HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - HASLEY HILLS ANNEX (2)Agenda Item: 15
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
Ix
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: `
Item to be presented by: James Chow .
DATE: April 22, 2008
SUBJECT: HASLEY HILLSNALENCIA COMMERCE CENTER (VCC)
ANNEXATION, MASTER CASE 07-206 — CONSIDERATION OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-003, PREZONE 07-002, AND
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION 08-005, SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE AMENDMENT 07-001 TO THE LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council conduct a Public Hearing and adopt a Resolution approving General Plan
Amendment (GPA) 07-003, adopt a Resolution of Application authorizing staff to submit an
application to the Local Agency Formation Commission to amend the Sphere of Influence and
annex approximately 1,430 acres of land located at the northwest corner of I-5 and SR -126 and
approve the Negative Declaration prepared for the project.
Introduce and pass to second reading an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA TO APPROVE PREZONE
NO. 07-002 (MASTER CASE 07-206) FOR THE HASLEY HILLS/VALENCIA COMMERCE
CENTER ANNEXATION AREA GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF INTERSTATE 5 AND STATE ROUTE 126, ALONG THE WESTERLY
BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA.
BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Clarita fielded an initial inquiry regarding annexation of the Hasley Hills and
VCC areas over three years ago. Over the past three years, a citizen's support group known as
the Castaic Annexation Support Team (CAST), in cooperation with business owners in the
c Ordinance passed to
Adopt esb, Second reading
Valencia Commerce Center (VCC), have been diligently collecting signatures from residents of
the Hasley Hills, Live Oak, and North Bluffs neighborhoods and business owners of the VCC in
support of annexation.
On April 11, 2007, members of CAST submitted signatures from 72% of residents and/or
business owners to the City's Community Development Department. The 72% of signatures
submitted by CAST exceeded the City's requirement of 60% of property owners, which was the
annexation initiation policy in place at the time. During the May 22, 2007 City Council meeting,
members of CAST and other community members requested that the Council take formal action
to initiate proceedings for annexation of approximately 1,430 acres that include the communities
of Hasley Hills, Live Oak, North Bluffs, and VCC.
On July 10, 2007, the City Council authorized the City Manager to initiate the GPA and PRZ
applications and authorized funding for the preparation of a map, legal description,
environmental review, and Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) application fees that
would be required to process an annexation.
Currently, there are incorporation and annexation studies underway for the unincorporated areas
west of I-5. These studies were initially anticipated to begin in .the Spring of 2007 and take five
to six months to process. Over the Summer of 2007, it became clear that this timeline was no
longer realistic as the time needed for the County to collect data and for the consultants to
prepare the incorporation and annexation studies would take longer than expected.
On December 20;'2007, staff from the County CEO's office, members of the Castaic Area and
West Ranch Town Councils, and the City's Annexation Subcommittee met to receive an update
on the west side 'incorporation and annexation studies. The Subcommittee and Town Councils'
best estimation as to the processing and completion of these studies is that all County data would
be provided to the consultants by July 2008; the first draft of the studies would be completed by
September 2008; and completion and availability of the studies for the communities'
consideration would occur in February 2009. Also during the meeting, the Town Councils
expressed their desire for the City to wait to pursue any annexation west of I-5 until these studies
are completed and the residents in the communities have had time to consider incorporation or
annexation.
At the request of the members of CAST, the City Council at their January 22, 2008 regular
meeting, directed City staff to continue processing the Hasley Hills/VCC annexation as
authorized in July 2007. On February 20, 2008, the Castaic Area Town Council passed, by
unanimous vote, 'a motion to oppose the City of Santa Clarita's submission of an annexation
application to LAFCO.
At the Planning Commission meeting on March 4, 2008, members of CAST voiced their support
of the proposed annexation, GPA and PRZ, while members of the Castaic Area Town Council
expressed their desire for the City to wait to pursue any annexation west of I-5 until the
incorporation studies are completed. After receiving public. testimony, the Planning
Commission, by a unanimous vote, recommended that the City Council approve the Prezone and
General Plan Amendment for the Hasley Hills/Valencia Commerce Center Annexation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This is a request for a GPA, PRZ, and Sphere of Influence Amendment associated with the
annexation of the Hasley Hills/VCC area. The City of Santa Clarita is considering annexation of
approximately 1,430 acres of land generally located at the northwest corner of I-5 and SR -126.
This is also a request for authorization from the City Council to submit an application to LAFCO
for the annexation of the project area. Pursuant to Section 56758 of the Government Code, this
area must be consistent with the City's adopted Sphere of Influence, therefore a Sphere of
Influence Amendment is proposed as a part of this project.
Project Area
The proposed project consists of approximately 1,430 acres of land which includes 808 acres of
industrial area, 48 acres of coinmercial area, 571 acres of residential area, and 5.36 acres of open
space area. The project area is generally located at the northwest corner of I-5 and SR -126 and is
accessed by major thoroughfares which include The Old Road, Hasley Canyon Road, and
Commerce Center Drive.
A large portion of the proposed project consists of developed properties including a combination
of industrial, commercial and residential uses. The southern portion of the project includes the
Valencia Commerce Center, which consists of approximately 6 million square feet of industrial
buildings across 808 acres of developed campus area. Major tenants include but are not limited
to Remo, Deluxe Media, Star Nail International, GG Industries, Mann Kind, Aquafine, Hydro
Systems, and U.S. Postal Service. The northern portion of the project consists of 1,531
single-family residential units across 571 acres within the Hasley Hills, Live .Oak and North
Bluffs subdivisions. Neighborhood commercial centers in the northern area include Hasley
Canyon Village, Hasley Marketplace, Hasley Crossroads, and the Tutor Time Center. Located in
the Live Oak community is Live Oak Elementary School and Hasley Canyon County Park. The
vacant and undeveloped areas within the proposed project are limited to two ridgelines and the
Castaic Creek which are located along the west and southeast portions of the project site,
respectively.
The project does not include "Gateway V", which is the remaining 596 acres of industrial
campus in the VCC located adjacent to SR -126, or 36 acres of land located adjacent to Industry
Drive. These properties, which consist of vacant land, are currently owned by the Newhall Land
and Farming Company (NLF). Contrary to the initial study prepared for this annexation, the
project area has since been revised to reflect the exclusion of Gateway V and the 36 acres from
the proposed annexation as reflected on the attached Annexation Area Map.
The subject site is also included within the boundaries of the 2004 County -adopted Castaic Area
Community Standards District (CSD); however, because the area has already -been developed or
approved for development under the County, the project site is exempt from these provisions,
pursuant to Section 22.44.137.0 of the Los Angeles County Planning and Zoning Code.
Project
Pursuant to the State of California Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization
Act of 2000, annexing cities are required to prezone land. The City proposes a GPA and Prezone
that would designate the project area with City of Santa Clarita zoning and General Plan
designations consistent with Los Angeles County land use planning and existing development on
the project site.
Currently, the project area is included in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan planning area
and consists of land use designations that include RS (Residential Suburban), RVL (Residential
Very Low), RE (Residential Estate), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), and BP (Business Park),
as shown in Table A. The land use designations for the majority of the project area would not
change with this project. However, the proposed General Plan Amendment involves the
amendment of several "GPA Areas" including 289 acres of RVL and RE to BP, 14 acres of BP to
RS, 27 acres of BP to CN, and 5.36 acres of RS to OS. The attached General Plan
Amendment/Area Change map identifies each of the above-mentioned GPA areas.
In addition, under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles, the project area consists of the
following zoning designations: RPD -5000, RPD -6000, R-1-5000, MPD, M-1.5, M -1.5-13P, C-2,
and C-3, and C -3-13P. The proposed prezone designations are consistent with County land use
planning and existing development, as shown in Table B. The proposed prezone designations for
the annexation area include BP, CN, RS and OS. More specifically, the proposed BP prezone
area consists of 704 acres of County -designated M -1.5 -DP, 51 acres of MPD, and 51 acres of
M-1.5; the proposed CN prezone area includes 22 acres of County -designated C-3, 18 acres of
C -3-13P, and 9, acres of C-2; the proposed RS prezone area includes 313 acres of
County -designated RPD -6000, 141 acres of RPD -5000, and 120 acres of R-1-5000; and the
proposed OS prezone area includes 5.36 acres of County -designated R-1-5000. The attached
prezone map identifies the proposed zoning for the annexation area.
The project area was developed under the Los Angeles County land use planning policies and the
development of the project area was reviewed under separate environmental documentation
currently on file with the County. No new development is proposed as a part of this project.
The residential neighborhoods known as Hasley Hills, North Bluffs, and Live Oak have been
fully built -out. The Valencia Commerce Center was approved under Los Angeles
County -approved Master Conditional Use Permit 87-360 for 12.6 million square feet of
industrial office and commercial development. Four of the five phases of the VCC have been
largely built -out and consist of 6 million square feet of building area. GPA 07-003 and PRZ
07-002 propose to designate the project area so that City of Santa Clarita residential, commercial,
and industrial land use and zoning designations are consistent with Los Angeles County land use
planning and existing development.
TABLE A:
W4_ ° ` PDN,A
5 aAx 5 E
ESIGNATION "'
.caar+nfl...ttk .,F. �'p.�M�92+k+r �^r � �'..A� @- . F'n
EXISTING`I;AND QAll
'� q t� f
� a•a@P%v_ .o„5.K.o".Ev.G �� i C:V"
S (Residential Suburban)
Single -Family Residential
VL (Residential Very Low)
Valencia Commerce Center (VCC)
E (Residential Estate)
VCC/Vacant areas
P (Business Park)
VCC
CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
Commercial Centers
TABLE B:
ki6A,a EXISTINGi COUNTY Z®NING
x e
r:
-1-5000
(Single -Family Residential)
PD — 5000
(Residential Planned Development)
PD — 6000
(Residential Planned Development)
— 1.5
(Restricted Heavy Manufacturing)
— 1.5 — DP
(Restricted Heavy Manufacturing — Development Program)
PD
(Manufacturing Industrial Planned Development)
C-2
(Neighborhood Commercial)
C-3
(Unlimited Commercial)
C -3 -DP
(Unlimited Commercial — Development Program)
ANALYSIS
The requested General Plan Amendment and Prezone would bring the City's land use
designations into compliance with the existing Hasley Hills/VCC annexation area uses and
development. No new development is proposed with this land use designation change. Upon
annexation to the City of Santa Clarita, the proposed General Plan designations and zoning for
the Hasley Hills/VCC annexation area would become effective.
General Plan Consistency
A large majority of the project area, which consists of existing development, is consistent with
the City's General Plan. Most of the existing uses including the single-family residences in the
Hasley Hills, Live Oak, and North Bluffs subdivisions, the commercial centers, and the industrial
and office buildings in the VCC were built consistent with the City's General Plan. However,
some developed areas that exist in the Hasley HillsNCC area are not consistent with the City's
adopted General Plan land use map. In order to ensure consistency between the existing uses and
the City's General Plan, an amendment to the General Plan for these GPA areas is necessary.
These GPA areas are identified in Table C and include the following: 1) 14 acres of HOA
maintained slope that would be re -designated from BP to RS; 2) 27 acres of neighborhood
commercial centers that would be re -designated from BP to CN; 3) 289 acres of industrial and
office buildings, the U.S. Postal Service distribution center, and two ridgelines, all within the
VCC, that would'be re -designated from RVL and RE to BP; and 4) 5.36 acres of the Hasley
Canyon Park that would be re -designated from RS to OS. These General Plan amendments
would ensure the annexation area's consistency with the General Plan and the appropriate land
use designation for the existing development and uses.
This proposal includes amending the General Plan to designate the project area with the
following designations (see attached map for proposed General Plan Amendment areas):
Table: C
G"RA
xlkingIt—Plan
Existing Use k
Proposed City G.eherd Plan
reaAN
.x
O-
R8"c
Area #1
BP (Business Park)
HOA Maintained
RS (Residential Suburban)
Slope
Area #2
BP (Business Park)
C o m m e r c i a l
CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
Centers
Area #3
RVL and RE
Industrial/Office
BP (Business Park)
rea #4
RS (Residential Suburban)
Public Park
OS (Open Space)
The proposed General Plan Amendment is also consistent with objectives of the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan and development policies. More specifically, the Land Use
Element Policy 4.15 states, "Maintain or enhance the character of the various communities
through compatible land use standards and design guidelines, while promoting an overall identity
to the Santa Clarita Valley" (L-31). This proposed land use designation change complies with
this policy because the land use designation change will bring the developed area into
compliance with the City's Unified Development Code and the City's General Plan.
Unified Development Code Consistency
Whereas the City's General Plan map designates land uses for the Santa Clarita Valley, the City's
zoning map does not include the proposed annexation area at this time because the area is outside
of Santa Clarita's city limits.
The City of Santa Clarita zoning map must be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map
designations. Because of the proposed annexation of this area to the City of Santa Clarita, a
zoning designation must be established that is consistent with the existing uses and development
of the area. A map that depicts the prezone changes is attached, and the Los Angeles County
existing zoning designations for the project area are attached and shown in Table D:
Table D:
xisti'ng County of Los' Angeles Z61 gC
Proposed � ty of Santa�Clant°a Pre oZ ne e' r ; �
— 1 — 5000 (Single -Family residential)
RS (Residential Suburban) and
OS (Open Space)
PD — 5000 (Residential Planned
RS (Residential Suburban)
Development)
PD — 6000 (Residential Planned
RS (Residential Suburban)
Development)
— 1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing)
BP (Business Park)
— 1:5 — DP (Restricted Heavy
BP (Business Park)
Manufacturing — Development Program)
MPD (Manufacturing Industrial Planned
BP (Business Park)
Development)
C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial)
CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
C-3 (Unlimited Commercial)
CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
C -3 -DP (Unlimited Commercial —
CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
evelopment Program)
The proposed prezone change requested is consistent with the density of development that
currently exists in the project area. The single family residences in the Hasley Hills, .Live Oak,
and North Bluffs subdivisions were developed under the County's R-1-5000, RPD -5000, and
RPD -6000 development standards for density which are equivalent to the City's RS zone. The
proposed RS zone requires a mid-range density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre and a minimum
lot size of 5,000 square feet, both of which are consistent with the existing County zoning. The
existing commercial centers within the project area were developed under the County's C-2, C-3,
and C -3-13P development standards for density and uses which are consistent with the City's CN
zone. The proposed CN zone limits the floor area ratio to 0.375: 1, which is comparable to the
existing County zoning. Lastly, the industrial, manufacturing, and office uses that exist in VCC
were developed under the County's MPD, M-1, and M -1.5 -DP development standards for
density and uses which are consistent with the City's BP zone. The proposed BP zone for the
VCC limits the floor area ratio to 1.0: 1.0, which is comparable to the existing County zoning.
