluded that the City's
proposed pre -zoning and annexation is a project for purposes of CEQA. The
Court ruled that for the proposed pre -zoning and annexation, an EIR would need
to be prepared. The Court's ruling does not hold that a full EIR is to be prepared
when there is any further processing of discretionary actions by the City seeking
to gain control and authority over the speculative Las Lomas project area. The
Court never indicated the requirement to prepare a "full EIR" or indicate that an
EIR was required for the processing of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Plan
Amendment, in the absence of a pre -zoning or annexation proposal.
3. The SOI ND is not a carbon copy of the ND for the South Santa Clarita
Annexation and Pre -zoning. The SOI ND specifically analyzes the potential
impacts of the SOI amendment, with a key focus being on potential impacts to
public service provision.
As explained in the ND for the SOI, there are a number of key differences
between the SOI and the South Santa Clarita Annexation and Pre -zoning proposal
reviewed by the court. Specifically,
• The proposed sphere of influence would encompass a smaller area -
approximately 595 acres;
14
• No annexation or pre -zoning is proposed. The City has indicated that an EIR
would be prepared if, in the future, annexation and pre -zoning of the area is
proposed.
The Sphere of Influence modification is not an annexation, nor does
modification to an adopted sphere initiate annexation proceedings. As detailed
in the ND for the SOI, no changes to jurisdictional boundaries, regulatory
authority, public or private services, tax revenue distribution, or land use
would ensue as a result of adopting the proposed sphere of influence.
The SOI amendment has no affect on jurisdictional boundaries and does not
give the City jurisdiction over the site. Future development proposals on the
site would be outside the City's jurisdiction and would remain in the County's
jurisdiction. If a future proposed development included an annexation to the
City of Santa Clarita, an EIR would be prepared in keeping with the direction
received from the Court.
• Annexation and pre -zoning by the City of Santa Clarita is not anticipated in
the foreseeable future due to the lack of landowner support for annexation.
4. The City of Los Angeles in its May 4, 2005 response to comments prepared by
Mr. Hall on the City of Los Angeles' ND for Amendment to Sphere of Influence
Boundaries — CF -00-2206; states as follows:
"1. Although Las Lomas has applied to the City Planning Department
to prepare an environmental impact report discussing the potential
impacts of annexation, plan amendments and zone changes to
enable development which lies partly within the proposed SOI ...
(t)hat application to prepare an EIR was not accompanied by any
applications for land use changes or entitlements, and none have
been submitted to the City to date. Upon payment of a fee, and
proper application, the Planning Department will review and
process an environmental document even if actual applications for
entitlements are not sought at that time. However, the City does
not complete or certify an EIR unless itis asked to approve an
entitlement for land use, and CEQA does not require it to do so."
"2. There are currently no applications, by Las Lomas or others, for
zone changes, plan amendments or other. permits or approvals
within the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles which would
allow for development in the SOI area."
The City of Los Angeles is currently preparing an EIR for the Las Lomas project.
An EIR is strictly an evaluation of possible impacts to the environment that may
be caused by a project and identification of measures to mitigate such impacts.
An EIR in no way authorizes development, approves development, bestows
15
entitlements for a development, evaluates the merits of a development, or
obligates ultimate approval of a development. The preparation of an EIR is not an
application for entitlements. The EIR may list the entitlements that are necessary
for the project being evaluated to proceed, but it is not an actual application for
those entitlements.
For Las Lomas to proceed, the developer must obtain an Annexation, a Sphere of
Influence Amendment, a General Plan Amendment, a Community Plan
Amendment, a Zone Change, a Specific Plan, a Tract Map, a Development
Agreement, and an Oak Tree Permit from the City of Los Angeles. The City of
Los Angeles has verified that no applications for any of these entitlements for the
speculative Las Lomas project have been submitted. The application submitted to
LAFCO for the annexation of the speculative Las Lomas project remains
incomplete. Las Lomas is not an active, pending, or even proposed project.
