Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 11 038 N COPPERHILL ANNEX (2)k Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: NORTH COPPERHILL ANNEXATION; MASTER CASE 11 -03 8 INCLUDING PREZONE 11-001, ANDA REQUEST TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION 11-002 TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1) Conduct the public hearing; 2) Adopt a resolution approving Master Case 11-038, adopting a Negative Declaration and authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to submit an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requesting annexation of approximately 2,475 acres of land to the City of Santa Clarita for the North Copperhill area; and 3) Introduce and pass to second reading an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PREZONE NO. 11-001 FOR THE NORTH COPPERHILL ANNEXATION AREA AS SHOWN." BACKGROUND In response to a letter received in July 2008 from the Pacific Crest Homeowners Association to annex their neighborhood to the City, staff surveyed residents in the Pacific Crest neighborhood along with residents of other nearby, developed, areas in unincorporated County territory to determine the level of support for City annexation. The survey had an approximate response rate of 20%. Of those who responded, 87% indicated that they would support annexation. On March Mopfedi-imoo. 11-73 numim Ordinance passed to Second reading 8, 2011, the City Council directed staff to prepare boundary maps and legal descriptions for the North Copperhill Annexation area. Should the subject territory ultimately be annexed to the City of Santa Clarita, most of the territory between Raintree Place on the west and Bouquet Canyon Road on the east would become part of the City. The annexation area would also include a developed portion of the Plum Canyon area south of Bouquet Canyon Road in the vicinity of Santa Catarina Road. On July 19, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Master Case 11-038 for the North Copperhill Annexation project. By a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution and recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve Master Case 11-038, including a Prezone for the North Copperhill Annexation area. _ PROJECT AREA The 2,475 acre North Copperhill Annexation area contains three distinct residential neighborhoods: Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree. The project area is already included in the City of Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence and carries land use designations under the City's General Plan. A summary of the three neighborhoods is listed below: Bouquet Canyon The Bouquet Canyon area consists of approximately 450 acres and constitutes the eastern portion of the project area. The neighborhood is located both north and south of Bouquet Canyon Road and includes the area in the vicinity of Kathleen Avenue, Woodside Drive, Shadow Valley Lane, Rodgers Drive, and Santa Catarina Road. The Bouquet Canyon sub -area includes two County of Los Angeles probation camps, Camp Scott and Camp Scudder, and is primarily built out. This portion of the annexation area also contains Plum Canyon Elementary School, the 12.3 acre David March Park, 928 single-family homes, and has an estimated population of 2,784 permanent residents. Haskell Canyon Haskell Canyon is the largest of the project's three neighborhoods and consists of approximately 1,821 acres, 1,940 single family homes, and an estimated population of 5,820 residents. The Haskell Canyon area is bounded by the current City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary on the south, the Angeles National Forest on the north, the Dry Canyon Reservoir property on the west, and an undeveloped 10 acre parcel immediately south of the Dry Canyon dam. The area is bounded to the east by privately owned parcels west of Blue Cloud Road. Primary streets within this sub -area include Haskell Canyon Road, Rock Canyon Drive, Garnet Canyon Drive, and Cypress Place. The Haskell Canyon neighborhood contains an 18,860 square -foot commercial center, .Mountainview Elementary School, the unused (closed) Bouquet Canyon Elementary School, the 7 acre Pacific Crest Park, and an undeveloped, 8 acre park site south of Copperhill Drive, opposite Deer Springs Drive. Los Angeles County Fire Station 108 is located on Rock Canyon Drive. The existing neighborhoods were developed under Tract Map Nos. 35783, 46183, 46908 (partially built), 47657, 50586, 51789, and 52807. Three other tracts have been tentatively 2 approved by Los Angeles County but are not yet built. Tract 52829 would allow 95 new single-family homes to be constructed on 74.76 acres at the northern terminus of Wellston Drive, south of Copperhill Drive. The tract map expires on March 19, 2014. The applicant has the option for four (4) one-year time extensions with the County, which means the expiration date may be pushed out as far as 2018. Tract 66561 would allow for 29 single-family units to be constructed on 80 acres of land at the northern terminus of Phantom Trail and expires on December 17, 2014. The applicant has the option for up to six (6) one-year extensions which means that the expiration date could be as late as 2020. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for each of these tracts and was adopted by the County of Los Angeles. The final portion of Tract 46908 is located at the end of Discovery Ridge Drive and includes eight single-family homes. That map will likely record in October, prior to annexation. As with the other tract maps, Tract 46908 was approved and environmentally cleared by Los Angeles County. Raintree The Raintree neighborhood is located generally east of San Francisquito Canyon and consists of the developed areas north of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate limits and south of the Angeles National Forest. Primary streets within the neighborhood include Raintree Place, Valley Oak Place, Black Pine Way, and Boxwood Lane. The Raintree neighborhood consists of approximately 203 acres, 313 single-family homes, and also includes the Dry Canyon Reservoir site that is owned by the LADWP. The area was developed under Tract Map Nos. 45137, 46564 (01, 02, 03, 04, and 05), and 49958. There are no commercial centers, public parks, or schools in the Raintree area, although a private park is located off Black Pine Lane. The area is primarily developed with an estimated population of 939 people. Summary In total, the entire North Copperhill Annexation area has almost 3,200 homes and an estimated population of 9,543 permanent residents. The annexation area contains the recently -purchased City -owned open space parcels north of Copperhill Drive, and would be the largest annexation in the City's history aside from incorporation in 1987. Should Council approve the project, a. project application would be submitted to LAFCO in October 2011 with the intent of the annexation being completed by June 2012. ANALYSIS Pursuant to the State of California Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, annexing cities are required to prezone land. The City proposes a Prezone that would change the zoning designations of the annexation area in order to be consistent with the City's zoning ordinance. The prezone designations would be consistent with the existing Los Angeles County land use designation for the Santa Clarita Valley area plan and would reflect the existing development and conditions within the proposed annexation area. The project is located within the City's existing General Plan planning area and consists of land use designations that include Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Non -Urban Residential (NU2), Non -Urban Residential (NU3), Non -Urban Residential (NU -5), Open Space (OS), Open Space—Bureau of Land Management (OS-BLM), Public Institution (PI), Urban Residential 1 3 (URI), and Urban Residential 2 (UR2). As no changes to the General Plan are proposed, a General Plan Amendment is not required. The current land uses in the project area are consistent with the City's General Plan. The project would assign residential, open space, and commercial prezoning to the unincorporated territory, that both support and are consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the project is consistent with the following policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan: Objective LU 1.1: Maintain an urban form for the Santa Clarita Valley that preserves an open space greenbelt around the developed portions of the Valley, protects significant resources from development, and directs growth to urbanized areas served with infrastructure. Policy LU 1.1.3: Discourage urban sprawl into rural areas by limiting non-contiguous, "leap frog" development outside of areas designated for urban use. The project supports this objective and policy because it would prezone 810 acres as open space which would prevent additional sprawl into natural areas. The project would direct growth into areas that are currently served by infrastructure and assign residential zones to the unincorporated territory that carry appropriate densities. The proposed prezone designations for the annexation area include Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Open Space (OS), Residential Estate (RE), Residential Suburban (RS), and Residential Very Low (RVL), consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and zoning ordinance. The proposed Prezone and associated annexation would neither create County islands nor result in non-contiguous City territory. The Prezone would be consistent with the existing neighborhoods and also the approved, future, development and would likewise reflect the City's commitment for preserving open space in undeveloped portions of the Santa Clarita Valley. Any future development that was not previously approved and/or environmentally analyzed by the County of Los Angeles, would be processed, analyzed, and reviewed by the City. The Prezone would become effective when the project area is formally annexed by the City of Santa Clarita. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS An Initial Study was prepared that evaluated the potential impacts of the project. No significant impacts were identified that could reasonably result from the Prezone or ultimate annexation. It is therefore determined that Master Case 11-038 and its associated entitlements would not have a significant effect on the environment. The requested Prezone is consistent with Los Angeles County land use planning policies and reflects the project area's existing development land uses. The Negative Declaration for this project was prepared and circulated for public review and comment beginning June 17, 2011, through July 19, 2011. Y_ PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The project was the subject of a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 19, 2011. In compliance with the UDC noticing requirements for tonight's public hearing, a notice advertising the hearing was mailed to the more than 3,200 property owners who own land within the project area. Additional notices were sent to the almost 3,400 property owners who own -land within a 1,000' radius of the proposed annexation area. An 1/8 -page advertisement was placed in The Signal newspaper on August 2, 2011, and six public hearing signs were posted in the project area. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT Overall, the annexation of the North Copperhill area would generate a neutral/no net fiscal impact to the City of Santa Clarita. Anticipated public service expenditures such as Parks and Recreation, Sheriff, Community Preservation, etc., would be managed so as not to exceed the future projected revenues generated from the annexation. ATTACHMENTS Resolution - North Copperhill LAFCO Resolution Ordinance - North Copperhill Prezone Ordinance Prezone Map (Exhibit A to the Resolution and Ordinance) North Copperhill Vicinity Map General Plan Map available in the City Clerk's Reading File General Plan and Zoning Tables available in the City Clerk's Reading File Initial Study available in the City Clerk's Reading File Proposed Negative Declaration available in the City Clerk's Reading File Planning Commission Staff Report available in the City Clerk's Reading File County Correspondence available in the City Clerk's Reading File S RESOLUTION NO. 1I - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVING MASTER CASE 11-038, AND REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 2,475 ACRES OF CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE NORTH COPPERHILL AREA TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 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 an annexation of approximately 2,475 acres of unincorporated county territory; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is largely inhabited with an estimated permanent population of 9,543, an estimated 3,181 homes, as well as undeveloped lands and open space, 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. 11-002 (Master Case No. 11-038), which includes the area known as the North Copperhill Annexation area; and WHEREAS, no terms or conditions are requested by the property owners for this proposed annexation at this time; and WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation 'are to bring established neighborhoods, potential development areas, open space, and public facilities into the City's jurisdiction to create a logical extension of City boundaries, and to preserve vacant land within the annexation area as permanent open space; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has considered all evidence, oral and documentary, and is advised of the foregoing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, does hereby determine and find as follows: SECTION 1. This Resolution is hereby adopted by the City Council, adopting a Negative Declaration, approving Master Case 11-038 and the associated Prezone 11-001. The Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County is hereby requested to initiate proceedings for the annexation of that territory shown in Exhibit A, 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. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study prepared for the project and finds and determines as follows: The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Negative Declaration prepared in connection with Prezone 11 -00 1 and Annexation 11-002, pertaining to the North Copperhill Annexation, 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 approved the Negative Declaration for the project as included in the agenda packet for the August 23, 2011, 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. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to file the application with LAFCO to annex the subject area to the City of Santa Clarita on behalf of the City Council. SECTION 4. 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. SECTION 5. 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 2011. ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2 MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sarah 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 , 2011, by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 CITY CLERK r1i STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution 11- adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on August 23, 2011, which is now on file in my office. I Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of 2011. City Clerk By Deputy City Clerk 4 ORDINANCE NO. I I - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PREZONE NO. 11-001 (MASTER CASE 11 -03 8) FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANNEXATION FOR THE NORTH COPPERHILL ANNEXATION AREA, AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A." 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. On March 28, 2011, staff initiated Master Case 11 -03 8 consisting of Prezone 11-001 and Annexation 11-002 for approximately 2,475 acres of land known as the North Copperhill Annexation for unincorporated County of Los Angeles territory that is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Santa Clarita as' shown in Exhibit A. The North Copperhill Annexation area also includes the three neighborhood communities of Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree. b. The annexation area is located in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley and is located generally east of San Francisquito Canyon Road, south of the Angeles National Forest boundary, north of the existing City of Santa Clarita. corporate limit, and west of Bouquet Canyon Road. The annexation area also includes an area generally south of Bouquet Canyon Road, east of the existing City limits, north of Plum Canyon Road, and east of Santa Catarina Drive, inclusive of the residents on the east side of the street. C. The project area contains both developed neighborhoods as well as undeveloped, natural lands. The project area contains three elementary schools,, three public parks, a fire station, two Los Angeles County probation camps, a commercial center, electrical transmission lines and both Los Angeles City aqueducts. The project area also contains an estimated 9,543 permanent residents and 3,181 homes. Three (3) tentative tract maps that were approved by Los Angeles County but that are not yet built would allow for an additional 132 homes in the project area. d. The land use to the west of the project consists of rural properties in the San Francisquito Canyon area. The area to the north of the project site consists of the Angeles National Forest. Rural properties border the annexation on the east in the vicinity of Bouquet Canyon Road and developing neighborhoods are located east of the project area in the vicinity of Plum Canyon Road. Developed areas within the City of Santa Clarita form the southern border of the project area. e. Under the County of Los Angeles, the project area is currently zoned A-1-1 (Light Agriculture, one -acre minimum lot size), A -1 -1 -DP (Light Agriculture, one -acre 101 minimum lot