HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - COPPERSTONE ANNEX MC NO 10-048 (2)Agenda Item: hi�
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AC:FNnA RFPORT
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
DATE: December 14, 2010
SUBJECT: COPPERSTONE ANNEXATION, MASTER CASE NO. 10-048, —
CONSIDERATION OF PREZONE 10-001 FOR THE PURPOSES
OF ANNEXATION
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council introduce and pass to second reading, on January 11, 2011, an Ordinance entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA TO APPROVE PREZONE NO. 10-001 (MASTER CASE 10-048) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 68 ACRES OF THE COPPERSTONE ANNEXATION AREA,
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COPPER HILL DRIVE AND
DECORO DRIVE, ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA."
BACKGROUND
The original project, which was presented to the City Council on October 12, 2010, included a
request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Prezone, Sphere of Influence Amendment (SOIA)
and authorization to submit an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) for the Copperstone, West Creek and Tesoro del Valle neighborhoods.
After conducting a public hearing on the original project, the City Council closed the public
hearing, and voted unanimously to adopt a Resolution approving the GPA and adopting the
Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The Council also adopted a Resolution requesting
the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to amend the City's sphere of influence
boundary to include approximately 2,112 acres. The Council authorized staff to submit
applications to LAFCO to anriex approximately 1,505 acres of land, including the Copperstone
Ordinance passed to
Second reading
neighborhood, the West Creek neighborhood, subject to meeting with Newhall Land/Lennar, and
the Tesoro neighborhood, subject to meeting with the Tesoro Homeowners' Association (HOA)
board and Montalvo Properties. The City Council also introduced an Ordinance for the Prezone
and passed it to a second reading for the November 9, 2010 Council meeting.
Prior to the second reading of the Ordinance, City staff met with the Tesoro HOA board and
Montalvo Properties to discuss the potential annexation of the Tesoro del Valle neighborhood.
On November 9, 2010, the City Council decided that the City would not move forward with
submitting an application to LAFCO at this time for the West Creek and Tesoro del Valle
neighborhoods, but would proceed with submitting an application for the Copperstone
neighborhood, because there has been no opposition to the annexation of this area. In order to
proceed with annexation of the Copperstone neighborhood, it is necessary to conduct a public
hearing on the revised Prezone request for this area and execute a first and second reading of the
ordinance.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION
The subject site consists of approximately 68 acres of developed land containing approximately
428 single-family and multi -family residences. The project area is generally located at the
northeast corner of Copper Hill Drive and Decoro Drive, as shown in the attached annexation
area map.
Project Entitlements
Pursuant to the State of California Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization
Act of 2000, annexing cities are required to prezone land prior to annexation. The project
proposes a Prezone that would designate the subject site consistent with existing County zoning
and approved development under Los Angeles County.
Prezone 10-001
Under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles, the project area consists of the RPD — 5,000
zoning designation. The proposed prezone for the annexation area includes RS (Residential
Suburban) and RM (Residential Moderate) which affects approximately 68 acres and reflects the
existing development in the area. The attached Prezone Map identifies the proposed prezoning
for the annexation area.
ANALYSIS
The requested Prezone would be consistent with existing development and uses in the
Copperstone area. No new development is proposed with this change. The prezone designation
would not become effective until this area annexes and jurisdictional authority shifts to the City.
Unified Development Code Consistency
Prezone 10-001 is consistent with the City's adopted Unified Development Code (UDC) in that it
meets the purpose of the UDC by implementing the goals and objectives of the General Plan and
2
promotes orderly development through establishment of prezone designations that are consistent
with existing and approved development as well as with existing County zoning. A map that
depicts the prezone designations for the project is attached.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study, evaluating the physical changes of the proposed project on the environment,
was conducted as part of staff's review of the project. Included in this assessment was analysis
of the proposed Prezone for the Copperstone neighborhood. The Initial Study also analyzed a
General Plan Amendment, Sphere of Influence Amendment and annexation of the larger West
Creek and Tesoro del Valle neighborhoods. The Initial Study found that the project would not
have a significant effect on the environment, therefore, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration was prepared. The Negative Declaration for
this project was prepared and circulated for public review and comment from August 3, 2010 to
August 24, 2010.
Public Notice
As part of the review of the proposed Prezone, public notice was mailed to approximately 470
property owners within the project area. A public hearing sign was posted at the northwest
corner of Copper Hill Drive and Decore Drive. An 1/8 -page ad was placed in The Signal on
November 23, 2010, advertising the public hearing.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other actions as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
Annexation of residential property only typically does not provide sufficient revenue to offset the
cost of providing municipal services. Because this project consists of only 428 residences,
however, annexation of the Copperstone area is not expected to result in a significant negative
fiscal impact to the City.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance - Prezone
Exhibit A - Prezone Map
Annexation Area Map
Initial Study available in the City Clerk's Reading File
City Council Agenda Report - October 12, 2010 available in the City Clerk's Reading File
City Council Resolution (Adopting GPA and Negative Declaration) available in the City Clerk's
Reading File
City Council Resolution (LAFCO Application) available in the City Clerk's Reading File
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA TO APPROVE PREZONE NO. 10-001 (MASTER CASE 10-048) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 68 ACRES OF THE COPPERSTONE ANNEXATION AREA,
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COPPER HILL DRIVE AND
DECORO DRIVE, ALONG THE NORTHERLY 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. In May 2010, the City conducted an annexation survey of the West Creek/West Hills and
Copperstone/Copper Hill neighborhoods. Survey cards were mailed to 790 property
owners in both areas. Of those who responded, 92% support annexation and 8% were not
in support of annexation and six others requested additional information.
b. In June 2010, the City of Santa Clarita began preliminary work necessary prior to the City
Council initiating annexation proceedings, which included requests to amend the City's
General Plan Land Use Map (GPA 10-001) and Prezone (PRZ 10-001) to re -designate the
original 2,830 -acre project area with appropriate designations that would be activated
upon annexation.
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 a duly noticed public hearings on Prezone 10-001 on July
20, 2010. At the close of the public hearing on July 20, 2010, the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended that the City Council approve Prezone 10-00,1 for the West
Creek/Tesoro del Valle/Copperstone annexation area. Notice of said public hearing was
given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code and State law.
e. At the City Council meeting of August 24, 2010, the City Council opened the public
hearing on General Plan Amendment 10-001, Prezone 10-001, Annexation 10-001 and
Sphere of Influence Amendment 10-001 and continued the item to the meeting of
September 14, 2010. 1
f. On September 14, 2010, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
project and continued the item to the meeting of October 12, 2010.
I/
Ordinance
Page No. 2
g. On October 12, 2010, 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. The City Council approved General Plan Amendment 10-001, approved a
Resolution of Application for Annexation and Sphere of Influence Amendment for West
Creek/Tesoro/Copperstone and passed the prezone ordinance to second reading on
October 26, 2010.
h. On October 26, 2010, the City Council continued the second reading of the prezone
ordinance for the Copperstone/West Creek/Tesoro annexation area to the meeting of
November 9, 2010, at the request of Montalvo Properties, LLC.
On November 9, 2010, the City Council continued the second reading of the prezone
ordinance for the Copperstone/West Creek/Tesoro annexation area to a date uncertain
with direction to staff that annexation of the Copperstone neighborhood be processed
separately ahead of West Creek and Tesoro del Valle.
j. On December 14, 2010, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
Prezone for the Copperstone neighborhood, commencing at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall,
located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, City of Santa Clarita.
k. The documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the decision of the City Council is based in this matter, are on file within the
Community Development Department and are in the custody of the Director of
Community Development.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the hearing, and upon the
study and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds
as follows:
a. The purpose of the proposal is to prezone the subject site with City of Santa Clarita
zoning consisting of RS (Residential Suburban) and RM (Residential Moderate), in
conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 10-001, 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. 10-001.
C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65091
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 PRZ 10-001 has been prepared in compliance with the California
5
Ordinance
Page No. 3
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 approved the
Negative Declaration for the project as included in the agenda packet for the October 12,
2010 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
302, 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 10-001 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 community character or land uses in the area and
would not result in a substantive change to the existing zoning of the project site, as the
area is developed in substantial compliance with the proposed zones' development
standards.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby introduces and passes to second reading, this ordinance
approving Prezone 10-001 as described herein and shown on attached Exhibit A.