Section 65931 of the State Permit Streamlining Act defines a "project" as, "...any
activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate,
or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies." In Las Lomas' case,
there is no activity involving the issuance of a permit or entitlement because no
applications for permits or entitlements have been submitted. It is a purely
sReculative development, with little more than the developer's assertion that he
hopes to eventually submit applications for entitlements. Such an assertion
without actual entitlement applications does not meet the State's definition of a
"project" and thus holds no standing.
It is unnecessary for the environmental document prepared for Santa Clarita's
Sphere of Influence amendment to consider the speculative Las Lomas project.
CEQA requires the identification of potential direct or indirect impacts that a
project may have on the environment, not what impacts a project may have on
speculative developments. Las Lomas is not a proposed development. There can
be no impacts to a development that has yet to submit any applications for
permits, that has not yet been proposed, is not being considered, is not approved,
and that does not exist.
In addition, because this speculative project is not part of the sphere amendment
project, for which the environmental analysis was prepared, there can be no direct
environmental impacts related to the Las Lomas project that would result from its
approval. When considering indirect impacts, CEQA requires the evaluation of
"reasonably foreseeable" indirect impacts. California Code of Regulations,
Section 15064(d)(3) clarifies what is reasonably foreseeable, "A change which is
speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable." Las Lomas is
purely speculative and therefore, any impacts to it cannot be reasonably
foreseeable.
Furthermore, because no applications for entitlements have been submitted, the
Las Lomas project is not even considered a project under CEQA. California Code
of Regulations, Section 15378(a) defines a "project" as, "...an activity involving
16
the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement
for use by one or more public agencies." Subsection (c) continues, "The term
"project" refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject
to several discretionary approvals by government agencies." Because no
applications for permits or entitlements have been submitted, no activity can
commence involving their issuance or approval; therefore, the Las Lomas project
does not meet the definition of a project.
It is unnecessary for the City of Santa Clarita to evaluate potential impacts to the
speculative Las Lomas project in its environmental document prepared for the
proposed Sphere of Influence amendment.
5. The City of Santa Clarita did submit a detailed comment letter on the NOP for the
EIR for the Las Lomas project. Unlike the proposed SOI which does not include
any development proposals, the Las Lomas project envisions a massive
development project which includes 5,800 dwelling units, 2.3 million square feet
of officelresearch and development, a 300 -room hotel, 225,000 square feet of
retail uses, 250,000 square feet of community facilities (including public schools),
285 acres of open space, and millions of cubic yards of grading. The City of
Santa Clarita is justifiably concerned that a project of this magnitude would have
significant environmental impacts on the environment, should the City of Los
Angeles choose to approve it.
6. The proposed South Santa Clarita Annexation and Pre -zoning would have
reduced development potential in the area from the 466 housing units allowed
under the existing County land use and zoning to 368 residential units. Since the
founding of the City, no development proposal has been made at the higher
County allowable level of development. Development at the lower level was not
reasonably foreseeable and thus not likely to be fostered by the annexation
proposal. Since the City did not believe that the annexation was likely to induce
any development, it was the City's position that a Negative Declaration was
appropriate. It was also the City's position that development at the allowable
level had been previously analyzed in both the City's General Plan EIR and more
recent Circulation Element Amendment EIR. Given that the City did not believe
that the annexation would foster development, and the.fact that the City had
previously analyzed the impacts of development in that area (however unlikely)
as part of the Circulation Element Amendment EIR and had tiered the ND for the
South Santa Clarita Annexation and Pre -zoning from both the General Plan EIR
and more recent Circulation Element Amendment EIR, incorporating the
mitigation measures contained in those two documents to address the impacts of
development consistent with the land use designation and zoning, the City felt
that an ND was the appropriate document for that project.
7. Las Lomas may have informed the City that it "intends to promptly and diligently
develop the Las Lomas site regardless of what jurisdiction may govern the site,"
17
however, the speculative Las Lomas development project is enormously different
than a project involving 368 residential units.
No project consistent with the South Santa Clarita Annexation and Pre -zoning
was put forward by Las Lomas. Impacts of a project consistent with the South
Santa Clarita Annexation and Pre -zoning would have differed depending on the
proposed location, placement and design of the housing units, and thus
assessment of the impacts of such a development would have been speculative in
the absence of a specific proposal. 'This is why the City felt that it was not
possible, in the absence of a specific development proposal, to analyze the
impacts of development consistent with the land use and zoning for the site, in
greater detail than the analysis contained in the General Plan and Circulation
Element Amendment EIRs from which the ND for the South Santa Clarita
Annexation and Pre -zoning was tiered.