size Development Program), A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, one -acre minimum lot size), A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, two -acre minimum lot size), C -2 -DP (Neighborhood Business, Development Program), R-1-5000 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size), R-1-7000 (Single Family Residential, 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size), RPD -1-3 (Residential Planned Development, one -acre minimum lot size, 3.0 units per acre), RPD- 1-I IU (Residential Planned Development, one -acre minimum lots size, 11 units per acre), R -1 -10000 -DP (Single Family Residential, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, Development Program), RPD -5000-3.5U (Residential Planned Development, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 3.5 units per acre), RPD -5000-4U (Residential Planned Development, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 4 units per acre), RPD -5000-4.5U (Residential Planned Development, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 4.5 units per acre), RPD -6000-4U (Residential Planned Development, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 4 units per acre), RPD -6000-5.9U (Residential Planned Development, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 5.9 units per acre), and RPD -10000-1.9U (Residential Planned Development, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, 1.9 units per acre). £ Los Angeles County Land Use designations under the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan include C (Commercial), HM (Hillside Management), N2 (Non -Urban 2, 0.5 to 1.0 units per acre), O (Open Space), O/BLM (Open Space, Bureau of Land Management), O -P (Open Space Parks), P (Public Service Facilities), U1 (Urban 1, 1.1 to 3.3 units per acre), U2 (Urban 2, 3.4 to 6.6 units per acre), U3 (Urban 3, 6.7 to 15.0 units per acre), and W (Floodway/Floodplain). g. On June 17, 2011, an environmental Initial Study was prepared for Prezone 11-001 and Annexation 11-002, for the proposed North Copperhill Annexation. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the Initial Study concluded that adverse environmental impacts associated with the project were less than significant and a Negative Declaration was prepared. h. The environmental document has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public from June 17, 2011, to July 19, 2011. i. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on July 19, 2011. This public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. At the hearing the Planning Commission considered the staff presentation, staff report, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and public testimony on the proposal. j. At the public hearing noted above, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita unanimously adopted Resolution P11-15 recommending that the City Council adopt .Prezone 11-001, for the purpose of prezoning approximately 2,475 acres and adopting the Negative Declaration prepared for the project. k. On August 2, 2011, staff noticed a public hearing for the North Copperhill Annexation area. All property owners within the proposed annexation area, along with all property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed project area were sent notices of the proposed public hearing. A one-eighth (1/8) page advertisement was placed in The Signal newspaper, and six signs were posted in the project area. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on August 23, 2011. This public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. At the hearing the City Council considered the staff report, received public testimony on the project, and closed the public hearing. During the same meeting, the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the project and introduced and passed to a second reading an ordinance that would prezone the proposed annexation area with zoning designations consistent with the City of Santa Clarita Zoning Ordinance. in. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391 and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the City Council further finds as follows: a. The purpose of the proposal is to prezone the approximate 2,475 -acre project area to include 1.8 acres as Commercial Neighborhood (CN), 810.1 acres as Open Space (OS), 268.1 acres as Residential Estate (RE), 1,389 acres as Residential Suburban (RS), and 6.8 acres as Residential Very Low (RVL), as shown in Exhibit A. b. That the prezone is consistent with the City's General Plan. C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65391 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed. SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon .the testimony and other evidence received, the City Council finds as follows: a. On August 23, 2011, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration for the project that was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council 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. SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR PREZONE. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: a. Prezoning is required under Section 5675(a)(3) of the Government Code in that, prior to the Local Agency Formation Commission taking an action on an annexation, the subject site must be prezoned by the annexing city; 3 b. Prezone 11-001, and specifically its proposed amendment to the of the City of Santa Clarita Zoning Map, is consistent with existing development and/or existing development entitlements for the subject site; and C. Prezone 11-001 is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code in that it implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan and guides the future growth of the City in that it meets the development policies of the City of Santa Clarita. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby introduces and passes to second reading, this ordinance approving Prezone 11 -00 1 pertaining to the North Copperhill Annexation as described herein and shown on attached Exhibit A. 0 1:3 SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August 2011. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK lY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) . I, Sarah Gorman, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 11- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day of August 2011. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 13th day of September 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance 11- and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806). CITY CLERK 0 l5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Ordinance 11- , adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, CA on August 23, 2011, which is now on file in my office. Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of 20 City Clerk By Deputy City Clerk 7 /6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Kevin Tonoian, Acting City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 11- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 2011. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806). CITY CLERK 17� STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Ordinance 11- , adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, CA on , 2011, which is now on file in my office. Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of 2011. City Clerk, By Deputy City Clerk E P. m ■ �� LU ; !,! z \ / �\ ! �!/Eke k � _ L # a � a = o ! U J � .2 \ \ Eci) 2 f \ _ � /})»`!< §) ».. � P. m ■ �� CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPLICATION: Master Case 11 -03 8 Annexation 11-002; Prezone 11-001 PROJECT LOCATION: Unincorporated residential and undeveloped areas in the vicinity of Copperhill Drive, between Raintree Place and Bouquet Canyon Road, and also between Bouquet Canyon Road and Santa Catarina Road, in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a request to prezone and annex approximately 2,475 acres of developed and undeveloped territory to the City of Santa Clarita. The prezone would designate 1.8 acres as Commercial Neighborhood, 810 acres as Open Space, 268 acres as Residential Estate, 1,389 acres as Residential Suburban, and 6.8 acres as Residential Very Low. The project area is currently within the City of Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence and the General Plan area. No development is proposed as part of this proiect and a General Plan Amendment is not required. The project area contains an estimated 3,181 existing residences, three existing park sites, three existing school sites, two existing Los Angeles County probation facilities, and a fire station. On July 19, 2011, in a 5-0 vote, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the project, adopt the Negative Declaration, and direct staff to file an annexation application with the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission. The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: August 23, 2011 TIME: 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City of Santa Clarita, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for the proposed project and was made available for public review beginning June 17, 201 L. A copy of the draft Negative Declaration and all supporting documents is available at: City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department; 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140; Santa Clarita, CA 91355. In addition, a copy of the draft Negative Declaration (without supporting documents) is posted at the City of Santa Clarita Library, Valencia Branch, located at 23742 W. Valencia Boulevard, 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 hearings described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita, at or prior to, the public hearing. For further information regarding this proposal, please contact the case planner at the City of Santa Clarita Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Project Planner: Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner. Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall Published: The Signal on August 2, 2011 C� I •C CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NORTH COPPERHILL ANNEXATION AREA GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING TABLE EXHIBITS CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 23, 2011 Table I- General Plan Land Use Designations General Plan Designation Acres Existing Land Use Commercial Neighborhood (CN) _ 1.76 Commercial center Non Urban Residential 2 (NU2) 74.69 Vacant .. Non Urban Residential 3 NU3 - _ _._........................... -- - ) .__._ ._ ._._..... .._...... 123 73 -- -- — ----------- Vacant -- -- —-------------- - Non -Urban Residential 5 (NU5)6.75 _ 1388.98_1_____ Residential OpenSpace._.05)._.................._.._........................_........__......................._...............................f._.._...._.............__.._803__85._...._._....._._.._._.._.__Park 6.8 sites and vacant... Open Space --Bureau of Land Management ! 2475.8* (OS-BLM� 4.90 Vacant Schools, water tanks, LA Public Institution (PI) _ _ _ _ 128.73 County probation camps Urban Residential 1 (UR1) _ 351.99 Residential and vacant Urban Residential 2 (UR2) Residential and vacant Total: 2475.64' -- *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Tahla 11• Nnrth Cnnnerhill Annexation Area Prelone Prezone Designation Acres Density Commercial Neighborhood1.8 ---..._.._._....................._...------..........._._.-.__,..-_--_-._.._..--.--.. Floor Area Ratio = _375__1 Open Space 810.1 N/A Residential Estate RE ..............-- ....__..._. _( .-. - ----.._..._._. 268 09 _....... _._ 1 unit per 2 acres ....._._... ... Residential Suburban_(RS� _� _ 1388.98_1_____ _ _5 unitsper acre Residential Very Low RVQ 6.8 1 unit er acre Total: ! 2475.8* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Table III: Bouauet Canvon Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Density Open Space -------- ---- -- ---..._.._._....................._...------..........._._.-.__,..