3
Ordinance
Page No. 4
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 , 20
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sarah P. Gorman, 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 , 20. That thereafter,
said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council on the
day of , 20 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
Ordinance
Page No. 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
I, Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Ordinance No. 10-`, adopted by the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita, CA on , 20^, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
.20
Sarah P. Gorman, Esq.
City Clerk
By
Susan Caputo
Deputy City Clerk
SACD\CURRENT\!2010\10-048 (West Creek Tesoro Annex)\City Council\12.14.10 Public Hearing for Copperstone\10-048 Ordinance. Copperstone Prezone.doc
G
¥�
F
■
�
�
�
¥�
F
5
■
C
!77(
5
�VERsroEOR
lu,;�-:77
rORMMER GROVE
`�..�
EF,yDR SUNNY GREEK°
MCBEpN PK4yy s° REp�"O
0
o Am
z
a
t1111R,
_
LJI
AU0.0Rh OR 0.0._ol
A113M - ?
0 ? 9
1
tF
of
N O
G N
o ° o
N
PIPm
i
e
e
ZAZ�
Ns
or
^ate,
o
e
n
N
� 09ITgR
N~ ; y
H
Cr
O
i, ,A
0
_
°
S
o
�
y
dYz
l
BRI0.05i
-� ---
�VERsroEOR
lu,;�-:77
rORMMER GROVE
`�..�
EF,yDR SUNNY GREEK°
MCBEpN PK4yy s° REp�"O
0
o Am
z
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT TITLE: Copperstone Prezone for purposes of Annexation
APPLICATION: MASTER CASE NO. 10-048
Prezone 10-001, General Plan Amendment 10-001, Annexation 10-001
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal for a prezone designation of the Copperstone neighborhood for the
purposes of annexation. Included in this proposal is a prezone for approximately 68 acres of developed land
containing 428 single-family and multi -family homes in the Copperstone neighborhood. Prezone 10-001 would
establish City of Santa Clarita prezone designations for the Copperstone area consistent with existing uses that
would only become effective upon completion of annexation. Not included in this prezone request are the West
Creek and Tesoro del Valle neighborhoods. No new development is proposed as part of this proposal.
Proposed Cid of Santa Clarita Prezone/General Plan Designations
Residential Suburban (RS) (5 units per acre)
Residential Moderate (RM) (11 units per acre)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On July 20, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment and Prezone for the West Creek/West Hills,
Copperstone/Copper Hill, and Tesoro del Valle neighborhoods for the purposes of annexation.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: On October 12, 2010, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and
authorized staff to submit annexation applications to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the.
Copperstone, West Creek, and Tesoro del Valle neighborhoods. However, due to ongoing discussions with the
West Creek and Tesoro neighborhoods, it is necessary to separate the Coppersone prezone request from the West
Creek and Tesoro annexation and process the Copperstone annexation separately.
PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed project is generally located at the northeast corner of Copper Hill Drive
and Decoro Drive and north of the North Valencia lI Specific Plan area, along the northerly boundary of the City
of Santa Clarita, in the unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles.
A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and is available for public
review. 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 140, Santa Clarita,
California. A copy of the Negative Declaration is also available at the Los Angeles County Library, Valencia
Branch at 23743 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California.
The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date:
DATE: December 14, 2010
TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 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 in written correspondence delivered to
the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the City of Santa Clarita, Department of
Community Development, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor, Room 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355; Telephone:
(661) 255-4330, James Chow, Associate Planner.
Dated: November 23, 2010
Sarah P. Gorman, Esq., City Clerk
Publish Date: November 23, 2010
\\CITYHALL2\DEPT\CD\CURRENT\!2010\I0-048 (WEST CREEK TESORO ANNEX)\CITY COUNCIL\CC.PUBLIC NOTICE.COPPERSTONE..12.10 -THE SIGNAL.DOC
V
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title/Master Case Number: West Creek/Tesoro del Valle Annexation — Master Case
10-048, Prezone 10-001, General Plan Amendment 10-
001, Annexation 10-001, Sphere of Influence
Amendment 10-001
Lead Agency name and address:
Contact person and phone number:
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
James Chow
Associate Planner
(661) 255-4330
Project location: The project area generally known as West Creek, West
Hills, Copperstone, and Tesoro del Valle, is generally
located east of the Lockheed Industrial Park, west of San
Francisquito Creek, and north of the North Valencia 2
Specific Plan area, along the northerly boundary of the
City of Santa Clarita, in the unincorporated area of the
County of Los Angeles.
Applicant's name and address:
General Plan designation:
The proposed project area can also be located on pages
4460 and 4279 of the 2010 Thomas Guide — Los
Angeles County Street Guide. The proposed project
area is also shown on Figure 1, as provided below.
City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
RE (Residential Estate); RL (Residential Low);
RS (Residential Suburban); CN (Commercial
Neighborhood); CC (Community Commercial);
BP (Business Park)
Zoning: Existing County of Los Angeles zoning for the project
area includes:
OS (Open Space);
A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, 2 -acre minimum lot size);
RPD (Residential Planned Development)
R-3 (Multi -Family Residential)
C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial)
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 2 of 47
Description of project and setting:
:x.
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 West Creek, West Hills, and Tesoro del Valle communities. The City
of Santa Clarita proposes to amend the City's adopted General Plan land use designations on
approximately 1,438 acres of land, prezone approximately 2,831 acres and annex approximately
1,500 acres of land along the northern boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, north of the North
Valencia 2 Specific Plan 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 (SOLA) is also proposed as a part of this project for approximately 625 acres of land
that is not within the City's Sphere of Influence.
Setting:
The proposed project consists of approximately 2,831 acres of partially developed land containing
approximately 2,154 developed residences, a 74,000 square -foot commercial center, two
elementary schools, a junior high school, and the 16.8 -acre West Creek Park and trails. The
partially built project area also includes two undeveloped commercial center sites, approximately
2,090 residences that have been approved but not yet built, and open space areas. The project
area is generally located north of the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan community, west of the San
Francisquito Canyon and Northpark communities, and east of the Lockheed Industrial Park and
Pitchess Detention Center. Major roadways through the subject annexation area include Copper
Hill Drive, West Hills Drive, Copperstone Drive, Rio Norte Drive, Tesoro del Valle Drive,
Avenida Rancho Tesoro, and Rancho Tesoro Drive.
The proposed annexation area can be summarized as having three distinct neighborhoods, which
include the West Creek/West Hills neighborhood, the Copperstone neighborhood, and the Tesoro
del Valle neighborhood, as described below.
West Creek/West Hills Neighborhood
The West Creek/West Hills neighborhood is generally located west of Tesoro del Valle Drive and
south of Copper Hill Drive and consists of approximately 966 acres of partially developed land.
The West Creek/West Hills neighborhood was part of Tract Map No. 52455, which was the
subdivision that created the neighborhood. This neighborhood currently consists of 649
residential units, a 74,000 square -foot retail center, the West Creek Academy elementary school,
Rio Norte Junior High School, trails, and the 16.8 -acre West Creek Park. The neighborhood also
includes two undeveloped commercial center sites along Copper Hill Drive as well as 1,850
residences that have been approved but not yet built.
2
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 3 of 47
Copperstone Neighborhood
The Copperstone neighborhood is generally located on the northeast corner of Copperhill and
Decoro Drive. The neighborhood consists of approximately 428 units in a 66 -acre subdivision.
This neighborhood was created by Tract Map No. 48202 and is fully built out with single-family
and multi -family residences.
Tesoro del Valle Neighborhood
The Tesoro del Valle neighborhood is generally located north of Copper Hill Drive and west of
San Francisquito Canyon Road and consists of approximately 1,800 acres of partially developed
land. The subdivision was created under Tract Map 51644, which includes a phasing plan for
four phases of development. The first phase, known as Planning Area A, is generally located in
the southern portion of the subdivision, around the Tesoro del Valle Drive and Avenida Rancho
Tesoro loop. Planning Area A consists of approximately 400 acres and is generally built out with
1,077 residences, a privately -owned swim and racquet club, a clubhouse, trails, and the County -
owned Tesoro Adobe Historic Park, and Tesoro del Valle Elementary School.