With this prezone change, the project area (Hasley HillsNCC) would be consistent with the
City's Unified Development Code and General Plan.
Community Response
As part of the review of the proposed annexation, Prezone, and General Plan Amendment, public
studies. It is unknown at this time if LAFCO will approve any annexation requests for the area
west of 1-5 prior to the west side communities having had an opportunity to determine whether
they wish to initiate incorporation; however, because the two processes would occur
simultaneously, LAFCO will have the benefit of knowing the information derived from the
studies.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Council may choose not to adopt the Resolutions and Ordinance and not pass to a second
reading on May 13, 2008.
2. Other direction as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
A fiscal impact analysis prepared for this project indicates that annexation of the Hasley
Hills/VCC area would result in a positive net fiscal impact on the City.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution (Adopting GPA and Negative Declaration)
Exhibit A - General Plan Amendment Map
Resolution (LAFCO Application)
Exhibit A - Legal Description
Exhibit B - Map of Boundaries
Ordinance
Exhibit A - Prezone Map
Vicinity Map
Annexation Area Map
Existing General Plan Map
Existing Zoning Map
Planning Commission Staff Report available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Planning Commission Resolution available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Negative Declaration available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Initial Study available in the City Clerk's Reading File
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT TITLE: Hasley Hills/Valencia Commerce Center (VCC) Annexation
Prezone, General Plan Amendment, Sphere of Influence
Amendment, LAFCO application
APPLICATION: MASTER CASE NUMBER 07-206 ,
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002, General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to submit an annexation application to the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the Hasley Hills/Valencia Commerce Center Annexation. In addition,
this is a request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA), prezone, Sphere of Influence Amendment, and
annexation of approximately 1,433 acres of inhabited land containing 1,531 developed single-family
residences, 808 acres of a developed office/business park with approximately 6 million square feet of
buildings, an elementary school, and a public park. The prezone will establish City of Santa Clarita zoning
designations for the annexation area consistent with the existing uses and development in the project area
that will activate upon completion of the annexation. No new development is proposed as part of the
General Plan Amendment, Prezone, Sphere of Influence Amendment, and annexation application request.
Current County of Los Angeles Zoning
R-1-5000, RPD -5000, RPD -6000 (Residential)
C-2, C-3, C -3 -DP (Commercial)
M-1.5, M -1.5-13P, MPD (Manufacturing/Industrial)
Proposed Citv of Santa Clarita Zonine/General Plan
RS (Residential Suburban)
CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
BP (Business Park)
OS (Open Space)
PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed annexation area is generally located at the northwest corner of
Interstate 5 and State Route 126 in the Castaic community, along the westerly
boundary of the City of Santa Clarita in the unincorporated area of the County
of Los Angeles (Refer to the attached Vicinity Map).
A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and the public review
period was from February 1, 2008 to March 4, 2008. A copy of the negative declaration and all supporting
documents are available at the Planning Division public counter, located in the City Hall Building at 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. A copy of the negative declaration is also
available on the City's Planning webpage at www.santa-clarita.com/planning.
The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date:
DATE: April 22, 2008
TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m..
LOCATION: Council Chamber, City Hall
23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence
delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For further information regarding this proposal, you may visit the City's Planning webpage at www.santa-
clarita.com/planning or contact the City of Santa Clarita, Department of Community Development, 23920
Valencia Blvd., Third Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; Telephone: (661) 255-4330, James Chow, Associate
Planner.
Dated: March 19, 2008
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: March 21, 2008
RESOLUTION NO. 08-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA; APPROVING MASTER CASE 07-206, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-
003, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AFFECTING 1,430 ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 5 AND
STATE ROUTE 126, ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA AND APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE
PROJECT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. Beginning in 2005, a petition drive of property owners in the area known as Hasley Hills
and Valencia Commerce Center occurred in favor of annexation into the City of Santa
Clarita. Because a majority of property owners in the area are in favor of annexation, the
City of Santa Clarita began annexation proceedings, which includes a request to amend
the City's General Plan Land Use Map (GPA 07-003) to re -designate the project area
with appropriate designations consistent with existing development. These designations
include BP (Business Park), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), RS (Residential
Suburban), and OS (Open Space), as shown in Exhibit A, General Plan Amendment/Area
Change Map.
b. On April 11, 2007, members of the Castaic Area Support Team (CAST) submitted
signatures from 72% of residents and/or business owners to the City's Community
Development Department for the communities of Hasley Hills, Live Oak, North Bluffs,
and Valencia Commerce Center.
c. On July 10, 2007, the City Council authorized the City Manager to initiate the pre-
annexation proceedings which includes amending the General Plan Land Use Map and
authorized funding for the preparation of a map, legal description, environmental review,
and Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) application fees that are required to
process this annexation.
d. On January 22, 2008, the City Council directed City staff to proceed with the processing
of the Hasley Hills/Valencia Commerce Center annexation, prior to completion of a
study for incorporation of a larger area that includes the subject site.
e. The subject site is located adjacent to the western boundary line of the City of Santa
Clarita, at the northwest corner of Interstate 5 and State Route 126.
f. The subject site consists of approximately 1,430 acres of land contiguous to the corporate
limits of the City of Santa Clarita.
Resolution
Page No. 2
g. The subject site is built out with residential uses in the Hasley Hills, Live Oak, and
North Bluffs neighborhoods, commercial uses in the four neighborhood commercial
centers, industrial/office uses in the Valencia Commerce Center, and open space uses in
the Hasley Canyon Park. No new development is proposed with this land use designation
change.
h. The subject site is included in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan planning area and
consists of land use designations that include RS (Residential Suburban), RVL
(Residential Very Low), RE (Residential Estate), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), and
BP (Business Park).
Surrounding land uses to the west of the project consists of vacant land and the Chiquita
Canyon landfill, within unincorporated territory in the County of Los Angeles. The land
use to the north consists of a residential community along Hillcrest Parkway, within
unincorporated territory in the County of Los Angeles. The land to the south of the
proposed annexation area is undeveloped land that is part of the final phase of the
Valencia Commerce Center located in unincorporated territory in the County of Los
Angeles. The area to the east of the subject site is vacant property located within the City
of Santa Clarita and Interstate 5 and vacant land owned by the County of Los Angeles
within unincorporated County territory.
j. Proposed General Plan Amendment 07-003 involves the amendment of several GPA
r
Areas that include 289 acres of RVL and RE to BP, 14 acres of BP to RS, 27 acres of BP
to CN, and 5.36 acres of RS to OS, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
k. On February 1, 2008, an environmental Initial Study was prepared for GPA 07-003, PRZ
07-002, Annexation 08-005, and Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001 for the Hasley
Hills/VCC Annexation. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the Initial Study concluded that no significant adverse environmental impacts were
associated with the project and a Negative Declaration was prepared.
1. The envirarimental document has been circulated for review and comment by affected
governmental agencies and the public for a 30 -day public review period from February 1,
2008 to March 4, 2008, and posted with the County Clerk.
in. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on GPA 07-003 on March
4, 2008. This public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At the hearing, the Planning Commission considered staff s
presentation, staff reports, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and public
testimony on the proposal. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
General Plan Amendment 07-003 and the Negative Declaration prepared for the project
to the City Council.
Resolution
Page No. 3
n. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391,
and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed,,
o. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on GPA.07-003 on April 22, 2008 at
6:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The
City Council public hearing was advertised in the Signal on March 21, 2008 and by direct
first-class mail to property owners of the subject site and to property owners within 1,000
feet.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS.
Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, the City Council further finds as follows:
a. The City Council, hereby finds that the proposed Negative Declaration prepared in
connection with GPA 07-003, PRZ 07-002, Annexation 08-005, SOI Amendment 07-001
has. been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, has
been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and reflects the independent judgment
of the City Council and that based on the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings,.there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect
on the environment. Therefore, the City Council approves the Negative Declaration for
the project as included in the agenda packet for the April 22, 2008 City Council Meeting.
The Director of Community Development is hereby designated as the custodian of the
documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings in this matter.
The documents and materials are on file in the Department of Community Development,
City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, CA, 91355.
SECTION 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing
facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. The proposed General Plan Amendment 07-003 is consistent with the goals, policies and
objectives of the General Plan in that the proposed land use change is consistent with
existing development for the subject site; and
b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358 (a), General Plan Amendment 077003 is
deemed to be in the public interest and is in compliance with Section 65358(b) in that the
Land Use Element has been amended no more than four times in the current calendar
year; and
c. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public hearing, and
upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the
Commission further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the City's
General Plan.
Resolution
Page No. 4
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves Master Case 07-206 which includes General
Plan Amendment 07-003 (herein included as Exhibit A) to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
for the area known as the Hasley Hills/Valencia Commerce Center Annexation and approves the
Negative Declaration prepared for the project.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this
record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED AND APPROVED this
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
day of
11:
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. was regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the
City Council on the day of , 2008 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
S:\CD\ANNEX\Castaic\MC 07-206 (GPA, PRZ, ANX)\GPA.PRZ\C1TY COUNCIL\07-206 CC. Resolution.GPA. Environmental. doe
RESOLUTION NO. 08-
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND THE
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN INHABITED
TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA (MASTER CASE NO. 07-206 — SPHERE
OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT 07-001 AND ANNEXATION 08-005)
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese -
Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of
the California Government Code, for a Sphere of Influence Amendment and annexation on
approximately 1,430 acres of unincorporated county territory; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited, and a description of the
boundaries is set forth in Exhibit A, and a map of the boundaries is set forth in Exhibit B, attached
and by this reference incorporated; and
WHEREAS, the short form designation of the proposal is Sphere of Influence Amendment
07-001 and Annexation No. 2008-05 (Master. Case No. 07-206), which includes the area known as
Hasley Hills/Valencia Commerce Center; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is currently inconsistent with the City of Santa Clarita's Sphere of
Influence as designated by the Local Agency Formation Commission, and would require amending
thereof pursuant to this proposal; and
WHEREAS, no terms or conditions are requested by the property owners, for this proposed
annexation at this time; and
WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation are to propose a logical extension of
City boundaries, to respond to the property owners' request for City services and to promote sound
land use and planning practices in the affected territory; and
WHEREAS, the majority of property owners of the subject site have indicated consent to the
annexation and as evidenced by written petition to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has considered all evidence, oral
and documentary, and is advised of the foregoing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita,
California, does hereby determine and find as follows:
SECTION 1. This Resolution of Application is hereby adopted by the City Council, and the
Resolution
Page 2
Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County is hereby requested to initiate
proceedings for the annexation of that territory described in Exhibit A and mapped in Exhibit B,
incorporated by this reference, according to the terms and conditions stated above, if any, without
notice and hearing by the Local Agency Formation Commission, and in the manner provided by the
Cortese -Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000; and
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Manager, or designee,
to file the application with LAFCO to amend the City's adopted Sphere of Influence and annex the
subject site to the City of Santa Clarita on behalf of the City Council.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Clerk of the City of
Santa Clarita to forward a certified copy of this Resolution with applicable fees and other
information as required by Section 56383 of the Government Code to the Executive Officer of the
Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County; and
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and certify this
record to be a full, true, correct copy of the action taken.
Resolution
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of - )2008.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
0
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 2008 by the
following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
S:\CD\ANNEX\Castaic\MC 07-206 (GPA, PRZ, ANX)\GPA.PRZ\CITY COUNCIL\07-206 CC. Resolution, LAFCO. Application. doe
Exhibit "A"
Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ANNEXATION NO. 2008-05
HASLEY HILLS - VALENCIA COMMERCE CENTER
Partly in the Rancho San Francisco and partly in Fractional
Sections 1, 2 and 11, Township 4 North, Range 17 West, San
Bernardino Meridian.
Beginning the
q g at point of intersection of the centerline of the
Golden State Freeway (Interstate 5) with that certain course
having a bearing and distance of South 85°33'30" East 36.20 feet
in the northerly boundary of Parcel 8 as shown on Licensed
Surveyor's Map filed in book 27 pages 27 to 31, of Record of
Surveys, in the office of the Recorder of the County of Los
Angeles, said point of beginning being an angle point in the
boundary of the City of Santa Clarita as the same existed on March
25, 2008; thence
(Ll) along said centerline South 32018102" East 1046.36 feet to
the, beginning of a tangent curve concave northeasterly having a
.radius of 3000.00 feet; thence
(C2) continuing southeasterly along said centerline and said curve
through a central angle of 25°19'25" an arc distance of 132.5.94
feet; thence
(L3) tangent to said curve and continuing along said centerline
South 57037'27" East 963.79 feet to the northeasterly prolongati-.on
of that certain course having a bearing and distance of North
50°22'54" East 2637.29 feet in the centerline of State Route 126
X:\ADMINWORD D0CS\LECALS\EX1iI8ITS\6000 EXHIBITS\8399 EXH.DOC
Exhibit "A"
Page 2 of 10
as shown on map filed in book 171, pages 34 to 48, of Record of
Surveys, in the office of the Recorder of said County; thence
(L4) along said northeasterly prolongation and last said
centerline South 50°23'12" West 827.29 feet to a point on the
westerly line of the land described in deed to the State of
California recorded April 19, 1949 as instrument no. 3137 in book.