We would note that application for entitlements does not mean that entitlements
will be granted by a Lead Agency. The intent to apply does not automatically
make development imminent. In addition, Las Lomas has yet to apply for
entitlements for its speculative project or for annexation by the City of Los
Angeles.
The current project under review by the City of Santa Clarita involves only an
SOI, and no annexation. Santa Clarita would continue to have no Lead Agency
jurisdiction over the Las Lomas area. Should Las Lomas choose at some point to
apply for entitlements, application would continue to be made to a jurisdiction
other than the City of Santa Clarita and whatever development was proposed
would be subject to environmental review when application was made. Since the
SOI does not change either the development potential of the area, or the Lead
Agency, it does not foster new development.
Also, see Response to Comment 4.
8. No development is proposed as part of the SOI. The only speculative
development (rather than application) for the area, is that of the Las Lomas
project, the impacts of which are currently being assessed in an E1R which is in
process. Should the speculative Las Lomas project in its current form be denied
and some other development be proposed, that project would also similarly be
subject to environmental review. Should annexation of the area to either the City
of Los Angeles or Santa Clarita be proposed in the future, that too would receive
environmental review.
The purpose of CEQA is to assess impacts to the environment. "Choosing the
precise time for CEQA compliance involves a balancing of competing factors.
EIRs and negative declarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the
planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project
program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for
IV
environmental assessment." (Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15004(b)). The
-- City has met this obligation by conducting an Initial Study/ND. The Initial Study
concluded that given that the SOI would not result in either jurisdictional changes
or induce development, and that public service delivery would not be significantly
altered by adoption of the SOI, that a Negative Declaration was the appropriate
document for CEQA compliance.
See also Response to Comments 4, 15 and 30, which address the foreseeable
nature of Las Lomas.
9. The Las Lomas project is currently being analyzed in an EIR by the City of Los
Angeles. The SOI would not alter the City of Los Angeles' jurisdiction over the
speculative Las Lomas project as currently proposed. An EIR is being prepared
for a speculative development proposal for the area. No development would be
induced by the SOI.
10. See Response to Comment 2.
11. Correct.
12. Correct.
_ 13. The City disagrees with the commentator's interpretation of this News Article.
The December 15, 2004 Daily News Article speaks for itself.
14. Comment noted. See Response to Comment 2.
15. Comment noted. The boundary line is drawn to follow the natural ridgeline of the
San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains, so that the Los Angeles River
watershed would generally be placed into Los Angeles's sphere of influence. The
boundary line does, however, take into account existing parcel boundaries and
does not split parcels. The commentator states in this section that the "SOI Plan
Amendment application specifically identifies the Las Lomas Project." This is an
incorrect statement. The adopted SOI Plan Amendment map prepared by the City
of Los Angeles does not identify, specify or make reference to the speculative Las
Lomas project.
16. The City of Los Angeles reviewed both options to either include or exclude the
speculative Las Lomas project site from their SOI amendment. The Los Angeles
City Council rejected both options and determined that the ridgeline was the
appropriate location to draw the SOI boundary line. Again the commentator
misstates that an application has been submitted for project entitlements. No
applications for project entitlements have been submitted to the City of Los
Angeles. See Response to Comment 4.
19
17. Comment noted. The adopted SOI Plan Amendment Map does not identify,
specify, or make reference to the Las Lomas project.
18. Comment noted.
19. The City has complied with CEQA by preparing a Negative Declaration. An EIR
is not mandated.
20. The City of Livermore decision which addressed the question of whether an
amendment to the LAFCO SOI guideline revision was a project subject to CEQA.
The City of Santa Clarita has complied with CEQA by preparing an ND for the
SOI.
21. A requirement to comply with CEQA is not a requirement to prepare an EIR.
CEQA Guidelines 15063 provides guidance on whether on EIR or ND should be
prepared. Guidelines section 15070 specifies when an ND may be prepared. The
SOI meets the standards for preparation of an ND.