Planning Areas A and D also consist of two privately -owned park sites that have not yet been
built. These include a future 29 -acre park site located south of Rancho Tesoro Drive and a future
30 -acre park site located adjacent to the Edison easement and San Francisquito Creek. Planning
Areas B, C, and D are undeveloped areas of the Tesoro subdivision, and are primarily located in
the northern portion of the area. This area consists of approximately 1,400 acres of land that has
been approved for approximately 240 residential units that have not yet been built.
Project:
The proposed project area consists of a total of approximately 2,831 acres of unincorporated
territory. It was originally anticipated that the annexation would encompass this entire area;
however, based on correspondence received from Castaic Lake Water Agency, as noted in
Section XVII. Utilities and Service Systems of this Initial Study, a significant change in
circumstances has occurred since certification by Los Angeles County of the Final EIR for
Tesoro, which could result in a potentially significant impact relative to water supply. It was
subsequently determined that the annexation proposal would be modified to exclude land outside
of that agency's boundaries. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita proposes annexation of
approximately 1,500 acres of this land, which is generally located north of the North Valencia 2
Specific Plan area, along the northerly boundary of Santa Clarita, excluding the future phases of
Tesoro. 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.
Currently, the project area is included in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan planning area
and consists of City of Santa Clarita land use designations that include RE (Residential Estate),
RL (Residential Low), RS (Residential Suburban), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CC
(Community Commercial) and BP (Business Park). The land use designations for roughly half of
the project area would change with this project. The proposed General Plan Amendment involves
the amendment'of several GPA Areas that are illustrated in Figure 5 — General Plan Amendment
Map and is summarized in Table 1.0 below.
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOT 07-001
Page 4 of 47
Table 1.0
GPA Areas
GPA Area
Acreages
BP to RS
239.5
CC to OS
12.7
CN to RMH
15.9
RE to CN
22.6
RE to OS
85.9
RE to RH
8.9
RE to RM
52.0
RE to RMH
10.3
RE to RS
569.1
RL to CN
22.1
RL to OS
96.3
RL to RMH
39.1
RL to RS
22.2
RS to OS
95.7
RS to RH
12.1
RS to RM
117.2
RS to RMH
16.1
In addition, under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles, the project area consists of the
following zoning designations: A-2 (Heavy Agriculture), OS (Open Space), RPD (Residential
Planned Development), R-3 (Multi -Family Residential), and C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial).
The proposed prezone would correspond with the City of Santa Clarita zoning and designate the
project area consistent with County land use planning, approved County entitlements, and
existing development. The proposed prezone designations for the annexation area include CN,
RE, RS, RM (Residential Moderate), RMH (Residential Medium High), RH (Residential High)
and OS (Open Space). More specifically; the proposed prezone area is shown in Figure 3 and
summarized in Table 2.0 below.
Table 2.0
PREZONE
Prezone Area
Acreages
CN
44.7
OS
290.6
RE
1351.7
RH
21.0
RM
169.2
RMH
81.4
RS
872.7
The built portions as well as the entitled portions of the project area were developed under the Los
Angeles County land use planning policies and the development of the project area was reviewed
under Environmental Impact Reports prepared for the West Creek and Tesoro del Valle projects.
H
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 5 of 47
All applicable mitigation measures under the previous County certified EIRs would be accepted
by the City upon annexation. Appendix A to this Initial Study contains the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Programs (MMRP) for the West Creek Project (EIR State Clearinghouse #
1998021052) and the Tesoro Project (EIR State Clearinghouse # 1993021007).
As mentioned above, the annexation area also includes two undeveloped commercial center sites,
approximately 1,850 residences that have been approved but not yet built, and two future private
parks. No additional new development is proposed as a part of this project.
The proposed prezone designations reflect the existing development and/or the approved
development in the area. The densities for each of the proposed prezone designations can be
summarized as shown in Table 3.0 below.
Table 3.0
Prezone
designation
Density
OS
1 unit per 40 acres
RE
1 unit per 2 acres
RS
5 units per acre
RM
11 units per acre
RMH
20 units per acre
RH
28 units per acre
CN
0.375 : 1 Floor Area Ratio
GPA 10-001 and PRZ 10-001 propose to designate the project area so that City of Santa Clarita
residential, commercial, and open space land use and zoning designations are consistent with Los
Angeles County land use planning, approved County entitlements, and existing development.
The developed portions of the project area were built under the Los Angeles County development
standards and the development of the project area was reviewed under a separate environmental
document. The undeveloped portions of the project area were reviewed under the County of Los
Angeles development standards and would comply with these standards, unless otherwise
modified by the City. There is no additional new development proposed with this application to
annex approximately 1,500 to the City of Santa Clarita, amend the City's Sphere of Influence,
prezone the project area and amend the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Any future
development in the area that was not already approved by the County of Los Angeles would be
analyzed under a separate environmental review.
A component of the project is a Sphere of Influence Amendment. The existing City of Santa
Clarita Sphere of Influence currently extends north of the City limits, to Copper Hill Drive. The
proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment would amend this boundary and extend the area north
to the northern boundary of the project site, consistent with the boundary of the proposed
annexation. Approximately 625 acres of land within the proposed annexation area would be
included in this SOIA.
5
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 6 of 47
Surrounding land uses: Located to the north of the proposed project site is the
Angeles National Forest. Located to the east is the San
Francisquito Canyon community. To the south of the
project site is the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area,
located within the City of Santa Clarita. To the west of
the proposed project are the Lockheed Industrial Park
and the Pitchess Detention Center.
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Local Agency Formation Commission
Los Angeles County
700 N. Central Avenue
Glendale, CA 91203
L
Exhibit A - Project Location/Vicinity Map - West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
7—
JA
West Creek /Tesoro del Valle Area
Vicinity hla'p
VA " COO.TveCry del Vare
Santa Ciarta r-�ph ra of Inch -ma
Area,,,
Exhibit B - Existing Zoning Map - West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
West Creek 1 Tesoro del Valle Area
Existing Zoning
City 0! Sansa Grits iOi ;, Of ln?IW>IICV
Farad Outnes
r
City llatrnt+wtt
A-2 - Heavy ABuicultuts
C -I - KwObarh-ued Cammer-al
GS - Dom Spat*
R-Ia - le Malo-fomily 111,06"p.641
§iF-eZes+e+coria€PiaredL�cucic+amcr4x..
li;dd3_.4_ Eg t�
Exhibit C - Prezone Map - West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
o-
West Creek /Tesoro Adel delle Area
Pre -zone
West Quaj'rawa ddValla
�. City $1f fSAnI d Clafiro� Sph— r t I thani
Parc-,H 4ullinrs
City Ifoundaryl
C imm-asti.il JCNJ
a open S'pace ;057
ttrsir�rnli;yl l�y�dYraAlr(NAV�I
�pAirtli:)I fixifur� #lith I�liyil4':I
RCSI&nWI High tMI
ttrimNen ial Sukurbam 3µ}�
40 rnlill (Ntnik IR(I
ED
%F
AM
Fm
Am
€ata" PS
IiPs$
9%A PIs
2
Exhibit D - Existing General Plan Map - West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
West Creek 1 Tesoro del VaIle Area
Existing General Plan
i
i
+attc� l:r«wkT�sare• r�cl ti�iM �,,: � , � _,�„,�:
�
jF��rCt�%&Uk)In4S
City Rpwtidoty
�
_
j City o4 Samoa (IoH14 Sphert. (ti• IniiueWAF
e
l3lsinesa park fHPI
t
Comalle^rJol NOchlaurVoW i NI
Community Comrt-rOM (CCI
f
FbMid4rdldl F ump cnEi
Nie%ic3tn[inl Low (Rl�
r
Rpddc-,ndal Subusban.1,R%j
a
RE
j
dj
yl
1
C�1
6.0
J
i
-��.,. r,.. �.��s.. Vis. �'nnw•
L`
,4•
CN
t L
ap
t
1
_
I qV
Exhibit E - General Plan Amendment Map - West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
SANIA Cl A RIJA
West Creek /Tesoro del Valle Area
General Plan Amendment
Wcu CreeklTevorc dO Valle
L
J city of SAAW chifilw S016"M of iq4.*"fw —
'Ri
city Doumvry
op.. Sp.. Jos)
4e0denliol mutkirine
R06dofiqlAl Nifillium H*h JAMMI
Residenflal High ON I
Residential Submrban IRS)
RS lo 9V
061
EF to i,"5
HS Tu RM
I/ R!i R9
V
Ht it
Area,"
I
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 12 of 47
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 [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology /Soils
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water [ ] Land Use / Planning
Materials Quality
[ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population / Housing
[ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation/Traffic
[ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
B. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant. effect in this case because 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 environment, 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 environment, 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.