29881 page 252, of official records, in the office of the Recorder
of said County, on a non -tangent curve concave northeasterly
having a radius of 2080.00 feet, a radial line through said point
bears North 48°55135' East; thence
(C5) northwesterly along said westerly line and last said curve
through a central angle of 08°32'35" an arc distance of 310.14
feet; thence
(L6) continuing along said westerly line and tangent to last said
curve North 32°31'50" West 411.70 feet to the southeasterly corner
of Parcel Map No. 17949-01 per map filed in book 282 pages 94 to
99, inclusive of Parcel Maps, in the office of the Recorder of
said County; thence
(L7) along the southerly boundary of said Parcel Map No. 1.7949-01
South 57°27'47" West 879.18 feet to an angle point therein; thence
(L8) continuing along said southerly boundary North 82059'36" West
282.07 feet to an angle point therein; thence
(L9) continuing along said southerly boundary North 83°37'15" West
84.00 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Parcel Map at the
beginning of a non -tangent curve concave westerly having a radius
of 1358.00 feet, to which last said course is radial; thence
(C10) northerly along the westerly boundary of said Parcel Map and'
last said curve through a central angle of 39°22'98" an arc
distance of. 933.37 feet; thence
(Lll) continuing along last said westerly boundary and tangent to
last said curve North 33°00'03" West 1105.87 feet to the
X:\ADfl1tAW0RD DOCSV.F.GALS\EXHIBITS\8000 EXHIBITS\8399 EXH.DOC
Exhibit "A"
Page 3 of 10
northwesterly corner of said Parcel Map No. 17949-01 on the
southerly line of Parcel 2 of that certain 300 foot wide strip of
land as described in document recorded in book D-143 page. 449, of
official records, in the office of the Recorder of said County;
thence
(L12) along said southerly line South. 70056152" West 1018.39 feet
to the easterly line of Parcel 15 as shown on said Licensed
Surveyor's Map; thence
(L13) along the easterly boundary of said Parcel 15 North
18°58'45" East 50.95 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve
concave westerly having a radius of 220.00 feet; thence
(C14) continuing northerly along last said easterly boundary and
last said curve through a central angle of 33°,10'00" an arc
distance of 127.35 feet; thence
(L15) continuing along said easterly boundary and tangent to last
said curve North 14°11'15" West 64.27 feet to the beginning of a
tangent curve concave easterly having a radius of 180.00 feet;
thence
(C16) continuing northerly along last said easterly boundary and
last said curve through a central angle of 13°50'00" an arc
distance of 43.46 feet; thence
(L17) continuing along said easterly boundary and tangent to last
said curve North 00°21'15" West 70.1.5 feet to the .beginning of a
tangent curve concave easterly having a radius of 180.00 feet;
thence
(C18) continuing northerly along last said easterly boundary and
last said curve through a central angle of 29°40'00" an arc
distance of 93.20 feet; thence
(L19) continuing along said easterly boundary and tangent to last
said curve North 29018'45" East 26.04 feet to the beginning of a
X:\AD)IIN\UORD DOCS\LEGALS\EXHI13ITS\8000 EXHIBITS\8399 EXH.DOC
Exhibit "A"
Page 4 of 10
tangent curve concave northwesterly having a radius of 120.00
feet; thence
(C20) continuing northeasterly along last said easterly boundary
and last said curve through a central angle of 21°45'01" an arc
distance of 45.55 feet to the northerly line of Parcel 3 of that
certain 160 foot wide strip of land as described in said document
recorded in book D-143 page 449; thence
(1,21) along last said northerly line and along the southerly
boundary of Tract No. 36655 per map filed in book 1067 pages 70 to
83, inclusive of Maps, in the office of the Recorder of said
County, and along the southerly boundary of Parcel Map No. 22992
per map filed in book 297 pages 42 to 51, inclusive of Parcel
Maps, in the office of the Recorder of said County', South
70056'52" West 1469.71 feet to an angle point in the southerly
boundary of said Parcel Map No. 22992; thence
(L22) along the Southeasterly boundary of said Parcel Map No.
22992 South 47°07'29" West 1186.44 feet to a point on the
centerline of Commerce Center Drive as shown on said Parcel Map
No. 22992 on a non -tangent curve concave easterly having a radius
of 2000.00 feet, a radial line through last said point bears North
78°00'44" East; thence
(C23) southerly along last said centerline and last said curve
through a central angle of 17°55'37" an arc distance of 625.77
feet; thence
(L24) tangent to last said curve and along the centerline of
Commerce Center Drive as shown on Parcel Map No. 20839 per map
filed in book 273 pages 38 to 43,'inclusive of Parcel Maps, in the
office of the Recorder of said County, South 29054153" East 428.01
feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northeasterly
having a radius of 5000.00 feet; thence
X:\ADMIN\NORD DOCS\ LECALS\EXH I BITS\ 80 0 0 EXHIBITS\8399 EXH.DOC
r.
Exhibit "A"
Page 5 of 10
(C25) continuing southeasterly along last said centerline and last
said curve through a central angle of 11°14'22" an arc distance of
980.83 feet to the intersection with the centerline of Franklin
Parkway as shown on Parcel Map No. 26363 per map filed in book 353
pages 44 to 56, inclusive of Parcel Maps, in the office of the
Recorder of said County, at the beginning of a non -tangent curve
concave southerly having a radius of 2500.00 feet, a radial line
through said intersection bears South 35°45'20" East; thence
(C26)westerly along last said centerline and last said curve
through a central angle of 14°06'16" an arc distance of 615.42
feet; thence
(L27) tangent to last said curve and continuing along last said
centerline South 40008'24" West 1655.61 feet to the beginning of a
tangent curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 1500.00
feet; thence
(C28) continuing southwesterly along last said centerline and last
said curve through a central angle of 29025'35" an arc distance of
770.38 feet; thence
(L29) radial to last said curve North 79°17'11" West 42.00 feet to
the westerly line of said Franklin Parkway; thence
(L30) along the southerly boundary of Parcel Map No. 22261 per map
filed in book 273 pages 27 to 37, inclusive of Parcel Maps, in the
office of the Recorder of said County, South 79014'23" West 537.10
feet; thence
(L31) continuing along last said southerly boundary North
55°53'09".West 407.18 feet; thence
(L32) continuing along last said southerly boundary South
71°18'09" West 393.32 feet; thence
(L33) continuing along last said southerly boundary North
57°02'21" West 358.85 feet; thence
X:\AT)MI!A!)ORD C+OCS\LEGALS\EXIIIBI'I'S\POOU EXHIBITS\8399 EXH.DOC
Exhibit "A"
Page 6 of 10
(L34) continuing along last said southerly boundary North
25°04'04" West 655.46 feet to the northwesterly boundary of said
Parcel Map No. 22261; thence
(L35) along 'last said northwesterly boundary North 47°07'35" East
316.66 feet. to the boundary of the land described in deed recorded
June 21, 2001 as instrument no. 01-1069400, of official records,
in the office of the Recorder of said County; thence
(L36) along last said boundary North 42052125" West 600.01 feet;
thence
(L37) continuing along last said boundary North 23021'45" East
648.65 feet; thence
(L38) continuing along last said boundary North 10°14129" West
640.65 feet; thence
(L39) continuing along last said boundary North 54°32'53" West
701.69 feet to the northwesterly line of the Rancho San Francisco
per map recorded in book 1 pages 521 and' 522, of Patents, in the
office of the Recorder of said County; thence
(1,40) along said northwesterly line North 33'11'11" East 205.00
feet to the southerly boundary of Parcel Map No. 19784-02 per map
filed in book 285 pages 90 to 99, inclusive of Parcel Maps, in the
office of the Recorder of said County; thence
(L41) along said southerly boundary North 89°37'15" West 1316.62
feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1 of Fractional
Section 11, Township 4 North, Range 17 West, San Bernardino
Meridian. thence
(L42) along the westerly line of said Fractional Section 11 North
00°31'38" East 1321.31 feet to the west quarter corner of said
Fractional Section 11; thence
(L43) continuing along the westerly line of said Fractional
Section 11 North 00032'20" East 2642.45 feet to the northwest
corner of said Fractional Section 11; thence
X:\APAINVIORD DOCS\LEGALS\EXHIBITS\8000 BX14IBITS\8399 EXH.DOC
Exhibit "A"
Page 7 of 10
(L44) along the northerly line of said Fractional Section 11,
South 89°50'16" East 1744.82 feet to the boundary of Parcel Map
No. 20685-01 per map filed in book 327 pages 21 to 31, inclusive
of Parcel Maps, in the office of the Recorder of said County;
thence
(L45) along last said boundary North 49°59'08" West 269.29 feet;
thence
(L46) continuing along last said boundary North 47°48'57" West
105.66 feet; thence
(L47) continuing along last said boundary North 49°59'08" West
271.67 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
northeasterly having a radius of 842.00 feet; thence
(C48) continuing northwesterly along last said boundary and last
said curve through a central angle of 07°15'47" an arc distance of
106.74 feet; thence '
(L49) tangent to last said curve and continuing along last said
boundary and along the boundary of Parcel Map No. 20685 per map
filed in book 335 pages 45 to 53, inclusive of Parcel Maps, in the
office of the Recorder of said County, North 42043'21" West 592.91
feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northeasterly
having a radius of 978.00 feet; thence
(C50)continuing northwesterly along said boundary of Parcel Map
No. 20685 and last said curve through a central angle of 25022'04"
an arc distance of 433.01 feet; thence
(L51) tangent to last said curve and continuing along last said
boundary North 17°21'17" West 1.51 feet to the beginning of a
tangent curve concave easterly having a radius of 218.00 feet;
thence
(C52) continuing northerly along last said boundary and last said
curve through a central angle of 80°10'59" an arc distance of
X:\ADTiINUdCRD DOCS\LEGALS\EXHI$1T.5\8008 TXHI$IT3\8399 EXH.DOC
Exhibit "A"
Page 8 of 10
305.08 feet to the beginning of a tangent reverse curve concave
northwesterly having a radius of 51.00 feet; thence
(C53) continuing northeasterly along last said boundary and last
said curve through a central angle of 60°39134" an arc distance of
53.99 feet; thence
(L54) tangent to last said curve and continuing along last said
boundary North 02°1.0'08" East 9.10 feet to the northwesterly
corner of said Parcel Map No. 20685; thence
(1,55) leaving last said boundary North 02°10104" East 40.00 feet
to a point on the centerline of Hasley Canyon Road as shown on
said Parcel Map No. 20685 on a non -tangent curve concave
southwesterly having a radius of 1800.00 feet, to which last said
course is radial; thence
(C56) southeasterly along last said centerline and said curve
through a central angle of 33°16129" an arc distance of 1045.36
feet to the westerly prolongation of that certain course .shown as
North 89°49'17" West 624.62 feet in the northerly boundary of
Tract No. 45084 per map filed in book 1254 pages 12 to 39,
inclusive of Maps, in the office of the Recorder of said County;
thence
(L57) along said westerly prolongation and last said northerly
boundary South 89°49'17" East 692.48 feet to an angle point
therein; thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract no.
45084 the following ten courses,
(L58) North 00010'46" East 49.36 feet; thence
(L59) North 19°55'14" East 110.00 feet; thence
(L60) North 55°48148" East 260.00 feet; thence
(L61) South 89028'58" East 50.00 feet; thence
(1,62) South 00°31'02" West 68.00 feet; thence
(L63) South 89°28'58" East 27.63 feet; thence
(L64) North 41°29'16" East 427.31 feet; thence
X:\ADPMA',IORD D0CS\LEGALS\EXHIBITS\8000 EXHIBITS\8399 EXIi.DOC
Exhibit "A"
Page 9 of 10
(L65) North 29°47'36" East 293.06 feet; thence
(L66) North 03053"33" East 514.04 feet; thence
(L67) South 89°48'18" East 838.47 feet to the westerly boundary of
Tract No. 44800-01 per map, filed in book 1250 pages 57 to 75,
inclusive of Maps, in the office of the Recorder of said County;
thence
(L68) along last said westerly boundary and the westerly boundary
of Tract No. 44800 per map filed in book 1251 pages 81 to 91,
inclusive of Maps, in the office of the Recorder of said County,
North 00°17'51 East 2638.99 feet; thence
(1,69) along the northerly boundary of said Tract No. 44800 and the
northerly boundary. of Tract No. 44800-03 per map filed in book
1251 pages 71 to 80, inclusive of Maps, in the office of the
Recorder of said County, South 89°5243" East 1260.25 feet to an
angle point therein; thence
(L70) continuing along said northerly boundary of Tract No. 44800-
03 South 89°50'33" East 1518.53 feet to an angle point therein;
thence
(1,71) along the northeasterly boundary of said Tract No. 44800-03
South 50°19'41" East 109.99 -feet to an angle point therein; thence
(L72) along the easterly boundary of said Tract No. 44800-03 South
18°12"54" East 427.09 feet to the most northerly corner of Tract
No. 44460 per map filed in book 1104 pages 15 to 48, inclusive of
Maps, in the office of the Recorder of said County; thence
(L73) along the boundary of said Tract No. 44460 South 18022'37"
East 710.11 feet to an angle point therein; thence
(L74) along last said boundary South 64°22.'39" East 227.07 feet;
thence
(L75) along last said boundary North 73°3151" East 35.02 feet to
an angle point therein; thence
X:\AIP4IN\P1ORU DOCS\LEGAL,$\EXHIBIT&\OOOO EXHIBTTSM99 EXH.UOC
Exhibit,"A"
Page 10 of 10
(L76) leaving last said boundary North 72047130" East 170.82 feet
to a point on the centerline of said Golden State Freeway
(Interstate 5) on a non -tangent curve concave westerly having a
radius of 3000.00 feet, to which last said course is radial;
thence
(C77) southerly along last said centerline and last said curve
through a central angle of 26°35100" an arc distance of 1391.90
feet; thence
(L78) tangent to last said curve and continuing along last said
centerline South 09°22'30" West 999.16 feet to the beginning of a
tangent curve concave easterly having a radius of 3518.00 feet;
thence
(C79) continuing southerly along last said centerline and last
said curve through a central angle of 41°40'32" an arc distance of
2558..91 feet; thence
(L80) tangent to last said curve and continuing along last said
centerline South 32018'02" East 447.02 feet to the point of
beginning.