22. See Response to Comment 2.
23. See Response to Comment 2.
24. See Responses to Comments 2 and 8.
25. The speculative Las Lomas development is the subject of an EIR which is in
progress. No other site-specific proposals for the area have been proposed. Only
the Las Lomas project would alter public service provision in the area; the SOI
would not. Las Lomas's proposed service alteration would be required to be
addressed in the EIR for Las Lomas.
26. As detailed in the SOI ND, the Santa Clarita SOI would not in any way alter
service provisions from existing conditions. See Response to Comment 2.
27. It is not the purpose of the Santa Clarita SOI ND to analyze a speculative project.
The purpose of the Santa Clarita SOI ND is to analyze.the SOI's potential that
result in significant environmental impacts on the environment.
Since Las Lomas requires annexation to the City of Los Angeles should the Las
Lomas project be approved as proposed, the effect of the Santa Clarita SOI and
the Las Lomas project would be mutually exclusive, as the Las Lomas project
area, upon approval of the project and associated annexation request, would be
removed from Santa Clarita's SOI (should it have been approved by LAFCO) and
the Las Lomas area would become part of the City of Los Angeles. See Response
to Comment 4.
28. The commentator indicates that due to water constraints, the speculative Las
Lomas project is only feasible if the area is annexed to the City of Los Angeles.
Thus, unless the Las Lomas project is approved as envisioned (i.e. unless annexed
to the City of Los Angeles) the Las Lomas project would not go forward. CEQA
does not require assessment of the effect of a project (i.e. the SOI) on the likely
approval of another speculative project. See Response to Comment 4.
29. Should the City of Los Angeles approve the Las Lomas project, the project area
would be annexed to the City of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles would
gain direct authority and control enabling it to monitor and implement traffic
mitigation measures that address project -related traffic. The commentator
anticipates that the speculative Las Lomas project will have significant
unmitigated traffic impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations would
thus be required should the City of Los Angeles choose to approve the Las Lomas
annexation and development project. See Response to Comment 4.
30. This is not an environmental impact. See Response to Comment 4.
31. Should the'speculative Las Lomas project be approved as proposed, the area
would be annexed to the City of Los Angeles, and would be part of the Los
Angeles Unified School District. See Response to Comment 4.
32. Most of the infrastructure systems discussed by the commentator currently span
jurisdictions. Approval of the SOI would not in any way alter infrastructure
jurisdictional boundaries as explained in the SOI. The same may not be true of
Las Lomas. See also Response to Comment 28 which addresses the mutually
exclusive nature of the SOI and Las Lomas. See Response to Comment 4.
33. Comment noted. See Response to Comment 4.
34. See Response to Comments 4 and 32.
35. There is no substantial evidence in the record that the SOI will have a significant
effect on the environmental. See Response to Comments 2 and 4.
36. See Response to Comments 4 and 35.
21
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7, REGIONAL PLANNING
IOR/CEQA BRANCH -
1WNAIN MRM, MS # 16
IAS ANGELS, CA 90012-3606
PHONE: (213) 897.3747
FAX C213)897-1337
LETTER 2
V. .
.rpowarf
8s Burry dfe4nfl '
IGR/CEQA No. 050428AL, ND
Sphere of Ipfluence Amendment
City of Santa Clarita Master Case No. 05-078
Vic. I.P.-05 vicinity
SCH # 2005041039
April 22,2005 RECEIVED �.
Mr. Kai Luoma, Senior Planner'
City of Santa Clarita APR E 7 T005 x'05
23920 Valencia BL, Suite 300 STATE C' 0—
Santa Clarita, CA 91355 LEAR)#Ia HOUSE
Dear Mr: Luoma
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)'in the .
environmental review process for. the'above referencedproject.
The Sphere of Influence Amendment proposed by the City of Santa .Clarita is a plan for
37 the future municipal boundaries and service area of that local agency. No development is
being proposed with this project When a new development is proposed within this
project, please -include this department for the.environmental review.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (213) 897-3747 or Alan Lin
the project coordinator at (213) 897-8391 and refer to IGR/CEQA No. 050428AL.