12
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 13 of 47
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, 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 Chow, Associate Planner Date
Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner Date
13
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 14 of 47
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [x]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
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 Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
d) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
14
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 15 of 47
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
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
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
f) Other
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
15
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 16 of 47
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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
protecting biological resources, such as a tree.
preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
g) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
significance of a historical resource as defined in .
'15064.5?
16
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 17 of 47
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
'l 5064.5?
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?
17
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 18 of 47
c) Be located on a geologic unit 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?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
I -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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I [x] []
f) Change in topography or ground surface 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. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS- Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the [ ] [ ]
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the [ ] [ ]
emissions of greenhouse gasses?
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
[X] I
[X] I
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 19 of 47
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[l I [x] I
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving explosion or the release
of hazardous materials into the environment (including,
but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or
radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
19
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 20 of 47
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ]
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil pipelines)?
j) Other [ ]
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste [ ]
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [ ]
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
20
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 21 of 47
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place, within a 100 -year flood hazard area, structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course
and 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?
21
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] [x] I
[] [] [x]
I
[] [] I
[x]
[ ] H H
[x]
[] H [xl
[]
[] [] []
[x]
[] [] [xI
[l
I r [x]
I
I I [x]
I
[l I [x]
I
I I [x]
I
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 22 of 47
iii) Significant environmentally 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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] [X] I
v) 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) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage
systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for
the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both
during construction and after project occupancy?
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [ ]
community (including a low-income or minority
community)?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or [ ]
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ]
plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the
project:
22
[ ] [X] [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 23 of 47
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
d) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
XII. NOISE - Would the project result in:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] I [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?
23
[] [] I [x]
[] [] [x] I
[] [] [x] I
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 24 of 47
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ] [ ] [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, [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project
result in:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
ii) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
iii) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
iv) Parks? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
24
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 25 of 47
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XV. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) 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)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level [ ]
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 [ ]
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature [ ]
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
25
[ ] [x]
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[x]
[ ] [ ]
[x]
[ ] [x]
[ ]
[ ] [x]
[ ]
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 26 of 47
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? [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
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 [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
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 [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
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 []
[ ] [x] []
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and [ ]
[ ] [x] [ ]
regulations related to solid waste?
We
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 27 of 47
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
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 [ ] [ ] I [x]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XIX. 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."
27
N
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 28 of 47
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS
Impacts related to aesthetics that were not addressed in previously
certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The proposed project consists
of the annexation, prezone, General Plan Amendment and Sphere of
Influence Amendment for the West Creek, West Hills, and Tesoro
del Valle areas which consists of approximately 2,831 acres of land
under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The annexation area is
partially developed with approximately 2,154 residences, a
commercial center, two elementary schools, a junior high school, and
the 16.8 -acre West Creek Park. The project proposes no new
development, however, uses that have already been approved but
have yet to be built include but are not limited to 2,090 residences,'
two commercial centers, and two privately -owned parks. -Prior to
development of additional uses within the undeveloped areas, the
design of any new development would be subject to the architectural
design guidelines and conditions of approval previously established
under. the County of Los Angeles. Where applicable, new
construction may be subject to the City's architectural design
guidelines. The annexation area is surrounded by and includes
several ridgelines. However, no new 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
statescenic highway. Although ridgelines are located within the
annexation area, no new development would occur as a part of this
project. Approximately 2,090 residences that have been previously
approved, have not yet been built. The eventual construction of these
residences will change the existing aesthetic environment. A
previous environmental review has been conducted on these unbuilt
residences. 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
M
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 29 of 47
Tesoro del Valle area is mostly built out, with the exception of 240
residences and two privately -owned park sites. The West
Creek/West Hills area is partially built out with the exception of
1,850 residences and two commercial centers, all of which was
analyzed as part of the environmental review conducted for the West
Creek Project. 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 night time views are anticipated to be less
than significant.
II. AGRICULTURAL Impacts related to agricultural resources that were not addressed in
RESOURCES previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. There are currently no
agricultural operations being conducted on the 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 Farmland 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 2,090 residences, two commercial center sites, two
privately -owned park sites, watershed areas, and hillside areas and
ridgelines. Although Planning Areas B, C, and D are zoned for
agricultural use (A-2-2), this area has been approved for residential
uses. The proposed designations would be consistent with the types
of uses and development currently on the project site or previously
approved for the site.
The north portion of the project area (Planning Areas B, C, and D) of
Tesoro del Valle) under the County of Los Angeles is zoned A-2, an
agricultural zoning designation for heavy agriculture, as shown in
Figure 2. However, the approved use for this area is for
approximately 239 residences and does not consist of agriculture use.
Furthermore, the City's General Plan does not identify any
agricultural land use designations for the project site and there is no
Williamson Act contract land for this area. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or
Williamson Act contracts, and would have a less than significant
29
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 30 of 47
impact.
III. AIR QUALITY Impacts related to air quality that were not addressed in previously
certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The project site is located
within the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The
proposal is to amend the SOI and annex 2,831 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 annexation of the project area. No new
development is proposed with this application. However, there are
approximately 2,090 residences, two commercial centers and two
parks that have yet to be built within the annexation area. 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
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). 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
County territory and City of Santa Clarita limits. No new
development is proposed with this annexation, prezone and General
Plan Amendment. There is however vacant land within the proposed
annexation area that may be developed as part of previously
approved and entitled projects including approximately 1,850
residences and two commercial center sites in the West Creek/West
Hills neighborhood, 240 residences and two park sites in the Tesoro
del Valle neighborhoods. 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
30
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 31 of 47
environmental review is necessary.
IV. BIOLOGICAL Impacts related to biological resources that were not addressed in
RESOURCES previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. No new development is
proposed with the project. The proposal would not have a substantial
adverse effect; either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. No significant impact on wildlife resource is anticipated to
occur.
The project entails the annexation of 2,831 acres of land into the City
of Santa Clarita and proposes no new development. However, 2,090
residences, two commercial centers, and two privately -owned parks
have yet to be developed in the project area. The proposed project
would not have a direct 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. No significant
impact related to federally protected wetlands is anticipated.
Upon annexation, 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 planning 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 annexation, any oak trees in
would be protected by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance
and Preservation and Protection Guidelines.
31
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 32 of 47
32
The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
The proposed application would not change any state or federally
designation on the project area. No new 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
Map.
Impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant.
No further environmental review is necessary.
V. CULTURAL
Impacts related to cultural resources that were not addressed in
RESOURCES
previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project
would not directly cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of any known cultural or archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the Government Code. However,
future development of still -undeveloped areas within the West Creek,
West Hills, and Tesoro del Valle neighborhoods 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 10=001 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
Impacts related to geology and soils that were not addressed in
SOILS
previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project
consists of an annexation of the West Creek, West Hills, and Tesoro
del Valle 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
completed construction of the West Creek project. 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.
32
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 33 of 47
The proposed project does not include any new development
proposals. 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
earthquake -related causes on development of the site was included in
a separate environmental 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
completed construction of the West Creek project. Any new
development that has not already been entitled 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.
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 new 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
proj ect.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related
to Geology and Soils. No further environmental review is necessary.