Containing 1,429.63 Acres, more or less.
M
4 �
X:\ADMIMHORD DOGS\LEGAL$\EXHIBITS\KOOO EXHIBITS\8399 EXII.DOC
"sEe DUAL 'B'
"' CCT N S. " SHOWN HEREON
2SSS
2—
TB66 015 000 el
7-
2- 016 29'72
2.66 117
2— .1 G
2�
Terse111 C2 -
IS 1-1.
SCALE: ]"�00`
.1A
G
A
"W
'�� LEGEND
90
COT —S,
G0 nn—
It
11 L� C,� P—L
(D v'W, "P
(D P3—uAv 11 7-1-01
P�wWA,R�
10 —55
Ofl & 11=—T
0 AD3= OR. B
S.p 0'E v
C -1A — C.
W =E�,2,),%q0W— —DED I
DETAIL
TO
Il..l I -CT SEC. I$$
T
2— 12
2.11
2.11
d
C PARCEE 2.11
IMS e I-13
11
--Z
2"1 11 2111
DETAIL '8*
EMIF R=
IOT TO SCALE
amm.y;I
M'
2116 017 '8
-6 03, 20
2
MS I -S
2.61
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
1
2— 1—
M.
MS OST
2— —1
286e01
21:: Cl ll5. ,-1�2
2.. 05, .2-12
Ill:
'LO,
Sb BW«DI
ANNEXATION No. 2008-05
I
OF
M SHE" AS 911011H
AO IIIA1 BITN 1M CD.
1.:l
2.1 0. 11
127 02 I"—
31 21 21-2
200 C17 1 -11
-
038
27 027
J 7 �O
12 117 ll_
ISE,
7�
21�
12 .1 5]-B3
—S —2.
060
aee 2 5]
2;; 1
— 01
127 Ill
2
2'2�1
T
83-69
0'2 1
12
321 .21 —.1
127 "
M;� 84'
", .15 —,
C'l 77
7
127; 'Al'
1211 C. .-Sl
--
SCALE: ]"�00`
.1A
G
A
"W
'�� LEGEND
90
COT —S,
G0 nn—
It
11 L� C,� P—L
(D v'W, "P
(D P3—uAv 11 7-1-01
P�wWA,R�
10 —55
Ofl & 11=—T
0 AD3= OR. B
S.p 0'E v
C -1A — C.
W =E�,2,),%q0W— —DED I
DETAIL
TO
NOT SCALE
C PARCEE 2.11
11
--Z
DETAIL '8*
EMIF R=
IOT TO SCALE
amm.y;I
M'
EXHIBIT A"
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
H.N.Y.
ANNEXATION No. 2008-05
M SHE" AS 911011H
AO IIIA1 BITN 1M CD.
DEFILE CENIER'
rA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA TO APPROVE PREZONE NO. 07-002 (MASTER CASE 07-206) FOR THE
HASLEY HILLS/VALENCIA COMMERCE CENTER ANNEXATION AREA, GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 5 AND STATE ROUTE
126, ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings
of fact:
a. Beginning in 2005, a petition drive of property owners in the area known as Hasley Hills
and Valencia Commerce Center occurred .and ballots indicating a majority of property
owners in the area are in favor of annexation into the City of Santa Clarita.
b. Because a majority of property owners in the area are in favor of annexation, on July 10,
2007, the City Council authorized initiation of annexation proceedings, which includes a
request to prezone the subject site with appropriate zoning designations that would
become effective upon annexation. These designations include BP (Business Park), CN
(Commercial Neighborhood), RS (Residential Suburban), and OS (Open Space).
C. Such prezoning would become effective upon annexation and designated upon the
Zoning Map incorporated within and part of Title 17 of the City's Unified Development
Code.
d. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on Prezone 07-002 on
March 4, 2008. On March 4, 2008 the Planning Commission voted 5 - 0 to recommend
that the City Council approve Prezone 07-002 for the Hasley Hills/Valencia Commerce
Center annexation area. Notice of said public hearing was given in the manner required
by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code and State law.
e. On April 22, 2008, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue,
commencing at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, City of
Santa Clarita.
f. The documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the decision of the City Council is based, are on file within the Community
Development Department and are in the custody of the Director of Community
Development.
r Ordinance
Page 2
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the hearing, and upon the .
study and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the City Council
further finds as follows:
a. The purpose of the proposal is to prezone the subject site from Los Angeles County
zoning designations to City of Santa Clarita zoning consisting of RS (Residential
Suburban), OS (Open Space), Business Park (BP), and Commercial Neighborhood (CN)
upon adoption of proposed General Plan Amendment No. 07-003, approved under
separate resolution, prior to annexation.
b. That the prezone has been reviewed for consistency with the City's proposed General
Plan Amendment No.07-003.
C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65391
of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon
the testimony and other evidenced received, the City Council finds as follows:
a. The City Council, hereby finds that the proposed Negative Declaration prepared in
connection with GPA 07-003, PRZ 07-002, Annexation 08-005, SOI Amendment 07-001
has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, has
been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and reflects the independent judgment
of the City Council and that based on the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect
on the environment. Therefore, the City Council approves the Negative Declaration for
the project as included in the agenda packet for the April 22, 2008 City Council Meeting.
The Director of Community Development is hereby designated as the custodian of the
documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings in this matter.
The documents and materials are on file in the Department of Community Development,
City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, CA, 91355.
SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR PREZONE. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. Prezone 07-003 is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code, the
General Plan and development policies of the City in that the proposed prezoning
designations are consistent with existing land uses in the area and would not result in a
substantive change to the existing zoning of the project site, as the area and the adjacent
developed area is developed in compliance with the proposed zones' development
standards.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby introduces and passes to second reading, this ordinance
approving Prezone 07-003 as described herein and shown on attached Exhibit A.
Ordinance
Page 3
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED,.AND ADOPTED this day of , 2008.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at
the regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2008. That thereafter,
said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council on the
day of , 2008 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
S:\CD\ANNEX\Castaic\MC 07-206 (GPA, PRZ, ANX)\GPA.PRZ\CITY COUNCIL\07-206 Ordinance.Prezone.doc
F s • �WHfI!a S a ..
—
!t A
V
1 �fii�ill
Y
p
\I
Ipll
I
�
./A1111111
m
I
�
i
�
s{ina Gwura Aa al Aw pt a.
/
PRE
i
-ZONE
./'
y\\ l
i
IHasby HllH Nalpncla Commpmp Cm"
l'___
,meq--1Garu rwu —
i
re antic.. xr.
.uFi.n..R. &akl Qi Sa.rra Q,,aura - L/
VCC/Hasley Hills
Vicinity Map
Angeles National Angeles
Forest Amusement Park®
National
Water College/ University Forest
City Outline VCG Hasley Hills _
Proposed Annexation m p%
- Hospienrytal - Town Center Mall iL F' "„ v
castaic
Lake
oe°
r
j.,roleuoa uwounzetvnxmannex_vcc_nasleymus_vionity.mxd
BEtlYL '
I
p use
1,6
Fr
ji a.t
O`� � V'MENCF ffM1FPM
y
Y
1
40
P_ERNNNLILL..
O
MM Yw
MAELEY NILLL
GL,%C'ZR PI
O
VALENCIA COMMERCE CENT=
Com,-
ANNEXATION
yw, J�yr
`ALL.
Legend
'R -- I
-IWryMYYMYmYCsrf�re tfiun
I
i
®ERYCYAR�
(=gWiwiiw r
ip
4
J
_
�
S
' I
5N
T
� m
P
u CENTER RD
I ¢PP
f¢
� o
l
O
l"
p use
1,6
Fr
ji a.t
O`� � V'MENCF ffM1FPM
y
Y
1
40
P_ERNNNLILL..
READING
FILE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 07-206
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-003, PREZONE NO. 07-.002
DATE: March 4, 2008
TO: Chairperson Berger and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Paul D. Brotzman, Director of Community Development
Lisa M. Hardy, AICP, Planning Manager
CASE PLANNER` James Chow, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
REQUEST: This is a request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Prezone (PRZ)
associated with the annexation of approximately 1,433 acres of land containing
1,531 developed single-family residences, 808 acres of a developed
office/business park, an elementary school, and a public park. The project
proposes a General Plan Amendment and Prezone to designate the area as BP
(Business Park), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), RS (Residential Suburban),
and OS (Open Space), consistent with L.A. County land use planning.
LOCATION: The project area is known as Hasley Hills and Valencia Commerce Center
(VCC). The proposed Hasley Hills/VCC annexation is generally located at the
northwest corner of Interstate 5 and State Route 126 in the Castaic community,
along the westerly boundary of the City of Santa Clarita in the unincorporated
area of the County of Los Angeles. The proposed project area can also be
located on page 4459 and 4549 of the 2008 Thomas Guide — Los Angeles
County Street Guide and the attached vicinity reap.
BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Clarita fielded an initial inquiry regarding annexation of the Hasley Hills and VCC
areas over three years ago. Over the past three years, a citizen's support group known as the Castaic
Annexation Support Team (CAST), in cooperation with business owners. in the VCC, have been
diligently collecting signatures from residents of the Hasley Hills, Live Oak, and North Bluffs
neighborhoods and business owners of the VCC in support of annexation.
On April 11, 2007, members of CAST submitted signatures from 72% of residents and/or business
owners to the City's Community Development Department. The 72% of signatures submitted by
CAST exceeded the City's requirement of 60% of property owners, which was the annexation
initiation policy in place at the time. During the May 22, 2007 City Council meeting, members of
CAST and other community members requested that the Council take formal action to initiate
Master Case 07-206
Hasley Hills/IICC Annexation
March 4, 2008
Page 2 oJ'8
proceedings for annexation of approximately 1,433 acres that include the communities of Hasley Hills,
Live Oak, North Bluffs, and VCC.
On July 10, 2007, the City Council authorized the City Manager to initiate the GPA and PRZ
applications and authorized funding for the preparation of a map, legal description, environmental
review, and Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) application fees that would be required to
process an annexation.
At this time, there are incorporation and annexation studies underway. for the unincorporated areas
west of I-5. These studies were initially anticipated to begin in the Spring of 2007 and take five to six
months to process. Over the Summer of 2007, it becarme clear that this timeline was no longer realistic
as the time needed for the County to collect data and for the consultants to prepare the incorporation
and annexation studies would take longer than expected.
On December 20, 2007, staff from the County CEO's office, members of the Castaic Area and West
Ranch Town Councils, and the City's Annexation Subcommittee met to receive an update on the west
side incorporation and annexation studies. The Subcommittee and Town Councils' best estimation as
to the processing and completion of these studies is that all County data would be provided to the
consultants by July 2008; the first draft of -the studies would be completed by September 2008; and
completion and availability of the studies for the communities' consideration would occur in February
2009. Also during the meeting, the Town Councils expressed their desire for the City to wait to pursue
any annexation west of I-5 until these studies are completed and the residents in the communities have
had time to consider incorporation or annexation.
At the request of the members of CAST, the City Council at their January 22, 2008 regular meeting,
directed City staff to continue processing the Hasley Hills/VCC annexation as authorized in July 2007.
If recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, it is anticipated that the GPA and PRZ
applications would be forwarded to the City Council for consideration 'in April 2008 and, if approved,
an application would be filed with LAFCO by June of 2008. Annexation applications are typically
processed by' LAFCO 'in six to twelve months, at which time the incorporation studies should be
completed. It is unknown at this time if LAFCO will process any annexation requests for the area west
of I-5 until those communities have had an opportunity to determine whether they wish to initiate
incorporation. If incorporation is initiated, LAFCO will not process an annexation application for any
area included within the boundaries of incorporation, unless that effort is unsuccessful.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This is a request for a GPA and PRZ associated with the annexation of the Hasley Hills/VCC area.
The City of Santa Clarita is considering annexation of approximately 1,433 acres of land generally
located at the northwest coder of I-5. and SR -126.
Project Area
The proposed project consists, of approximately 1,433 acres of land which includes. 808 acres of
industrial area, 48 acres of commercial area, 571 acres of residential area, and 5.36 acres of open space
area. The project area is generally located at the northwest corner of I-5 and SR -126 and is accessed
Master Case 07-206
Hasley HillslVCC Annexation
March 4, 2008
Page 3 of 8
by major thoroughfares which include The Old Road, Hasley Canyon Road, and Commerce Center
Drive.
A large portion of the proposed project consists of developed properties including a combination of
industrial, commercial and residential uses. The southern portion of the project includes the Valencia
Commerce Center, which consists of approximately 6 million square feet of industrial buildings across
808 acres of developed campus area. Major tenants include but are not limited to Deluxe Media, Star
Nail International, GG Industries, Mann Kind, Aquafine, Hydro Systems, and U.S. Postal Service. The
northern portion of the project consists of 1,531 single-family residential units across 571 acres within
the Hasley Hills, Live Oak and North Bluffs subdivisions. Neighborhood commercial centers in the
northern area include Hasley Canyon Village, Hasley Marketplace, Hasley Crossroads, and the Tutor
Time Center. Located in the Live Oak community is Live Oak Elementary School and Hasley Canyon
County Park. 'The vacant and undeveloped areas within the proposed project are limited to two.
ridgelines and the Castaic Creek which are located along the west and southeast portions of the project
site, respectively.
The project does not include "Gateway V", which is the remaining 596 acres of industrial campus in
the VCC located adjacent to SR -126, or 36 acres of land located adjacent to Industry Drive. These
properties, which consist of vacant land, are currently owned by the Newhall Land and Fanning
Company (NLF). Contrary to the initial study prepared for this annexation, the project area has since
been revised to reflect the exclusion of Gateway V and the 36 acres from the proposed annexation as
reflected on the attached Exhibits A through E.
The subject site is. also included within the boundaries of the 2004 County -adopted Castaic Area
Community Standards District (CSD); however, because the area has already been developed or
approved for development under the County, the project site is exempt from these provisions, pursuant
to Section 22.44.137.0 of the Los Angeles County Planning and Zoning Code.