Sincerely, . _M1� n
1' �"�"�'
CHERYL J. POWELL
IGR/CEQA Branch -Chief
cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse
'Cau w wp., m.baoy. Cak&mia'
22
LETTER NUMBER 2
CALTRANS, APRIL 22, 2005
Comment Response
37. Caltrans is correct; no development is being proposed with this sphere of
influence amendment. Caltrans identified no potential impacts to the
environment.
23
STATE OF CALIFORNIA'e
Governor's Office of Planning and ResearchN7`\,
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
. Arnold seen Walsh•
Schweremeggar Director
Govemor LETTER 3
Ivfay9, 2005
Rai Luoma
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarity, CA 91355
Subject Master Cue No. 05-0781 Sphere ofIntluence Amendment
SCH#: 2005041039
DearRaiLuoma:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above mmedNegative Declaration to selected state agencies for
review. On the eoolosed Document Details Report please nate that the Clearinghousebas listed the state
agencies thatreviewed your document The review period closed on May 6, 2005, and the comments from
the responding agency (ins) is (ase) enclosed. If this cornmmt package is.not in order, please notify the
State Clearinghouse immediately. Please referto the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in
future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. -
38 I Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that
"A resporu ble ar.other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding thou
activities involved in a project which are: within an area of expertise of the agency or which ase
required to be carried out a approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation" .
These comments are forwarded for use In preparing your foul environmental document. Should you used
more info nation or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you conractthe
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse inview mquiremmts for draft
environmental documents, pursuam to the California Environmental QuafityAct Please con=tbeState
Clearinghouse ar (916) 445-0613-ifylmhavermy ginmtioro regarding the mvimmnmml.nview process.
Sincerely,
Terty
Director, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
R E C E I V E D
PLANNING DIVISION
MAY 1 12005
t%ANNING a ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Cin OF SANTA CLABITA
1600 TSWM STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACBAbffiiTO, CALIFORKU 86812-3044
TEL(818)N6-0618 PA8(936)M3-3018 www.apr..Vv
00
State Ueanngnouse uata naso
SCHR 2005841039
Pro1wat Tlde MasterCue No.05.078/Sphere of Influence Amendment
Lead Agency Santa Cladb, City of
Type Nag Negative Declaration
Descdp6on An application to the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission to Initiafa Proceeding
for an Amendment to a Sphere of Influence to Include an additional 595 acres, pursuant to the
Cortese -Knox Local Government Roorgardullon Act of 1985.
Lead Agency Contact
Name
Kai Luoma
Agency
City of Sante Ciadta
Phone
(661) 2554330 Fix
small
Address
23920 Valande Boulevard, Suite 300
City
Santa Cladts Stab CA ZIP 91356
Project Location
County Los Angeles
City Santa Clw to .
Region
Cron Stmb The Old Road
Pamal Na 2827-02&014 dal
Township 3N Range law Section 10,11 Base
Proxlmity to:
Highways I.S. SR 14
Airports
Rallwaya Southern CA RR Authority
Wabnvays none significant
Schools Wiley Canyon ES, Peachland ES, Old Orchard ES _
Land Use Unincorporated, includes an 81 unit mobile home park and spproximausy4 single family dwellings.
Some livestock grating.
HM (Hillside MgmmnQ, TO (Trans. Conidor), W (Watershed), and Urban 3 (S,7 to 15 du/ac)
Z A -2-i (ag) ,
Prolect Issues
RevloWng Resources Agency; Regional Weer OualBy Control Boand, Region 4: Daputment d Parks and
Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Departrnad of Fish and Game, Region 5;
Department of Water Resources; Department of Conservation; California Highway Parol; Caltrans,
District 7
Dab Received 04/072005 SbrtofRevlew 04/072005 EndofRevbw 05/082005
Note: Blanks in data fields result from Insufficient Irdonnallon provided by lead agency.
r6.
25
RESPONSE
LETTER NUMBER 3
OPR, MAY 9, 2005
Comment Response
38. Comment noted. Nine State agencies and/or commissions received the initial study and
proposed Negative Declaration. None determined that the project would result in a
potential impact to the environment.
26