VII. GREENHOUSE "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat
GAS EMISSIONS near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are
implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global
warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the
temperature of the earth's atmosphere. The principal greenhouse
gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous
oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e).
Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor
33
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 34 of 47
vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single
largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half
of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are
the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-
fourth of total emissions.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at
least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG
statues and executive orders (EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) _ 32,
Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO S-20-06
and EO S-01-07.
AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one
of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that
California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to
maintain California's reputation as a "national and international
leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship."
Most notably AB 32 mandates that by 2020, California's GHG
emissions be reduced to 1990 levels.
The proposed annexation, prezone, General Plan Amendment, and
Sphere of Influence Amendment does not propose any new
development. The developed portions of the project area were built
under the Los Angeles County development standards and the
development of the project area was reviewed under a separate
environmental document. The undeveloped portions of the project
area were reviewed under the County of Los Angeles development
standards and would comply with these standards, unless otherwise
modified by the City. Any future development in the area, that was
not already approved by the County of Los Angeles, would be
analyzed under a separate environmental review. The proposal to
prezone the project site and adopt a General Plan Amendment for the
purposes of annexation would not generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment. The proposed project would not conflict
with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses
Therefore, the proposed amendments are anticipated to have a less
than significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions.
VIII. HAZARDS AND Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that were not
HAZARDOUS addressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the
MATERIALS proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The
proposed project would not store, use, or generate hazardous
34 '
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001; SOI 07-001
Page 35 of 47
materials, and would not utilize any acutely hazardous materials. No
new development is proposed with this prezone and General Plan
Amendment application. 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 environment 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 environment (including, but not limited to oil,
pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation). No new development is
proposed as part of this project.
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
65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment 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 inr the project area.
No new 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.
35
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 36 of 47
The prezone and General Plan Amendment would not expose people
to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g. electrical
transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines).
Impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials are not anticipated
to be significant. No further environmental review is necessary.
IX. HYDROLOGY Impacts related to hydrology and water quality that were not
AND WATER addressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the
QUALITY proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The
proposed annexation, prezone and General Plan Amendment would
not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
No new development is proposed. The project would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted).
The proposed City of Santa Clarita zoning and General Plan
designations would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site
because no new development is proposed as a part of this application
for annexation.
No new development is proposed, therefore, this project would not
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. No further
environmental 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
36
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 37 of 47
land use planning in the project area.
No new development is proposed with this application. The
application would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary 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 new development is proposed. The project would not create
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow in the project area.
No new 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, channel creek or river is proposed. No
impact would result from the proposed annexation, SOI amendment,
prezone, or General Plan Amendment.
The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to
Stormwater Management. The project consists of no new
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 stormwater program provides
street catch -basin cleaning a minimum of once a year, thereby
reducing trash, debris, and potential neighborhood flooding.
Furthermore, because no new 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 harmful increase in the flow
37
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 38 of 47
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 environmental review is
X. LAND USE AND Impacts related to land use and planning that were not addressed in
PLANNING previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. The project does not
propose any new development with this annexation, Sphere of
Influence Amendment, prezone and General Plan Amendment. The
proposed open space, 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, a portion of 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. More
specifically, the majority of the Tesoro neighborhood falls within the
CSD. This portion of the project site is exempt from the provisions
of the CSD since this residential subdivision was approved prior to
establishment of 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 West Creek/West Hills, Copperstone
and Tesoro areas 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
91:3
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 39 of 47
significant impact as it is consistent with existing County of Los
Angeles land use plan, policy, and regulations.
Currently the area consists of City General Plan land use designations
that include BP, CN, CC, RS, RL, and RE. 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 which can be summarized as
follows:
Table 1.0
GPA Areas
GPA Area
Acreages
BP to RS
239.5
CC to OS
12.7
CN to RMH
15.9
RE to CN
22.6
RE to OS
85.9
RE to RH
8.9
RE to RM
52.0
RE to RMH
10.3
RE to RS .
569.1
RL to CN
22.1
RL to OS
96.3
RL to RMH
39.1
RL to RS
22.2
RS to OS
95.7
RS to RH
12.1
RS to RM
66.5
RS to RMH
16.1
The proposed General Plan designations would be consistent with the
existing approved or entitled development within the proposed
annexation area. The attached General Plan Amendment 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: A-2
(Heavy Agriculture), OS (Open Space), RPD (Residential Planned
Development), R-3 (Multi -Family Residential), and C-2
(Neighborhood Commercial). 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 annexation area
include CN, RE, RS, RM, RMH, RH and OS. The attached prezone
39
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 40 of 47
40
map identifies the proposed zoning for the annexation 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 San Francisquito 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 planning. No further environmental review is
necessary.
XI. MINERAL AND
Impacts related to mineral and energy resources that were not
ENERGY
addressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the
RESOURCES
proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The
proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state. No further environmental review is necessary.
The proposed SOI Amendment, Annexation, Prezone and General
Plan Amendment 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 manner. No further environmental review is necessary.
No impact related to mineral and energy resources is anticipated. No
further environmental review is necessary.
XII. NOISE
Impacts related to noise that were not addressed in previously
certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The proposed project proposes
no new 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 new
development is proposed with the annexation, there would be no
exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.
The project would not create a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
40
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 41 of 47
41
No new 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 environmental
review is necessary.
XIII. POPULATION
Impacts related to population and housing that were not addressed in
AND HOUSING
previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. No new development is
proposed with the prezone and General Plan Amendment. The
annexation area currently consists of approximately 2,154 residences,
with another 2,090 residences approved but not yet built. The project
area contains and is surrounded by infrastructure that is adequate for
the existing and 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 environmental review is necessary.
XIV. PUBLIC
Impacts related to public services that were not addressed in
SERVICES
previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would
not create any significant adverse impacts to public services. School
41
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 42 of 47
district and many government services will remain unaffected. A
temporary fire station is located along Copper Hill Drive, near
Camino Del Arte, as 'a permanent station is being built. As
mentioned in the Tesoro EIR MMRP, the developer is required to
pay a Fire mitigation fee for the expansion of fire protection
facilities.
The annexation area will experience an increase in police patrols and
decrease in non -emergency response time due to the City's increased
police service levels under its contract with the L.A. County Sheriff's
Department. Upon annexation, the responsibilities for road
maintenance, streetlight patrols and maintenance of the 16.8 -acre
West Creek Park would transfer to the City. The annexation would
result in a negotiated tax transfer between the City of Santa Clarita
and the County of Los Angeles which would be used to partially fund
public services.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related
to public services. No further environmental review is necessary.
XV. RECREATION Impacts related to recreation that were not addressed in previously
certified E1Rs that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. 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 the 16.8 -acre West Creek Park located
adjacent to Rio Norte Junior High School, which is in good
condition. In addition, two 30 -acre privately -owned park sites that
have been approved but not yet built, are included in the annexation
area. The park sites and their associated impacts have been analyzed
as part of the Tesoro EIR. It is not anticipated that there would be
any additional adverse physical effects as a result of annexation these
park sites. Upon annexation, the responsibility for maintenance of
parks would transfer to the City. As the West Creek and Tesoro
projects build out, city -level park impact fees would be paid. Impacts
related to the expansion or upgrade of recreational facilities or parks
42
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 43 of 47
is considered less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related
to recreation. No further environmental review is necessary.
XVI. Impacts related to transportation/traffic that were not addressed in
TRANSPORTATION / previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
TRAFFIC are considered to be less than significant. The project site has been
developed with residential, commercial and open space uses which
were analyzed under separate environmental documents. 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 new development is proposed, therefore, the prezone and General
Plan Amendment would not exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a 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 new 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 new 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 new 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
43
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 44 of 47
for pedestrians. Therefore, impacts 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.
XVII. UTILITIES Impacts related to utilities and service systems that were not
AND SERVICE addressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the
SYSTEMS proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The
project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, as much of the site
is already developed.