Project
Pursuant to the State of California Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of
2000, annexing cities are required to prezone land. The City proposes a GPA and Prezone that would
designate the project area with City of Santa Clarita zoning and General Plan designations consistent
with Los Angeles County land use planning and existing development on the project site.
Currently, the project area is included in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan planning area and
consists of land use designations that include RS (Residential Suburban), RVL (Residential Very
Low), RE (Residential Estate), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), and BP (Business Park), as shown in
Table A. The land use designations for the majority of the project area would not change with this
project. However, the proposed General Plan Amendment involves the amendment of several "GPA
Areas" including 289 acres of RVL and RE to BP, 14 acres of BP to RS, 27 acres .of BP to CN, and
5.36 acres of RS to OS. The attached General Plan Amendment/Area Change map identifies each of
the above-mentioned GPA areas.
In addition, under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles, the project area consists of the
following zoning designations: RPD -5000, RPD -6000, R-1-5000, MPD, M-1.5, M -1.5 -DP, C-2, and
C-3, and C -3 -DP. The proposed prezone designations are consistent with County land use planning
Master Case 07-206
Hasley Hills/VCC Annexation
March 4, 2008
Page 4 of 8
and existing development, as shown in Table B. The proposed prezone designations for the annexation
area include BP, CN, RS and OS. More specifically, the proposed BP prezone area consists of 704
acres of County -designated M -1.5 -DP, 51 acres of MPD, and 51 acres of M-1.5; the proposed CN
prezone area includes 22 acres of County -designated C-3, 18 acres of C -3 -DP, and 9 acres of C-2; the
proposed RS prezone area includes 313 acres of County -designated RPD -6000, 141 acres of RPD -
5000, and 120 acres of R-1-5000; and the proposed OS prezone area includes 5.36 acres of County -
designated R-1-5000. The attached prezone map identifies the proposed zoning for the annexation
area.
The project area was developed .under the Los Angeles County land use planning policies and the
development of the project area was reviewed under separate environmental documentation currently
on file with the County. No new development is proposed as a part of this project. The residential
neighborhoods known as Hasley Hills, North Bluffs, and Live Oak have been fully built -out. The
Valencia Commerce Center was approved under Los Angeles County -approved Master Conditional
Use Pen -nit 87-360 for 12.6 million square feet of industrial office and commercial development. Four
of -the five phases of the VCC have been largely built -out and consist of 6 million square feet of
building area. GPA 07-003 and PRZ 07-002 propose to designate the project area so that City of Santa
Clarita residential, commercial, and industrial land use and zoning designations are consistent with Los
Angeles County land use planning and existing development.
RS (Residential Suburban) Single -Family Residential
RVL (Residential Very Low) Valencia Commerce Center (VCC)
RE (Residential Estate) VCC/Vacant areas
BP (Business Park) VCC
CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Commercial Centers
TABLE B:
s EXISTING COUNTY ZONING
gp�
R-1-5000
(Single -Family Residential)
RPD — 5000
(Residential Planned Development)
RPD — 6000
(Residential Planned Development)
M — 1.5
(Restricted Heavy Manufacturing)
M — 1.5 — DP
(Restricted Heavy Manufacturing — Development Program)
MPD
(Manufacturing Industrial Planned Development)
C-2
(Neighborhood Commercial)
C-3
(Unlimited Commercial)
C -3 -DP
(Unlimited Commercial — Development Program)
Master Case 07-206
Hasley Hills/VCCAnneration
March 4, 2008
Page 5 of 8
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
An environmental analysis, evaluating the impacts of the project, was conducted as part of the project
review. Included in this assessment was the review of Gateway V, consisting of 596 acres, and 36
acres along Industry Drive. Since completion of the initial study, the project area has been revised to
exclude these undeveloped properties. The revised project includes the annexation of 1,433 acres that
are comprised primarily of developed properties and existing uses. Therefore, it is detennined that the
proposed GPA, PRZ, and annexation would not have a significant effect on the environment. The
requested GPA and PRZ are consistent with Los Angeles County land use planning and existing
development and uses that currently exist in the project area.
The Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review and comment beginning
February 1, 2008 through March 4, 2008.
ANA T .VCTR
The requested General Plan Amendment and Prezone would bring the City's land use designations into
compliance with the existing Hasley Hills/VCC annexation area uses and development. No new
development is proposed with this land use designation change. Upon annexation to the City of Santa
Clarita, the proposed General Plan designations and zoning for the Hasley Hills/VCC annexation area
would become effective.
. General Plan Consistency
A large majority of the project area, which consists of existing development, is consistent with the
City's General Plan. Most of the existing uses including the single-family residences in the Hasley
Hills, Live Oak, and North Bluffs subdivisions, the commercial centers, and the industrial and office
buildings in the VCC were built consistent with the City's General Plan. However, some developed
areas that exist in the Hasley Hills/VCC area are not consistent with the City's General Plan. In order
to ensure consistency between the existing uses and the City's General Plan, an amendment to the
General Plan for these GPA areas is necessary. These GPA areas are identified in Table C and include
the following: 1) 14 acres of HOA maintained slope that would be re -designated from BP to RS; 2) 27
acres of neighborhood commercial centers that would be re -designated from BP to CN; 3) 289 acres of
industrial and office buildings, the U.S. Postal Service distribution center, and two ridgelines, all
within the VCC, that would be re -designated from RVL and RE to BP; and 4) 5.36 acres of the Hasley
Canyon Park that would be re -designated from RS to OS. These General Plan amendments would
ensure the annexation area's consistency with the General Plan and the appropriate land use
designation for the existing development and, uses.
This proposal includes amending the General Plan to .designate the project area with the following
designations (see attached map for proposed General Plan Amendment areas, labeled Exhibit E):
Moster Case 07-206
Hoslcy HillslVCC Annexation
March 4, 2008
Pagc 6 oj'8
Table: C
GPA°Areal;
Existing City General Plan
Existng,LTse 'µ''
ProposedgC1ty GeneralPlan}
R —� 1 — 5000 (Single -Family residential)
RS (Residential Suburban) and
OS (Open Space)
RPD — 5000 (Residential Planned Development)
RS (Residential Suburban)
Area #1
BP (Business Park)
HOA Maintained
RS (Residential Suburban)
M — .1.5 — DP (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing —
BP (Business Park)
Slope
Area #2
BP (Business Park)
Commercial Centers
CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
Area #3
RVL and RE
hldustrial/Office
BP (Business Park)
Area #4
RS (Residential Suburban)
Public Park
OS (Open Space)
The proposed General Plan Amendment is also consistent with objectives of the Land Use Element of
the City's General Plan and development policies. More. specifically, the Land Use Element Policy
4.15 states, "Maintain or enhance the character of the various communities through compatible land
use standards and design guidelines, while promoting an overall identity to the Santa Clarita Valley"
(L-31). This proposed land use designation change complies with this policy because the land use
designation change will bring the developed area into compliance with the City's Unified
Development Code and the City's General Plan,
Unified Development Code Consistency
Whereas the City's General Plan map designates land uses for the Santa Clarita Valley, the City's'
zoning map does not include the proposed annexation area at this time because the area is outside of
Santa Clarita's city limits.
The City of Santa Clarita zoning map must be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map
designations. Because of the proposed annexation of this area to the City of Santa Clarita, a zoning
designation must be established that is consistent with the existing uses and development of.the area.
A map that depicts the prezone changes is attached and labeled Exhibit C, and the Los Angeles County
existing zoning designations for the project area are attached as Exhibit B, and shown in Table D:
Table D:
�Exishng County of Los AngelesZomng ` {
ProposedCity of�Santa ClantaPrezone
�,
Al m
R —� 1 — 5000 (Single -Family residential)
RS (Residential Suburban) and
OS (Open Space)
RPD — 5000 (Residential Planned Development)
RS (Residential Suburban)
RPD — 6000 (Residential Planned Development)
RS (Residential Suburban)
M — 1.5 (Restricted Heavy, Manufacturing)
BP (Business Park)
M — .1.5 — DP (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing —
BP (Business Park)
Development Program)
Master Case 07-206
Hasley HillslVCC Annexation
March 4, 2008
Page 7 of 8
MPD (Manufacturing Industrial Planned
Development)
BP (Business Park)
C-2 (Neighborhood. Commercial) .
CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
C-3 (Unlimited Commercial)
CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
C -3 -DP (Unlimited Commercial — Development
Program)
CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
The proposed prezone change requested is consistent with the density of development that currently
exists in the project area. The single family residences in the. Hasley Hills, Live Oak, and North Bluffs
subdivisions were developed under the County's R-1-5000, RPD -5000, and RPD -6000 development
standards for density which are equivalent to the City's RS zone. The proposed RS zone requires a
mid-range density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre and a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, both
of which are consistent with the existing County zoning. The existing commercial centers within the
project area were developed under the County's C-2, C-3, and C -3 -DP development standards for
density and uses which are consistent with the City's CN zone: The proposed CN zone limits the floor
area ratio to 0.375: 1, which is comparable to the existing County zoning. Lastly, the industrial,
manufacturing, and office uses that exist in VCC were developed under the County's MPD, M-1, and
M -1.5 -DP development standards for density and uses which are consistent with the City's BP zone.
The proposed BP zone for the VCC limits the floor area ratio to 1.0: 1.0, which is comparable to the
existing County zoning.
With this prezone change, the project area (Hasley Hills/VCC) would be consistent with the City's
Unified Development Code and General Plan.
Community Response
As part of the review of the proposed annexation, Prezone, and General Plan Amendment, public
notice was mailed to property owners within the Hasley Hills/VCC annexation area as well as all
property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project area. As mentioned above, the City's
Annexation Subcommittee met with the Castaic Area and West Ranch Town Councils on December
20, 2007. At the meeting, the Town Councils expressed their desire for the City to wait to pursue any
annexation west of I-5 until studies are completed and communities have had time to . consider
incorporation or annexation. On February 20, 2008, the Castaic Area Town Council passed, by
unanimous vote, a motion to oppose the City of Santa Clarita's submission of an annexation
application to LAFCO. Attached herein, is a letter of opposition from the Castaic Area Town Council.
Staff has revised the project area map to exclude 596 acres of undeveloped property located adjacent to
SR -126 as well as 36 acres located adjacent to Industry Drive. Both of these areas are owned by NLF.
Crimson Resource Management (CRM), an oil production company with mineral rights on one of
NLF's properties along Industry Drive, has made the request to be excluded from the annexation.
Attached herein is a letter from CRM. The revised project area map excludes CRM's site.
Staff has also received one phone call from a resident in opposition to the project, and several phone
calls for general information.
Master Case 07-206
/-Insley Hills/VCC Annexation
March 4, 2008
Page 8 of 8
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Open the public hearing;
2) Receive testimony from the public; and
3) Adopt Resolution No. P08-04, recommending to the -City Council that it adopt a resolution to adopt
the Negative Declaration and approve Master Case 07-206; General Plan Amendment 07-003,
Prezone 07-002, Annexation 07-003, and Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001 for the Hasley
Hills/Valencia Commerce Center Annexation.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. P08-04
Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study
VCC/Hasley Hills Vicinity Map (Exhibit A)
Existing Los Angeles County Zoning Designation Map (Exhibit B)
Proposed Prezone Map (Exhibit C)
Existing General Plan/Land Use Map (Exhibit D)
General Plan Amendment/Area Change Map (Exhibit E)
Correspondence
S:\CD\ANNEX\Castaic\MC 07-206 (GPA, PRZ, ANX)\GPA.PRZ\PLANNING COMM IS S ION\07-206. Staff Repoit.HH.VCC.doc
RESOLUTION NO. P08-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE MASTER CASE NO. 07-206 FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 07-003,
AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP, AND PREZONE 07-002,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREZONING APPROXIMATELY 1,433 ACRES, AND ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 5 AND STATE ROUTE 126, WEST OF THE
EXISTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY LIMITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ANNEXATION
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Plamling Commission does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. Beginning in 2005, a petition drive of property owners in the area known as Hasley Hills
and Valencia Commerce Center occurred and ballots indicating a majority of property
owners in the area (approximately 72%) are in favor of annexation into the City of Santa
Clarita. Because a majority of property owners in the area are in favor of annexation, the
City of Santa Clarita began annexation proceedings, which include requests to amend the
City's General Plan Land Use Map (GPA 07-003) and Prezone (07-002) to re -designate
the project area with appropriate designations that would be activated upon annexation.
These designations include BP (Business Park), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), RS
(Residential Suburban), and OS (Open Space), as shown in Exhibit A, proposed Prezone
Map, and Exhibit B, General Plan Amendment/Area Change Map.
b. On April 11, 2007, members of the Castaic Area Support Team (CAST) submitted
signatures from 72% of residents and/or business owners to the City's Community
Development Department for the communities of Hasley Hills, Live Oak, North Bluffs,
and Valencia Commerce Center.
c: On July 10, 2007, the City Council authorized the City Manager to initiate the annexation
and authorized fielding for the preparation of a map, legal description, environn-lental
review, and Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) application fees that are
required to process this annexation.
d. On January 22, 2008, the City Council directed City staff to proceed with the processing
of the Hasley Hills/Valencia Commerce Center annexation.
e. The project site is located adjacent to the western boundary line of the City of Santa
Clarita, at the northwest corner of Interstate 5 and State Route 126.
Resolution P08-04
Alf aster Cuss 07-206
Page 2 qJ S
f. The project site consists of 1,433 acres of land contiguous to the corporate limits of the
City of Santa Clarita on the eastern boundary of the project area.
g.. The project area is built out with residential uses in the Hasley Hills, Live Oak, and
North Bluffs communities, commercial uses .in the four neighborhood commercial
centers, industrial/office uses in the Valencia Commerce Center, and open space uses in
the Hasley Canyon Park. No new development is proposed with this land use designation
change.
h. Currently, the project area is zoned R-1-5000 (Single -Family Residence), RPD -5000
(Residential Planned Development), RPD-6000(Residential Planned Development), M -
L5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing), M -1.5 -DP (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing —
Development Program), MPD (Manufacturing Industrial Planned Development), C-2
(Neighborhood Commercial), C-3 (Unlimited Commercial), C -3 -DP (Unlimited
Commercial — Development Program) by the County of Los Angeles.
The land use to the west of the project consists of vacant land and the Chiquita Canyon
landfill, within the County of Los Angeles. The land use to the north of the Hasley
Hills/VCC annexation area consists of a residential community along Hillcrest Parkway,
within the County of Los Angeles. The land to the south of the proposed annexation area
is undeveloped land that is part of the final phase of the Valencia Commerce Center and
located in the County of Los Angeles. The area to the east of the proposed annexation is
Interstate 5 and vacant land owned by the County of Los Angeles and vacant property
located within the City of Santa Clarita.
On February 1, 2008, an environmental Initial Study was prepared for GPA 07-003, PRZ
07-002, Annexation 07-003, Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001 for the Hasley
I-lills/VCC Annexation. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the Initial Study concluded that no significant adverse environmental impacts were
associated with the project and a Negative Declaration was prepared.
k. The environmental document has been circulated for review and comment by affected
governmental agencies and the public for a 30 -day public review period from February 1,
2008 to March 4, 2008, and posted with the County Clerk.
During the public review period, two letters were received with regard to the project.
These letters were addressed in the staff report and have been made a part of the public
record.
m. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on March 4,
2008. This public hearing was held at 7.00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Santa Clarita. At the hearing, the Planning Commission considered staff presentations,
staff reports, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, public testimony on the
proposal.
Resolution P08-04
Master Case 07-206
Page 3 of 5
n. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391,
and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. The
Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study prepared for the project and
finds and determines as follows:
The Planning Commission, hereby finds that the proposed Negative Declaration prepared
in connection with GPA 07-003, PRZ 07-002, Annexation 07-003, SOI Amendment 07-
001 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, has
been reviewed and considered by the Planning Connnnission, and reflects the independent
judgment of the Planning Commission and that based on the Initial Study and the entire
record of proceedings, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the Planning Commission adopts the
Negative Declaration for the project as included in the agenda packet for the March 4,
2008 Planning Commission Meeting. The Director of Community Development is
hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute
the record of proceedings in this matter. The documents and materials are on file in the
Department of Community Development, City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite
300, Santa Clarita, CA, 91355.
SECTION 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing
facts and findings, the Plamling Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find as
follows:
a. The proposed General Plan Amendment 07-003 is consistent with the goals, policies and
objectives of the General Plan in that the proposed land use change is consistent with
existing development and/or existing development entitlements for the subject site; and
b. The proposed General Plan Amendment 07-003 is in compliance with Section 65358(b)
of the Government Code in that the Land Use Element has been amended no more than
four times in the current calendar year.
c. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public hearing, and
upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the
Commission further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the City's
General Plan:
SECTION 4. PREZONE FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find as follows:
a. The proposed Prezone 07-002 is required under Section 56375(a)(3) of the Government
. Code in that prior to the Local Agency Fon-nation Commission taking an action on an
Resolution P08-04
Master Case 07-206
Paoe 4 q/5
annexation, annexing land must be prezoned by the annexing city.
b. The proposed Prezone 07-002 amending the City of Santa Clarita Zoning Map is
consistent with existing development and/or existing development entitlements for the
subject site; and
c. The proposed Prezone 07-002 is consistent with the objectives of the Unified
Development Code and development policies of the City of Santa Clarita.
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hereby adopt the
Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approve Master Case 07-206 for General Plan
Amendment 07-003 and Prezone 07-002 as described in Sections 1 through 4 above.
SECTION 6. The Planning Commission Secretary shall certify to the adoption of.this
Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
n
Resolution P08-04
Alaster Case 07-206
Page 5 of 5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED tl is/4th day of March, 2008.
ATTF,ST: /
I -SA M. HARIIY;
PLANNING COM
ARY
MIKt'BTERGM% CHAIRPERSON
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Lisa M. Hardy, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March, 2008 by the following vote of the
Planiling Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BERGER, BURKHART, KENNEDY, OSTROM, TRAUTMAN
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
S:\CD\ANNEX\Ca mic\MC 07-206 (GPA, PRZ, ANX)\GPA.PRZ\PLANNING COMMISSION\07-206.Rcsolution. PlanningCommission. DOC 1
r
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MASTER CASE NO: 07-206
PERMIT/PROJECT
NAME: General Plan Amendment No. 07-003, Prezone No. 07-002, Annexation No. 07-003,
and Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001 for the Valencia Commerce Center/Hasley
Hills Annexation
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT: The proposed annexation area is generally located at the northwest coiner of Interstate
5 and State Route 126 in the Castaic community, along the westerly boundary of the
Cityl of Santa Clarita in the unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles.
DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT: This is a request for a Sphere of Influence Amendment, General Plan Amendment
(GPA), prezone, and annexation of approximately 2,064 acres of land containing 1,531
developed single-family residential homes, a 1,400 -acre office/business park campus
with approximately 6 million square feet of buildings, an elementary school, and a
public park. The project proposes a prezone and a General Plan Amendment to
designate the area as BP (Business Park), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), RS
(Residential Suburban), and OS (Open Space), consistent with L.A. County land use
planning. The General Plan and City's zoning designation is consistent with the density
of development that currently exists in Valencia Commerce Center and Hasley Hills
areas. No development is proposed as part of this annexation, Sphere of Influence
Amendment, General Plan Amendment and prezone.
Based on the infonnation contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of
Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council [X] Planning Conunission [ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative
Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
Paul D. Brotzman
Director of Commun' y D opment
Prepared by: James Chow, Associate Planner
(Si ture) (Name/Title)
Approved by: N "(X�- 741' � Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
Public Review Period From February 1, 2008 To March 4, 2008
Public Notice Given On February 1, 2008
[X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice,
CERTIFICATION DATE:
S:\CD\ANNEX\Castaic\MC 07-206 (GPA, PRZ, ANX)\Environmental Review\Initial Study.NegDec\NegDec VCC.HasleyHills Annexation.doc .
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title/Master Case Number: Valencia Commerce Center/Hasley Hills Annexation —
Master Case 07-206, Sphere of Influence Amendment
07-001, General Plan Amendment 07-003, Prezone 07-
002, Annexation 07-003
Lead Agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact person and phone number: James Chow
Associate Planner
Project location: The proposed project is generally located at the
northwest conger of Interstate 5 and State Route 126 in
the Castaic community, along the westerly boundary of
the City of Santa Clarita in the unincorporated area of
the County of Los Angeles. The project area totals
approximately 2,064 acres of land and consists of the
communities of Valencia Commerce Center, Live Oak,
Hasley Hills, and . North Bluffs. The proposed
annexation area can be accessed by Hasley Canyon
Road, Conn-nerce Center Drive, The Old Road, Industry
Drive, Witherspoon Parkway, and Franklin Parkway.
The project area consists of industrial, commercial and
residential development with compatible uses, including
an industrial park, four commercial centers, three
residential subdivisions, a public elementary school, and
a 5.4 -acre public park. The proposed project area can
also be located on page 4459 and 4549 of the 2008
Thomas Guide — Los Angeles County Street Guide. See
the attached vicinity snap.
Applicant's name and address: City of Santa Clarita
Planning Division
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 2 of 42
General Plan designation: RS (Residential Suburban): Live Oak, Hasley Hills,
North Bluffs residential areas
CN (Commercial Neighborhood): Hasley Canyon
Village
BP (Business, Park): Valencia Commerce Center (VCC)
RVL (Residential Very Low) and RE (Residential
Estate): Eastern portions of VCC
Zoning: Existing County of Los Angeles zoning for the project
area is M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing), M -1.5 -
DP (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing — Development
Program), MPD (Manufacturing Industrial Planned
Development), C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial), C -2 -
DP (Neighborhood Commercial — Development
Program), C-3 (Unlimited Commercial), C -3 -DP
(Unlimited Commercial — Development Program), R-1-
5000 (Single -Family Residence), RPD -5000 (Residential
Planned Development), RPD-6000(Resideiitial Planned
Development).
P"
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 3 of 42
Description of project and setting:
This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for
a Sphere of Influence Amendment, General Plan Amendment (GPA), Prezone- (PRZ), and
Annexation (ANX) for the Valencia Commerce Center (VCC)/Hasley Hills area. The City of
Santa Clarita proposes the annexation of approximately 2,064 acres of land at the northwest
corner of Interstate 5 and State Route 126. Pursuant to Section 56758 of the Govemmnent Code,
this area must be consistent with the City's adopted Sphere of Influence. Therefore a Sphere of
Influence Amendment is also proposed as a part of this project.
Setting:
The proposed project, consists of approximately 2,064 acres of land which includes 1,430 acres of
industrial area, 59 acres of commercial area, 570 acres of residential area, and 5.36 acres of open
space area. The project area is generally located at the northwest corner of I-5 and SR -126 and is
accessed by major thoroughfares which include The Old Road, Hasley Canyon Road, Commerce
Center Drive, Franklin Parkway, Witherspoon Parkway, Industry Drive, and Cambridge Avenue.
A large portion of the proposed project consists of developed properties including a combination
of industrial, commercial and residential uses. The southern portion of the project includes the
Valencia Commerce Center, which consists of approximately 6 million square feet of industrial
buildings across 1,400 acres of campus area. Major tenants include but are not limited to Deluxe
Media, Star Nail International, GG Industries, Mann Kind, Aquafine, Hydro Systems, and U.S.
Postal Service. The northern portion of the project consists of 1,531 single-family residential
units across 570 acres within the Hasley Hills, Live Oak and North Bluffs subdivisions.
Neighborhood commercial centers in the northern area include Hasley Canyon Village, Hasley
Marketplace, and Hasley, Crossroads. Located in the Live Oak community is Live Oak
Elementary School and Hasley Canyon County Park.
The.project also includes vacant properties in the VCC, which includes "Gateway V," the fifth
and final industrial campus in the VCC located adjacent to and to the north of SR -126. Gateway
V encompasses 214 acres of vacant land and at build out would include 4.2 million square feet of
buildings. Furthermore, other vacant and undeveloped areas within the proposed project include a
ridgeline and the Castaic Creek which are located along the northwest and southern portions of
the project site respectively.
Project:
The City of Santa Clarita proposes an annexation of approximately 2,064 acres of unincorporated
territory generally located at the northwest corner of I-5 and SR -126 to the City of Santa Clarita.
As a part of the annexation, the City proposes a General Plan Amendment and prezone that would
designate the project area with City of Santa Clarita zoning and General Plan designations
consistent with Los Angeles County land use planning and existing development on the project
site. A Sphere of Influence Amendment consistent with the boundary of the proposed annexation
is also included as a part of this project.
�3
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 4 of 42
Currently the project area is included in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan.planiing area
and consists of City of Santa Clarita land use designations that include RS (Residential
Suburban), RVL (Residential Very Low), RE (Residential Estate), CN (Commercial
Neighborhood), and BP (Business Park). The land, use designations for the majority of the project
area would not change with this project. However, the proposed General Plan Amendment
involves the amendment of several "GPA Areas" including 324 acres of RVL and RE to BP, 14
acres of BP to RS, 27 acres of BP to CN, and 5.36 acres of RS to OS. The attached General Plan
Amendment/Area Change neap identifies each of the above-mentioned GPA areas. Upon
annexation of the project area, the new General Plan designations would be activated.
In addition, under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles, the project area consists of the
following zoning designations: RPD -5000, RPD -6000, R-1-5000, MPD, M-1.5, M -1.5 -DP, C-2,
C -2 -DP, and C-3, and C -3 -DP. The proposed prezone would change the existing zoning to
correspond with the City of Santa Clarita zoning and designate the project area so that the
proposed prezone designations are consistent with County land use planning and existing
development. The proposed prezone designations for the annexation. area include BP, CN, RS
and OS. More specifically, the proposed BP prezone area consist of 1,330.62 acres of County -
designated M -1.5 -DP, 50.94 acres of MPD, and 47.18 acres of M-1.5; the proposed CN prezone
area includes 22.44 acres of County -designated C-3, 18.64 acres of C -3 -DP, 10.2 acres of C -2 -
DP, and 8.88 acres of C-2; the proposed RS area includes 313.69 acres of County -designated
RPD -6000, 140.8 acres- of RPD -5000, and 114.82 acres of R-1-5000; and the proposed OS area
includes 5.36 acres of County -designated R-1-5000. The attached prezone map identifies the
proposed zoning for the annexation area.
The project area was developed under the Los Angeles County land use plamling policies and the
development of the project area was reviewed under separate environmental documentation
currently on file with the. County. No new development is proposed as a part of this project. The
residential subdivisions known as Hasley Hills, North Bluffs, and Live Oak have been fully built
out. The Valencia Commerce Center was approved under Los Angeles County -approved Master
Conditional. Use Permit 87-360 for 12.6 million square feet of industrial office and commercial
development. In .addition to the City's Development Review process, individual buildings
proposed ,in the future in VCC would be subject to conditions of approval and mitigation
measures approved under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County for that project as well as
architectural design standards described in the CC&Rs recorded for the Valencia Commerce
Center and overseen by Newhall Land and Farm. GPA 07-003 and PRZ 07-002 propose to
designate the project area so that City of Santa Clarita residential, commercial, and industrial land
use and zoning designations are consistent with Los Angeles County land use planning and
existing development. I
The subject site is also a part of the 2004 County -adopted Castaic Area Community Standards
District (CSD); however, because the area has already been approved for development under the
County, the project site is exempt from CSD provisions pursuant to those�provisions.
n
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment. 07-001
Page 5 of 42
Surrounding land uses: Located to the. north of the proposed project site is a
ridgeline that separates the project area from the
residential community along Hillcrest Parkway to the
north. Located to the east is the Interstate 5 freeway,
which separates the project area from the City of Santa
Clarita city limits and the Pitchess Detention Center. To
the south of the project site are State Route 126 and the
future Newhall Ranch development which would consist
of the Landmark Village and Entrada communities. To
the west of the proposed project is an undeveloped area
with a ridgeline that separates the project area from the
community of Val Verde and the Chiquita Canyon
Landfill.