No additional new development is proposed with this SOI
amendment, annexation, prezone and General Plan Amendment. The
most northerly portion of the area proposed under General Plan
Amendment 10-001 and Prezone 10-001 is located outside the
boundaries of the local water wholesaler, Castaic Lake Water Agency
(CLWA). According to CLWA, as a result of a federal court
decision which reduced State Water Project pumping from the
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta in order to protect the federally
endangered Delta smelt, the portion of the project located outside of
CLWA's boundaries does not currently have a verifiable water
supply. If this area were included in the annexation proposal as
originally contemplated, it could potentially result in a significant
impact related to water supply; therefore, this area has been excluded
from the proposed annexation and the future phases of Tesoro are
anticipated to remain under Los Angeles County jurisdiction. In
addition, the General Plan land use designation of RE under the
City's adopted General Plan for the area affected by the future phases.
of Tesoro would remain unchanged and prezoning this land would
have no, force or effect unless it were to be annexed to the City;
therefore, the project as proposed would not result in direct or
indirect impacts to water supply.
The project 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.
The project would not 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
because no new development is proposed.
i
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001;
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 45 of 47
Given the City's modified annexation boundary, as discussed above,
impacts related to water supply that were not addressed in previously
certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant because the area outside the
boundaries of CLWA are not proposed .for annexation or sphere of
influence amendment and therefore development of this area could
not take place in the City of Santa Clarita. In addition, approval of
the proposed General Plan Amendment and Prezone would have no
direct or indirect significant environmental impacts associated with
water supply in that it would remain under Los Angeles County
jurisdiction. Water supply was previously evaluated as part of the
West Creek project and Tesoro EIRs and mitigation measures are
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for
each project, which are included in Appendix A. The proposed
General Plan Amendment, Prezone, Sphere of Influence Amendment
and Annexation do not include any new development, and therefore,
will not result in significant impacts to water supply. Prior to the
recordation of a final map for the remaining undeveloped portions of
the annexation area, the developer(s) will have to obtain a will -serve
letter from the area's water service provider. Compliance with this
requirement and with the project's mitigation measures will not result
in significant impacts.
The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves the project that it does not have
adequate capacity to serve existing and projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments.
Under the West Creek and Tesoro EIRs, mitigation measures are
identified to reduce solid waste disposal. The project area is
currently served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project site's construction -related solid waste
disposal needs. However, both EIRs identify significant cumulative
impacts on solid waste as a result of both projects, due to the fact that
landfill space is finite and that other disposal alternatives have not
been identified to adequately serve existing and future uses. The
proposed project, which consists of a Prezone, General Plan
Amendment and Sphere of Influence Amendment, would not directly
result in a significant impact related to 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.
45
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 46 of 47
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.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impacts related
to utilities and service systems is anticipated. No further
environmental review is necessary.
XVIII. MANDATORY
The project includes a request for a prezone, General Plan
FINDINGS OF
Amendment, Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation and
SIGNIFICANCE
does not propose any new development that has not already been
reviewed and approved under the County. The proposed project
would not have the potential to degrade -the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory. Any future development would be
reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with all previously
approved development and environmental standards and design
guidelines, including mitigation measures as required by the County.
Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact related
to degradation of the quality of the environment or habitat of fish and
wildlife species.
The project does not propose new development and would not have
impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
Any new development that has not already been approved would go
through a design review process and would have to adhere to the
development standards and the City's General Plan. Therefore, the
project would not result in a significant impact.
The proposed. project would not include any new development. The
project consists of a prezone, General Plan Amendment and Sphere
of Influence Amendment for the purpose of annexation and would
not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related
to the Mandatory findings of significance. No further environmental
review is necessary.
XIX. DEPARTMENT
The project includes a request for a prezone, General Plan
Y
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 47 of 47
OF FISH AND GAME Amendment and Sphere of Influence Amendment for the purpose of
`DE MINIMUS' annexation and does not propose any new development that has not
FINDING already been reviewed and approved under the County. The project
would not have an adverse affect either individually or cumulatively,
on fish and wildlife resources because the project does not include
new development . and involves a General Plan Amendment and
prezone for the purpose of annexation. Wildlife shall be defined for
the purpose of this question. as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability."
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\CURRENT\!2010\10-048 (WEST CREEK TESORO ANNEX)\ENVIRONMENTAL\INITIAL STUDY AND NEG DEC\AUGUST 3.2010 COPY-UNITIAL STUDY WEST CREEK
TESORO.DOC
47
Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by: James Chow
DATE: October 12, 2010
SUBJECT: WEST CREEK/TESORO DEL VALLE/COPPERSTONE
ANNEXATION, MASTER CASE NO. 10-048, —
CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 10-001,
PREZONE 10-001, AND REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO
SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION 10-001 AND
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT 10-001 TO THE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
1) Conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment (GPA)
10-001 for approximately 1,438 acres of land (Areas A-E), generally located east of the
Lockheed Industrial Center and west of San Francisquito Creek, along the northerly boundary
of the City of Santa Clarita, and adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project.
2) Introduce and pass to second reading, on October 26, 2010, an Ordinance entitled: "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA TO APPROVE PREZONE NO. 10-001 (MASTER CASE 10-048) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 2,830 ACRES OF THE WEST CREEK/TESORO DEL VALLE
ANNEXATION AREA, GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF THE LOCKHEED
INDUSTRIAL CENTER AND WEST OF SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, ALONG THE
NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA."
3) Adopt a Resolution requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to amend
the City's sphere of influence to include approximately 2,112 acres of land, north of the
City's existing sphere of influence boundary; and authorize staff to submit applications to
LAFCO to annex approximately 1,505 acres of land, including the Copperstone/Copper Hill,
West Creek/West Hills, and Tesoro del Valle neighborhoods as follows:
a. File an application with LAFCO for annexation of the Copperstone/Copper Hill
neighborhood (Area A).
b. File an application with LAFCO for annexation of the West Creek/West Hills
neighborhood (Areas B, C, and D), subject to meeting with Newhall Land/Lennar.
c. File an application with LAFCO for annexation of the Tesoro del Valle
neighborhood (Area E), subject to meeting with the Tesoro del Valle
Homeowners' Association.
BACKGROUND
The proposed project was presented to the Planning Commission on July 20, 2010, where the
Commission conducted a public hearing on the project. Correspondence submitted to the
Commission included letters from the Tesoro HOA board and Newhall Land, who both opposed
the timing of annexation. The Commission, in a 5-0 vote, recommended to the City Council that
it approve the General Plan Amendment and Prezone for the West Creek/Tesoro del Valle
neighborhood for the purposes of annexation.
This item was originally scheduled before the City Council on August 24, 2010. Due to the
lateness of the hour, the City Council opened the public hearing on the project and continued the
item to the meeting of September 14, 2010.
At the September 14th Council meeting, the Council suggested that they may look at annexing
some of these areas separately. In response, staff prepared the attached Annexation Area map,
which depicts Areas A-E as described below:
Area A: Copperstone/Copper Hill Community (fully developed)
Area C: Developed portions of West Creek/West Hills
Areas B & D: Undeveloped portions of West Creek
Area E: Developed portions of Tesoro del Valle
At the request of the Tesoro HOA Board of Directors, the Council continued the project to the
October 12, 2010 Council meeting. The continuance also allowed time for staff to meet with the
residents of the Tesoro del Valle neighborhood, answer their questions about annexation, and
report back to the Council.
On September 15, 2010, staff conducted a community meeting that was attended by
approximately 50 Tesoro residents, along with Tesoro HOA Board members. Staff developed a
list of questions it had received from residents of this area, and provided answers to each of these
questions. During the community meeting, it became clear that the residents in attendance do not
support their Board's position with regard to annexation and expressed their desire to be. annexed
at this time.