Other public agencies whose Local Agency Fon-nation Commission
approval is required: Los Angeles County
700 N. Central Avenue
Glendale, CA 91203
5
Figure 1— Project LocationNicinity Map — Hasley HillsNalencia Commerce Center
IF 1 f
I r
Fil4ure 2 — Existing Zoning Map — Hasley.HilIsNalencia Commerce Center
'i
S11
1110111111i�llll
mw Ib.
EXISTING ZONING
(Hasley Hills I Valencia Commerce Conter)
, Emn c.,
Ik 1.S
t -un
t
Figure 3 — Prezone Map — Hasley Hills/Valencia Commerce Center
aq,
NO,
os Mb
BW
Fan
z -iftf.
ms'�v
.4A,� - - -,- -
-, ,:,,
6
50
PRE-ZONE
(Ii.,Isy Hills!
U—i. C..-.. Center)
_... 1#`�,7 tom{ i �n � fh ... � 2..1 yaL �5��� �:
<YA
vi, r.—
t4
S.— ez—
PRE-ZONE
(Ii.,Isy Hills!
U—i. C..-.. Center)
vi, r.—
Figure 4 — Existing General Plan Map — Hasley HiHsNalencia Commerce Center
gg�
�g-
7n
' -M
FAN wn
,5
IN'
. ED
og,
gf�_ KK
M
:Vv
W_
ujIffft 7
g iV
a
Nt
N�z
Tg
.1 Y"
�W 2,� L
A" M."
M -M®
?A-
r -
31
'RE 7!
ItcAZ
.%5MOU r®r3l
Rew
14
Q
RE
WY -21;W11
F
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
lHasley Hills! Valencia C*nimerct Center)
ma -
gma
A4
IV-
rs
Figure 5 — GPA/Area ChanIze Map — Hasley HillsNalencia Commerce Center
v.j yam,...:. i.� .� ��,13�.lAI�i�T �.....' �.]'lU nti.�l'l! � � � PP11I ylt•y` � � �� C � ".
t
�f"tr�i. .!"�fi�'."""—�--•^• `� a 1 ���4��.�L�"iu;r"t�>�j���ti�,� f>/ Sr_a:'E,.:3..e�:a i�.s:; :1
I i!
_ •��"rmi`y �I aG',�=�"`� i.��1�iT,+.�^x'fs^•s � i�! s3
9
"44%.. f�.�I..,yY =":.,'•4`it� i gra ., rFai u•
ZION -
I` �j�.• ���;/ lf��+ �Rl t�, 14 33 Sr�� 3�Jr
..> �i ✓Apf13f' P�7.1,Tv, "i�;'� l V a-
{t $ 3ilIl/jjt�F t1'tri 'Ka'��CS1i'y'r�+�k
SN
=;t 1l
filGPA ! AREA CHANGE
far r �„M jr ,eft /r'%1 •' ' s, y✓ (Hasley Hills l Valencia Commerce Center)
0
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 11 of 42
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a 'Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Measures Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water
Materials Quality
[ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise
[ ] Geology /Soils
[ ] Land Use/ Planning .
[ ] Population / Housing
[ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportatioi�Traff c
[ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
B. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
enviromnent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will. not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the enviroiunent, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the enviromnent, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
11
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 12 of 42
[ ] I find that although the proposed project. could have a significant effect on the
environinent, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
James CXdw, Associate Planner
Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner
Date
Date
12
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 13 of 42
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
•
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] [x] I
[] [] [x] I
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [ ]
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
e) Other
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)' prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [ ] [ ] [] [x]
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farinland, to non-agricultural use?
13
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 14 of 42
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
d) Other [ ] [ ] [] [x]
III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district ,may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a)' Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [] [] [x] []
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nori-attaininent under an applicable federal or state
mi -abient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [ ]
. [ ] [x] []
number of people?
f) Other [ ]
[ ] [ ] [x]
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or [ ]
[ ] {x] [ ]
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, .or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
14
0
1
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 15 of 42
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
;Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?.
g) Other
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15064.5?
15
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [X] []
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 16 of 42
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Impact
Impact
with . Impact
Mitigation
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
'15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred. [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
outside of formal cemeteries?
e) Other [ ]
[ ] [ ] [x]
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial [ ] .
[ ] [x] [ ]
adverse effects,, including the risk of loss, injury, or .
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on [ ]
[ ] [] [x]
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning,
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
iii) Seismic -related. ground failure, including [ ]
[ ] [ ] [x]
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? [ ]
[ ] [ ] [x]
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
16
•
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 17 of 42
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- [ ] [ ]
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [ ] [ ]
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of wastewater?
f) Change in topography or groundsurface relief [ ] [ ]
features?
g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ ]
yards or more?
h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [ ] [
10% natural grade?
i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ] [ ]
unique geologic or physical feature?
j) Other [ ] [ ]
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ]
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
17
[x]
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 18 of 42
•
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ]
enviroiunent through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving explosion or the release
of hazardous materials into the enviromnent (including,
but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or
radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ]
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within ,one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a 'site which is included on a list of [ ]
hazardous materials . sites compiled pursuant to
Govermnent Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ]
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
fj For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ]
would the 'project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project, area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [ ]
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ]
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intennixed with wildlands?
[x]
[X]
•
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 19 of 42
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil pipelines)?
j) Other [ ]
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water 'quality standards or waste [ ]
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [ ]
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
.that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would.
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter.the existing drainage pattern of the [ ]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a maiuier which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would [ ]
exceed the capacity of existing or plamled stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
19
A
[ ] [ ]
[x]
[ ] [x]
[ ]
I I [x] -[]
0
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 20 of 42
•
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place, within a 100 -year flood hazard area, structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by.seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course
and direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river?
1) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the [ ]
following ways:
i) Potential impact of project construction and project [ ]
post -construction activity on storm water runoff?
ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, [ ]
vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste handling,
hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas
or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?
iii) Significant enviromnentally harmful increase in the [ ]
flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases [ ]
in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?
20
[ ]
[X]
[X]
[]
[x]
•
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 21 of 42
•
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
v) Storm water discharges. that would significantly [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
impair or contribute to the impainnent of the beneficial
uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water
quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)
vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both
during construction and after project occupancy?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [ ] [ ] [x] []
community (including a low-income or minority
community)?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or. [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program,_ or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
21
L
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 22 of 42
b) Result in the foss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery. site delineated on
a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
d) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
t.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] [] [x]
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels [ ]
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [ ]
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise [ ]
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [ ]
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a.project located within an airport land use plan [
or, where such,a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ]
would the.project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
22
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 23 of 42
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project
result in:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
XIV. RECREATION - Would the project:
23
[] [] []
[x]
[] [] [x]'
I
[] [] I
[x]
I [] [x]
I
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 24 of 42
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] [x] []
b) Include recreational facilities or require the [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
enviromnent?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] .
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [x]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ ] [x]
24
•
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 25 of 42
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ]
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ]
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm [ ]
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [ ]
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ]
treatment provider which serves or may serve the,
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ]
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal need's?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and [ ]
regulations related to solid waste?
25
[ ] [x] [ ]
I [x], []
[ ] [x] [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 26 of 42
Potentially Less Than Less Than , No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [ ] [ ]
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to. ` eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered .plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ] [ ]
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which [ ] [ ]
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `DE MINIMUS' FINDING
a) Will the . project have an adverse effect either [ ]
individually. or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife
resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of
this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and. related ecological communities,,
including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends
for it's continued viability."
26
[x]
[x]
[x]
Initial Study.
Master Case 07-206
Amlexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 27 of 42
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS
The proposed project consists of the annexation, prezone, General
Plan Amendment and Sphere of Influence Amendment for the
Valencia Commerce Center (VCC)/Hasley Hills areas which is
largely developed with business park, office, and commercial
buildings, single.family homes, a public school and park. The project
includes the annexation of approximately 2,064 acres of land but
proposes no new development. The project area includes a 1,400 -
acre business park campus, of which 214 acres have yet to be
developed. Prior to development of additional uses within the VCC,
the design of any new development would be subject to the
architectural design guidelines established under the County -
approved Master CUP for the VCC as well as the City's development
review process and architectural design guidelines. The annexation
area is surrounded by and includes several ridgelines. However, no
development is proposed on any of these ridgelines and any future
development near these ridgelines "would be subject to the City of
Santa Clarita Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance. Therefore no
significant impacts on a scenic vista are anticipated as a result of the
project.
The proposed land use designations would not substantially damage
scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary
ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway. Although ridgelines are located within the
annexation area, no new development would occur as a part of this
project. However, approximately 214 acres within the VCC have yet
to be developed as part of the final phase of the business park
expansion. Impacts related to scenic resources are anticipated to be
less than significant.
The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The
Hasley Hills, Live Oak, and North Bluffs areas of the project have
been fully built out. However, there is still development potential in
the VCC area as 4.2 million square feet of building has yet to be
constructed pursuant to the County -approved Master CUP. Impacts
related to the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings
including new sources of light or glare that may affect day time or
27
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 28 of 42
J
night time views are anticipated to be less than significant.
II. AGRICULTURAL
There are currently no agricultural operations being conducted on the
RESOURCES
proposed project area, and the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan
does not identify any important farmlands or any lands for farmland
use. In addition, the site, is not within an area of Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Grazing Land,
or Farnland of Local Importance as identified by the California
Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection
on the Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2002 map
(California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource
Protection, 2004). Therefore, the project will not have an impact that
could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.
Furthermore, the majority of the project area has been developed with
the exception of a 214 -acre business park campus adjacent to SR 126,
watershed areas, and hillside areas and ridgelines along the
northernmost and westernmost portions of the annexation area. None
of these developed or undeveloped areas are zoned for agricultural,
purposes and the prezone and General Plan Amendment would not
designate these areas for agricultural use. The proposed designations
would be consistent with the types of uses and development currently
on the project site.
The project area under the County of Los Angeles does not have any
agricultural zoning designations, nor does the City's or County's
General Plan identify any agricultural land use designations. Further,
there. is no Williamson Act contract land in the City. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use
or Williamson Act contracts, and would have no related impacts.
III. AIR QUALITY
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. The proposal is to amend the SOI and annex
2,064 acres to the City of Santa Clarita and designate the project area
with applicable zoning and general plan designations consistent with
existing development that would activate upon amlexation of the
project area. No new development is proposed with this application.
However, there are approximately 214 acres within VCC that have
yet to be developed under, a County -approved Master CUP. The
proposal to amend the City's SOI, annex land to the City, and amend
the City's General Plan and prezone land consistent with County?
approved land use planning would therefore have a less than
significant impact with regard to the obstruction of the
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 29 of 42
implementation of the SCAQMD's air quality plan or directly violate
any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
The proposed project would not directly result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). However,
because there is development potential on 214 acres of land in the
VCC, future development may have an impact on the net increase of
any criteria pollutant; however, impacts related to a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant are considered less
than significant.
The project area has primarily been developed with uses consistent
with the surrounding uses in and outside of the unincorporated
Comity territory arid City of Santa Clarita limits. No new
development is proposed with this annexation, prezone and general
plan amendment application. There is however vacant. land within
the proposed annexation area that may be developed in the future as a
part of a County -approved Master CUP. The project as proposed is
not anticipated to significantly expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations or directly create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of people.
No significant impacts related to air quality is anticipated. No further
environmental review is necessary..
IV. BIOLOGICAL No new development is proposed with the project. The proposal
RESOURCES would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No significant impact on wildlife
resource is anticipated to occur.
The project entails the annexation of 2,064 acres of land into the City
of Santa Clarita and proposes no new development. However, 214
acres of previously graded vacant land that could accommodate 4.2
million square feet of . building have yet to be developed. in the
southern portion of VCC. If Castaic Creek is chanlelized in the
future, those improvements will be evaluated for. impacts to
biological resources. The proposed project would not have a direct
29
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 30 of 42
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service and would not interfere substantially or have
significant impacts with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites. Therefore, any impacts would be considered less than
significant.
No new development is proposed, therefore the project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. However, 214
acres of land in VCC have yet to be developed as part of the final
phase of the business park expansion which may impact protected
wetlands if located on site; however, no significant impact related to
federally protected wetlands is anticipated.
Upon annekation, the project area would be required to comply with
all City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code and City
requirements. The. proposed zoning and General Plan designations
would be consistent with all County land use plarming policies and
the current uses and development in the project area. The proposal
would not conflict with any L.A. County or City of Santa Clarita
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation .policy or ordinance. Upon aimexation, any oak trees in
would be protected by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance
and Preservation and Protection Guidelines.
The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conlinunity
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
The proposed application would not change any state or federally
designation on the project area. No development is proposed with
the SOI, annexation, prezone and General Plan Amendment
application. The proposal would not affect a County -designated
Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area
(SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation
30
0 .0
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 31 of 42
31
No impact related to biological resources is anticipated. No further
environmental review is necessary.
V. CULTURAL
The proposed project would not directly cause a substantial adverse
RESOURCES
change in the significance of any known cultural or archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 1506.4.5 of the Government Code.
However, future development of still -undeveloped areas within the
VCC may have a less than significant impact on an archeological
resource pursuant to 15064.5. The proposal would not directly or
indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature.
General Plan Amendment 07-003 is subject to requirements of SB 18,
Local and Tribal Intergovernmental Consultation Law, including
consultation with local Native American tribes identified by the
California Native American Heritage Commission. The proposed
project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact related .to
cultural resources.
VI. GEOLOGY AND
The proposed project consists of an annexation of the Valencia
SOILS
Connmerce Center and Hasley Hills areas into the City of Santa
Clarita. No new development is proposed with the prezone and
General Plan Amendment application. However, development may
occur in the near future as part of the final phase of the VCC
expansion. Because of the potential of development in the near
future, the project may -have a less than significant impact with regard
to exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects.
The proposed project does not include a development proposal. The
project area has been developed with a range of residential and
commercial uses. The development was reviewed and approved by
Los Angeles County. Review of impacts from earthqualce-related
causes on development of the site was included in a separate
enviromnental analysis.