On September 28, 2010, City staff was invited to an HOA board meeting held by the Tesoro del
Valle Homeowners' Association to answer questions on the issue of annexation. This meeting
was attended by approximately 30 residents, the HOA board, as well as representatives from
Supervisor Antonovich's office. At the meeting, the HOA board made a
presentation highlighting certain improvements and enhancements to their community that would
be provided by Montalvo Properties (owner of the future phases of Tesoro), upon completion of
their proposed 700 -lot subdivision, currently under review by Los Angeles County Regional
Planning for the undeveloped area of Tesoro. Following the HOA's presentation, the residents in
attendance spoke out against their HOA board and the Board's objection to annexation. The
residents also voiced their support of annexation to the City at this time.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION
The subject site consists of approximately 2,830 acres of partially developed land containing
approximately 2,150 residences, a 7.5 -acre commercial center, two elementary schools, a junior
high school, and West Creek park. The site also includes two undeveloped commercial sites and
approximately 2,090 residences that have been approved by Los Angeles County but not yet
built. The project area is generally located north of Decoro Drive, west of the San Francisquito
Creek, and east of the Lockheed Industrial Park, as shown in the attached vicinity map.
The proposed annexation area can be summarized as having three distinct neighborhoods, which
include the Copperstone/Copper Hill neighborhood (Area A), the West Creek/West Hills
neighborhood (Area B, C, and D), and the Tesoro del Valle neighborhood (Area E), as shown in
the attached Annexation Area map.
Project Entitlements
Pursuant to the State of California Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization
Act of 2000, annexing cities are required to prezone land prior to annexation. The project
proposes a GPA and Prezone that would designate the subject site consistent with existing
County zoning and approved development under Los Angeles County as follows:
C`.P A 1 n -nn 1
The project area currently consists of City of Santa Clarita land use designations that include
Residential Estate (RE), Residential Low (RL), Residential Suburban (RS), Commercial
Neighborhood (CN), Community Commercial (CC), and Business Park (BP). The land use
designations for roughly half of the project area would not change with this project. However, the
proposed GPA involves the amendment of several GPA Areas, totaling approximately 1,438
acres to reflect the built condition and/or approved development in the project area. The
proposed GPA areas are illustrated in the attached General Plan Amendment map.
Prezone 10-001
Under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles, the project area consists of the following
zoning designations: OS, A-2, RPD, R-3, and C-2. The proposed prezone for the annexation area
includes OS, RE, RS, RM, RMH, and RH, which affects approximately 2,830 acres and reflects
the existing development and/or the approved development in the area. The attached Prezone
Map identifies the proposed prezoning for the annexation area.
Annexation 10-001 and Sphere of Influence Amendment 10-001
This is a request for authorization from the City Council to submit an application to the Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the annexation of approximately 1,505 acres to the
City of Santa Clarita. This also includes a request to amend the City's sphere of influence to
include 2,112 acres of land, north of the City's existing sphere of influence boundary, as shown
in the attached Sphere of Influence Amendment map.
ANAT VRTC
The requested General Plan Amendment and Prezone would be consistent with existing and
approved development and uses in the West Creek/Tesoro del Valle area. No new development
is proposed with this change. The proposed General Plan Amendment would be in place upon
adoption of the Resolution, since this site is within the City's adopted planning area. However,
the prezone designation would not become effective until this area annexes and jurisdictional
authority shifts to the City.
The 2,830 acres included in Prezone 10-001 and General Plan Amendment 10-001, as
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on July 20, 2010, may still be approved
by the Council as these designations would only affect land that comes under the City's
jurisdiction.
As a part of its evaluation of an annexation, LAFCO must find that the annexing city is able to
ensure sufficient municipal services are available to serve the area under consideration. The City
has received correspondence from a major land owner, Montalvo Properties/Suncal Tesoro,
requesting that their remaining 1,325 acres of undeveloped property affected by Tract 51644
(Tesoro) remain under the County jurisdiction. CLWA has advised the City that a majority of this
area is outside of its service boundary and lacks available water supply. Accordingly, staff is
recommending that the Council take action to initiate annexation only on 1,505 acres at this time,
excluding Montalvo's 1,325 acres.
Correspondence has also been received from Newhall Land opposing the timing of the
annexation of approximately 350 residential lots as well as other approvals they are currently
processing through the County. The City is currently in the process of scheduling meetings with
representatives of Newhall Land to discuss options to address their concerns.
Because residents in Areas A-E have expressed strong support for annexation, staff recommends
that the Council adopt a Resolution of Application for Areas A-E. However, Newhall Land and
the Tesoro HOA Board have objected to the timing of annexation of West Creek and Tesoro,
respectively. Staff believes that agreements with representatives from both Newhall Land and
Tesoro's HOA board could be reached with further discussion. Therefore, it is staff s
recommendation that the Council approve a Resolution of Application for Areas A-E and direct
staff to file an application to LAFCO at this time for the Copperstone neighborhood and to file
applications for the West Creek and Tesoro neighborhoods following additional meetings
between the City and Newhall Land and the Tesoro Board.
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Amendment 10-001 is consistent with the goals and 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 it would maintain the character of the existing neighborhoods through similar
land use designations and design standards as those approved by Los Angeles County.
One Valley One Vision (OVOV) Consistency
Although OVOV is not yet adopted, the proposed General Plan Amendment would also be
consistent with the land use designations proposed in OVOV, the joint City and County General
Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment would be consistent with the proposed OS, RR4
(Rural Residential), UR2, UR3, UR4, and UR5 (Urban Residential) and CN land use
designations under OVOV, which permit the existing and entitled uses in the project area.
Unified Development Code Consistency
Prezone 10-001 is consistent with the City's adopted Unified Development Code (UDC) in that it
meets the purpose of the UDC by implementing the goals and objectives of the General Plan and
promotes orderly development through establishment of prezone designations that are consistent
with existing and approved development as well as with existing County zoning. A map that
depicts the prezones and a map showing the existing Los Angeles County zoning designations
for the project are attached.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study, evaluating the physical changes of the proposed project on the environment,
was conducted as part of staff s review of the project. Included in this assessment was analysis
of the proposed GPA, Prezone, SOIA, and annexation of the West Creek/West Hills,
Copperstone/Copper Hill, and Tesoro del Valle neighborhoods. The Initial Study found that the
project would not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore, in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration was prepared. The Initial Study
also recognized two previously certified EIRs by the County as a part of the West Creek and
Tesoro projects. Because these two developments have not been completely built out, the Initial
Study includes a statement that all applicable mitigation measures under the previous
County -certified EIRs for the West Creek project (EIR State Clearinghouse #1998021052) and
the Tesoro project (EIR State Clearinghouse 41993021007) would be accepted and required by
the City upon annexation. Appendix A of the Initial Study prepared contains the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MMRP) for both the West Creek and Tesoro subdivisions.
The Negative Declaration for this project was prepared and circulated for public review and
comment from August 3, 2010 to August 24, 2010.
Public Notice
As part of the review of the proposed annexation, Prezone, and General Plan Amendment, public
notice was mailed to approximately 1,900 property owners within the project area. Four public
hearing signs were posted at various locations throughout the project site. An 1/8 -page ad was
placed in The Signal on August 3, 2010, advertising the public hearing.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other actions as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
Annexation of the West Creek/Tesoro del Valle/Copperstone area would not result in a negative
fiscal impact to the City.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution - (Adopting GPA and Negative Declaration)
Exhibit A - GPA Map
Resolution - Resolution of Application (LAFCO Application)
Exhibit A - Annexation and Sphere of Influence Amendment Map
Ordinance -
Exhibit A - Prezone Map
Annexation Areas A-E Map
Sphere of Influence Amendment Map
Initial Study
Correspondence available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Planning Commission Resolution - July 20, 2010 available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Planning Commission Staff Report - July 20, 2010 available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Tesoro del Valle EIR Mitigation Monitoring Report available in the City Clerk's Reading File
West Creek EIR Mitigation Monitoring Report available in the City Clerk's Reading File
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MASTER CASE 10-048, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 10-
001, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AFFECTING 2,830 ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF THE LOCKHEED INDUSTRIAL CENTER AND WEST
OF SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, AND ADOPTING 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. In November 2009, as part of the Westside Governance Advisory Vote, the Tesoro del
Valle voters decided whether they would prefer to remain as part of unincorporated Los
Angeles County, incorporate into a new separate city, or annex into the City of Santa
Clarita. Of those who voted regarding the annexation measure, 83% were in support of
annexing into the City of Santa Clarita. Regarding the other two measures which include
remaining as a community in unincorporated L.A. County (Measure A) and incorporating
into a new separate city (Measure B). Approximately 73% voted no on remaining as part
of L.A. County and 89% voted no on incorporation.
b. In May 2010, the City conducted an annexation survey of the West Creek/West Hills and
Copperstone/Copper Hill neighborhoods. Survey cards were mailed to 790 property
owners in both areas. Of those who responded, 92% support annexation and 8% were
not in support of annexation and six others requested additional information.
c. In June 2010, the City of Santa Clarita began preliminary work necessary prior to the
City Council initiating annexation proceedings, which included requests to amend the
City's General Plan Land Use Map (GPA 10-001) and Prezone (PRZ 10-001) to re-
designate the 1,437 -acre project area with appropriate designations that would be
activated upon annexation.
d. The subject site is located adjacent to the northern boundary line of the City of Santa
Clarita, generally located east of the Lockheed Industrial Center and west of San
Francisquito Creek.
e. The subject site consists of approximately 2,830 acres of land contiguous to the corporate
limits of the City of Santa Clarita.
f. The subject site is partially built out with residential, commercial, institutional and open
space uses. No new development is proposed with this land use designation change.
g. The subject site is included in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan planning area and
Resolution
Page No. 2
consists of the Residential Estate (RE), Residential Low (RL), Residential Suburban
(RS), Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Community Commercial (CC), and Business
Park (BP) land use designations.
h. Surrounding land uses to the north of the project consist of vacant land located in the
Angeles National Forest, within unincorporated County territory. The land uses to the
east include the San Francisquito Canyon community, located within the unincorporated
County territory and the Northpark community, zoned RS (Residential Suburban), within
the City of Santa Clarita. The land uses to the south, zoned SP (Specific Plan), consists
of residential uses and Valencia High School, in the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan
community, within the City of Santa Clarita. The area to the west of the subject site is
the Lockheed Industrial Center, zoned BP (Business Park) as well as vacant property
located within unincorporated County territory.
Proposed General Plan Amendment 10-001 involves the amendment of the land use
designation for the West Creek/Tesoro del Valle area that includes 1,438 acres of land, as
shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
On June 29, 2010, an environmental Initial Study was prepared for GPA 10-001, PRZ
10-001, Annexation 10-001, and Sphere of Influence Amendment 10-001 for the West
Creek/Tesoro 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 21 -day public review period from June 29,
2010 to July 20, 2010, and from August 2, 2010 to August 24, 2010, and posted with the
County Clerk.
1. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on GPA 10-001 on July 20,
2010. 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,
the staff report, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and public testimony
on the proposal. After closing the public hearing on this matter, the Planning
Commission unanimously recommended approval of General Plan Amendment 10-001
and adoption of the Negative Declaration prepared for the project to the City Council.
in. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on GPA 10-001 on August 24, 2010
at 6:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita.
The City Council public hearing was advertised as an 1/8 page ad in The Signal
newspaper on August 3, 2010, by direct first-class mail to property owners of the subject
site, and by four sign postings throughout the project site.
Resolution
Page No. 3
n. At the City Council meeting of August 24, 2010, the City Council opened the public
hearing on General Plan Amendment 10-001, Prezone 10-001, Annexation 10-001 and
Sphere of Influence Amendment 10-001 and continued the item to the meeting of
September 14, 2010.
o. On September 14, 2010, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
project and continued the item to the meeting of October 12, 2010.
p. On October 12, 2010, 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.
q. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65091,
and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL 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 10-001, PRZ 10-001, Annexation 10-001, SOI Amendment 10-001
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 October 12, 2010 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 302, 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 10-001 is consistent with the goals, policies and
objectives of the General Plan in that the proposed land use change is consistent with
existing and/or approved development for the subject site, maintaining the character of
the existing neighborhoods, consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.15; and
b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358 (a), General Plan Amendment 10-001 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
Resolution
Page No. 4
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 City Council and on its behalf, the City
Council further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the City's
General Plan.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves Master Case 10-048 which includes General
Plan Amendment 10-001 (herein included as Exhibit A) to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
for the area known as the West Creek/Tesoro del Valle Area and adopts 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 52010.
I, Sarah P. Gorman, 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 , 2010 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
\\CITYHALL2\Dept\CD\CURRENT\!2010\10-048 (West Creek Tesoro Annex)\City CouncilTublic Hearing\10-048 CC.Resolution.GPA.EnVironmental.doc
Exhibit A of Resolution 10-
" S+1 TA CLARITR
West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
General Plan Amendment
a Wnt Geeh/4wro dd VNk w
.�
L.J [Hy of SaeAa O.M. Sp"'..1 tnd.n[.
fJtY* ovtfi w.'Iw....-
.vr�n.r-A.�
_ Cemmeseai NeipRborho.d (CK)
_ Op.e Spr. los)
Raslden4al Mad.nf. IRM)
�; Reldenwl Mediu�d HRh (AIM{
— aold.nwl My IRM)
RnldenWlS b6 .n(AS)
aasid.nRal Poq. (AF)
RE
tL RMCh
m
b iN
i
Ama, �
r'�
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
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 ANNEX
CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY KNOWN AS WEST
CREEK/TESORO/COPPERSTONE TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA (MASTER CASE
NO. 10-048)
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 on approximately 2,112
acres and annexation on approximately 1,505 acres of unincorporated county territory; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited, and a map of the boundaries is
set forth in Exhibit A, attached and by this reference incorporated; and
WHEREAS, the short form designation of the proposal is Annexation No. 10-001 (Master
Case No. 10-048), which includes the area known as West Creek/Tesoro del Valle/Copperstone; and
WHEREAS, no terms or conditions are requested by the property owners, for this proposed
annexation at this time; and
WHEREAS, in November 2009, as part of the Westside Governance Advisory Vote, the
Tesoro del Valle voters decided whether they would prefer to remain as part of unincorporated Los
Angeles County, incorporate into a new separate city, or annex into the City of Santa Clarita. Of
those who voted regarding the annexation measure, 83% were in support of annexing into the City of
Santa Clarita. Regarding the other two measures which include remaining as a community in
unincorporated L.A. County (Measure A) and incorporating into a new separate city (Measure B), the
majority of Tesoro voters voted no on each measure. Approximately 73% voted no on remaining as
part of L.A. County and about 89% voted no on incorporation; and
WHEREAS, in May 2010, the City conducted an annexation survey of the West Creek/West
Hills and Copperstone/Copper Hill neighborhoods. Survey cards were mailed to 790 property
owners in both areas. Of those who responded, 92% support annexation and 8% were not in support
of annexation and six others requested additional information; and
WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation are to create a logical extension of City
boundaries, to respond to the property owners' request for local representation and to promote the
efficient provision of municipal services in the affected territory; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has considered all evidence, oral
and documentary, and is advised of the foregoing.
Resolution
Page No. 2
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
Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County is hereby requested to initiate
proceedings for the annexation of that territory or a part thereof, as shown in Exhibit A, incorporated
by this reference, according to the terms and conditions stated above, if any, with notice and hearing
by the Local Agency Formation Commission, and in the manner provided by the Cortese -Knox
Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Manager, or designee,
to file the application(s) with LAFCO to annex the subject site to the City of Santa Clarita on behalf
of the City Council, as one or more annexations.
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.
Resolution
Page 3
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and certify this
record to be a full, true, correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2010.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sarah P. Gorman, 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 , 2010 by the
following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
Exhibit A of Resolution 10 -
'°"SANTA CI.ARUA
West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
Nee[ CM Team Mi Vale Proper AmexaO AMD (1.505.72 acwey _
i..J Conan Gty or Banh Clams 5ortem cf mlluenca (Sdy 1 f
PMPO +d SO, AmenAmom 12,112 50 Dow
Ury Boundary m�au+.rna•°.:+ow I I
N .ra�r+.re....•___I 1
i
i I
.. ._.._.._..I
.1
I
• }r
'
$
i
1
S
i
�
1
w
f
�
Ir:
e
f
M1 1
f
�T 4y •
I• r. n � F � I
I sl`