No new development is proposed with this project so, the proposal
would not directly result in soil erosion. It is anticipated however
that in the foreseeable future, development would occur as part of the
fifth phase of VCC. Any new development would be subject to the
review of the City and all applicable development code requirements.
Therefore, no significant impacts related to substantial wind or water
soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is anticipated on or off site as a
result of the project.
31
L,
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 32 of 42
No impacts related to geologic units or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on-. or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse are anticipated to occur as a result of this
proposal and would not have an impact related to expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997),
creating substantial risks to life or property.
No development is proposed with this project. No change _ in
topography or ground surface relief features or earth movement (cut
and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more or grading on a slope
greater than 10% natural grade would occur with approval of this
project.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related
to Geology and Soils. No further environmental review is necessary.
VII. HAZARDS AND The proposed project would not store, use, or generate hazardous
HAZARDOUS materials, and would not utilize any acutely hazardous materials. No
MATERIALS development is proposed with this prezone and General Plan
Amendment application, however, development of the undeveloped
portion of VCC can be expected to occur in the future. The City of
Santa Clarita zoning and General Plan designations would be
consistent with the existing development and uses in the project area.
The application would not create a significant hazard to the public or
the enviromnent through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.
The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous
.materials into the envirorunent (including, but not limited to oil,
pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation). No new development is
proposed as part of this project. However, development of the
undeveloped portion of VCC can be expected to occur in the future.
The proposed project does not propose any new development and the
project would not store, use,. or generate substantial amounts of
hazardous materials, and would not utilize any acutely hazardous
materials. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
No impact related to a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
32
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 33 of 42
65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the enviromnent would occur with the prezone and General
Plan Amendment application.
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The
prezone and General Plan Amendment would not result in a safety
Hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The
prezone and General Plan Amendment would not result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
No development is proposed with this project. The proposal would
not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The proposed project does not propose any development and would
not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands.
The prezone and General Plan Amendment would no expose people
to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g. electrical
transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines).
No impact related to hazards or hazardous materials is anticipated.
No further enviromnental review is necessary.
VIII. HYDROLOGY The proposed annexation, prezone and General Plan Amendment
AND WATER would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
QUALITY requirements.
No new development is proposed. The project would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or plamied uses for
which pen -nits have been granted).
The proposed City of Santa Clarita zoning and General Plan
designations would not substantially alter the existing drainage
33
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07=001
Page 34 of 42
C
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a mamier which would result in flooding on- or off-site
because no development is proposed as a part of this application for
annexation.
No development is proposed, therefore, this project would not create
or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. No further
envirom-riental review is necessary.
The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality
in the project area because the proposed zoning and General Plan
designations would be consistent with the existing development and
land use planning in the project area.
No development is proposed with this application. The application
would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation,map and the proposed project
would not place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows.
The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam.
No development is proposed. The project would hot create
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or inudflow in the project area.
No development is associated with this prezone and General Plan
Amendment application. No changes in the rate of flow, currents, or
the course and direction of surface water and/or groundwater would
occur.
No modification of a wash, chamlel .creek or river is proposed. No
impact would result from the proposed annexation, SOI amendment,
34
0
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 35 of 42
prezone, or general plan amendment.
The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to
Stornwater Management. The project consists of no development,
however prior to annexation, the property owners would have to elect
to pay an annual City of Santa Clarita Stormwater Drainage Fee. The
City's stornwater program provides street catch -basin cleaning a
minimum.of once a year, thereby reducing trash, debris, and potential
neighborhood flooding.
Furthermore, because no development is proposed as a part of this
project, the proposed annexation .would not create any impacts to
Stomwater Management of any of the following ways:
i) No potential impact of project construction and project post -
construction activity on storm water runoff
ii) No potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle
or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage,
delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas
iii) No significant environmentally harniful increase in the flow
velocity or volume of storm water runoff
iv) No significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion
of the project site or surrounding areas
v) No storm water discharges that would significantly impair or
contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving
waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian
corridors, wetlands, etc.)
vi) The proposal would not cause harm to the biological integrity of
drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies
vii) Provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials
both during construction and after project occupancy is not
necessary.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related
to hydrology and water quality. No further enviromnental review is
IX. LAND USE AND The project does not propose any new development with this
PLANNING annexation, Sphere of Influence Amendment, prezone and General
Plan Amendment. The proposed industrial, commercial and
residential zoning designations would be consistent with the existing
development and County land use planning in the project area, as
well as the development surrounding the project area. Furthermore,
35
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 36 of 42
the project area is located within the. Castaic Area Community
Standards District (CSD), a planning area for zoning regulation
purposes that was established in 2004 by the County of Los Angeles.
The project site is exempt fiom the provisions of the CSD since the
residential portions and most of the business park were constructed
prior to establishment of the CSD. The remaining undeveloped
portions of the VCC are also exempt as the Master CUP affecting this
development was approved prior to the CSD. Therefore, all zoning
regulations currently in place under these prior County approvals
have already been established for the project; therefore the project
site is not subject to the CSD. Impacts related to the disruption or
physical division of an established community (including low-income
or minority community) are not anticipated to occur since no new
development that has not already been approved would be
constructed.
The proposed annexation of the Valencia Commerce Center/Hasley
Hills area includes a request for a Sphere of Influence Amendment,
prezone, and General Plan Amendment to change the existing County
of Los Angeles zoning and jurisdictional authority. The change to
City zoning and land use would result in a less than significant
impact as it is consistent with existing County of Los Angeles land
use plan, policy, and regulations.
Currently the area consists of City land use designations that include
RS, RVL, RE, CN, and BP. The land use designations for the
majority of the annexation area would not change with this project.
However, the proposed General Plan Amendment involves the
amendment of several "GPA Areas" including 324 acres of RVL and
RE to BP, 27 acres of BP to RS, 27 acres of BP to CN, and 5.36 acres
of RS to OS. Despite the proposed General Plan Amendment for
each of the above-mentioned areas, these "GPA Areas" are largely
built out with commercial or industrial development. The only "GPA
Area" that is undeveloped consists of a secondary ridgeline and is
located in the northwest portion of the project site. Furthermore, the
proposed General Plan designations would be consistent with the
existing approved development within the proposed amiexation area.
The attached General Plan Amendment/Area Change map identifies
each of the above-mentioned "GPA Areas". Upon annexation of the
project area, the new General Plan designations would be activated.
In addition, under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles, the
project area consists of the following zoning designations: RPD -
36
11
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 37 of 42
9
37
5000, RPD -6000, R-1-5000, MPD, M-1.5, M -1.5-13P, C-2, C -2-13P,
and C-3, and C -3 -DP. The proposed prezone would change the
existing zoning to correspond with the City of Santa Clarita zoning
and designate the project area so that proposed prezone designations
are consistent with County land use planning and existing
development. The proposed prezone for the.anlexation area includes
RS, CN, BP and OS. The attached prezone snap identifies the
proposed zoning for the aimexation' area. Upon annexation of the
project area, the new zoning would be activated.
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable Habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project, such as the
Army Corps of Engineers, or the California Department of Fish and
Game's jurisdiction over Castaic Creek because the proposal would
not change the applicable state or federal designations in the project
area.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related
to land use and plaruiing. No further environmental review is
necessary.
X. MINERAL AND
The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a
ENERGY
known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
RESOURCES
residents of the state. No further environmental review is necessary.
The proposed SOI amendment, annexation, prezone and General Plan
Amendment that would be consistent with the existing development
and uses in the project area would not result in the loss of availability
of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan and would not
use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient mauler. No
further environmental review is necessary.
No impact related to mineral and energy resources is anticipated. No
further environmental review is necessary.
XI. NOISE
The proposed project proposes no development and therefore there
would be no exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the City's General Plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Furthermore,
because no development is proposed with the annexation, there
would be no exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
37
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 38 of 42
The project would not create a substantial pei-rnanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
No development is anticipated with this prezone and General Plan
Amendment application, therefore a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project would not occur.
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore,
the prezone and General Plan Amendment would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and
would not expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels.
No impact related to noise is anticipated. No further enviromnental
review is necessary.
XII. POPULATION
No development is proposed with the prezone and General Plan
AND HOUSING
Amendment. The- project area contains and is surrounded by
infrastructure that is adequate for the previously approved residential
and commercial development by Los Angeles County in the project
area.
The proposed residential and commercial designations would be
consistent with the existing development and uses in the project area.
The application would not displace existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially
affordable housing).
The proposed residential and commercial designations would not
displace people, necessitating the construction or replacement
housing elsewhere, as the proposal would be consistent with the
existing uses and County -approved development in the project area.
No impact related to population and 'housing is anticipated. No
further enviromnental review is necessary.
XIII. PUBLIC
The proposed project would not create any significant adverse
SERVICES
impacts to public services. Fire service, school district, and many
govermnent services will remain unaffected.
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 39 of 42
39
The annexation area will experience an increase in police patrols and
response time due to the City's increased police presence. The City
also provides more frequent road maintenance and is typically more
responsive to requests for repairs. In addition, the City provides
increased streetlight patrols and responsiveness to correct
malfunctioning streetlights. The annexation would result in a
negotiated tax transfer between the City of Santa Clarita and the
County of Los Angeles which would be used to partially fund public
services. Furthermore, the City would likely make upgrades to the
existing Hasley Canyon Park as part of the City's parks program as it
has in the past with previous annexations.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related
to public services. No further environmental review is necessary.
XIV. RECREATION
No new development is proposed with the proposed project that
would cause direct increase in usage of existing parks and
recreational facilities. However, payment of lower parks and
recreation program fees by residents within the project site once they
are annexed to the City of Santa Clarita may increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or other City recreational
facilities that may cause a minor impact on these facilities.
The proposed project does not include new development of
residential units that would require park development fees or
implementation of new recreational facilities. The proposed
annexation area does include a public park known as Hasley Canyon
County Park, which is in good condition. However, upon
annexation, the City may upgrade the park and other recreational
facilities. Impacts related to the expansion or upgrade of recreational
facilities or parks is considered less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact relate to
recreation. No further environmental review is necessary.
XV.
The project site has been developed with industrial, commercial and
TRANSPORTATION /
residential uses which were analyzed under a separate environmental
TRAFFIC
document. The prezone and General Plan Amendment would not
cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume
to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections.
No development is proposed, therefore, the prezone and General Plan
Amendment would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
39
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 40 of 42
level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways.
The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks.
No development is proposed, therefore, the application would not
substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment).
No development is proposed with this application. The project area
is adjacent to existing infrastructure and City of Santa Clarita
incorporated land. The prezone and General Plan Amendment would
not result in inadequate emergency access.
No development is proposed with the prezone and General Plan
Amendment, therefore, the proposal would not result in inadequate
parking capacity.
Upon annexation, the City may construct new bus stops and
improvements to existing bus stops. This may have a minor impact;
however, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.
Upon annexation, the City may make improvements to sidewalks and
bike lanes. These improvements would reduce hazards and barriers
for pedestrians. Therefore, irnpacts are anticipated to be less than
significant.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related
to transportation and traffic. No further environmental review is
necessary.
XVI. UTILITIES AND The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
SERVICE SYSTEMS the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, as the site is
already developed.
No development is proposed with this SOI amendment, amlexation,
prezone and General Plan Amendment. Therefore, this application
would not require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, that
have not already been considered, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
M
O
s 1`
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 41 of 42
The project would not require or result in the construction of new
stone water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects
because no development is proposed.
The project area has sufficient water supplies available to serve
existing and approved development from existing entitlements and
resources. No new or expanded entitlements'are needed.
The project would not result in a detennination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve existing and projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments.
The project area is currently served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project site's solid waste
disposal needs. The project area would be subject to City franchise
agreements for both business and residential. Impacts related service
by a landfill is considered less than significant.
The project area currently complies with federal, state, and County
statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Businesses would also
become subject to City's Standard Urban Storm water Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP) upon annexation.
No impact related to utilities and service systems is anticipated. No
further enviromnental review is necessary.
XVII. MANDATORY The project does not propose new development. However, there is
FINDINGS OF development potential in the remaining undeveloped portion of VCC.
SIGNIFICANCE Future development in this area may have the potential to.degrade the
quality of the enviromnent, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory. Any future
development however, would be reviewed by the City to ensure
compliance with all previously approved development and
environmental standards and design guidelines, including mitigation
measures as required by the County. Therefore, the project would
not result in a significant impact related to degradation of the quality
of the environment or habitat of fish and wildlife species.
41
I7
Initial Study
Master Case 07-206
Annexation 07-003, Prezone 07-002,
General Plan Amendment 07-003
Sphere of Influence Amendment 07-001
Page 42 of 42
•
S:\CD\ANNEXICASTAIC\MC 07-206 (GPA, PRZ, ANX)TWIRONMENTAL REVIENrQNITIAL STUDY.NEGDECUNITIAL STUDY.VCC.HASLEY.DOC
42
The project does not propose new development and would not have
direct impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable. However, the remaining undeveloped portion of VCC
I
ay be developed in the foreseeable future. Any new development
would go through a design review process and would have to adhere
to the development standards and the City's General Plan. -Therefore,
any impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.
No development is proposed as a part of this project. An
undeveloped area totaling roughly 214 acres is a part of a master
plan ied business park and would be developed in the future. This
new development would be reviewed to ensure compliance with the
UDC and the General Plan, but may still cause effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly. However, impacts are
anticipated to be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related
to the Mandatory findings -of significance. No further environmental
review is necessary.
XVII. DEPARTMENT
The project would not have an adverse effect either individually or
OF FISH AND GAME
cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be
`DE MINIMUS'
defined for the purpose of this .question as "all wild animals, birds,
FINDING
plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities,
including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its
continued viability." No further environmental review is necessary.
No impact related to Department of Fish and Game `De Minimus'
finding is anticipated. No further environmental review is necessary.
S:\CD\ANNEXICASTAIC\MC 07-206 (GPA, PRZ, ANX)TWIRONMENTAL REVIENrQNITIAL STUDY.NEGDECUNITIAL STUDY.VCC.HASLEY.DOC
42