-_--_-._.._..--.--.. _._._.._._N/A .... Residential Estate (RE) 72.01 1 unit Per 2 acres ---------------------- (RS-) ----- Residential Suburban RS -_�.... 335 56 _.. _._..._.l- ---- 5 units per acre Residential Ve , Low RVL 6.75 1 unit er acre Total: 451.50* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Master Case 11-038 North Copperhill Annexation August 23, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Table IV: Haskell Canvon Prezone Prezone Designation Acres I Density Commercial Neighborhood 1.77 Floor Area Ratio = .375:,1 Open Space _ _.�..... 767 50.. N/A Residential Estate (RE) ...... ..... ... _...... 123 72 ....... 1 unit per 2 acres .. ..... Residential Suburban RS 928.08 5 units per acre Total: 1821.07* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Table V: Raintree Prezone Prezone Designation Acres1 Density N/A _Open ...... _... ---._.---------- ._..-------- ------ Residential Estate (RE) .........................................-5.46.... 72.36 _. _. ......._..................-..._............_...._..............._...._..................... ': 1 unit per 2 acres Residential Suburban RS 125.34 5 units er acre Total: 203.16* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Master Case ll -0R8 North CoppvrhiUAnnexation August 23'zOl| Page 3of3 Raintree Neighborhood Haskell Canyon Neighborhood Bouquet Canyon Neighborhood Heavy Agriculture Light Agriculture Light Agriculture Two -acre minimum lot size One -acre minimum lot size One -acre minimum lot size Residential Planned Development Light Agriculture A-2-1 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size One -acre minimum lot size Heavy Agriculture ram One -acre minimum lot size Residential Planned Development A-2-1 R-1-5000 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Heavy Agriculture Single Family Residential 4.5 units per acre One -acre minimum lot size 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Single Family Residential Heavy Agriculture 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Two -acre minimum lot size C -2 -DP Residential Planned Development Neighborhood Business 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Development Pr ram 5.9 units per acre Residential Planned Development Single Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size lot size 1 1.9 units per acre _Minimum Single Family Residential 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Residential Planned Development One -acre minimum lot size Residential Planned Development One -acre minimum lot size 11 units per acre Residential Planned Development 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Residential Planned Development 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 4 units per acre Residential Planned Development 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 4 units per acre Project Title and Master Case Number: Lead Agency name & address: Contact Person and phone number: Project Location: Applicant's Name and Address: Existing General Plan Designation: INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA North Copperhill Annexation Area Master Case 11-038 Annexation 11-002 . Prezone 11-001 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department (661)255-4330 The annexation area is located in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley and consists of approximately 2,475 acres. The annexation area is generally located east of San Francisquito Road, south of the Angeles National Forest boundary, north of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate limit, and west of Bouquet Canyon Road. The annexation area also includes an area generally south of Bouquet Canyon Road, east of the existing City limits, north of Plum Canyon Road, and east of Santa Catarina Drive, inclusive of the residents on the east side of the street. City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Existing City of Santa Clarita General Plan designations. for the project area include: CN, NU2, NU3, NUS, OS, OS-BLM, PI, URI and UR2. Zoning Designation(s): The project area is zoned by the County of Los Angeles as follows: A-2-1, A-1-1, A -1 -1 -DP, A-2-2, C -2-13P, R-1-5000, R- 1-7000, R -1 -10000 -DP, RPD -1-1 IU, RPD -1-3.0U, RPD -5000- 3.5U, RPD -5000-4U, RPD -6000-4U, RPD -6000-5.9U, and RPD -10000-1.9U. Project Description and Setting: This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Annexation and Prezone for the North Copperhill Annexation area, inclusive of the proposed Raintree Annexation (203 acres), Haskell Canyon Annexation (1,821 acres), and the Bouquet Canyon Annexation (450 acres). The North Copperhill Annexation area is located within the City of Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence and already carries General Plan land use designations. Therefore, no General Plan Amendment or Sphere of Influence Amendment is necessary under the project. The attached vicinity map shows the project location (see Exhibit 1). Exhibit II shows the General Plan land use designations for the project area and Table I summarizes these land use categories below: Table I: General Plan Land Use Designations General Plan Designation Acres I Density Commercial Neighborhood (CNL _ 1.76 1 Floor Area Ratio = .375:1 Non -Urban Residential 2 (NU2) 74.6_9_' J_ 1 unit per 10 acres Non -Urban Residential 3SNU3�_ 123.73 �_ 1 unit per 5 acres Non -Urban Residential 5 NUbL_ _ _ 6.75 1 unit per acre Open S ace (OS) _..�....__ 803.85 _ N/A Open Space --Bureau of Land Management OS-BLM 4.90 N/A Public Institution (PI) _ _ 128.73 _ �_ N/A Urban Residential 1 (UR1.) _ 351.99 2 units per acre Urban Residential 2 (UR2) 979.24 5 units per acre Total: 2475.64"' -- *Acreage is approximate due to rounding, Project Setting The proposed project consists of approximately 2,475 acres of partially developed land containing approximately 3,181 developed single-family residences, an 18,860 square -foot neighborhood shopping center, a fire station, two elementary schools, an elementary school site, two County of Los Angeles probation camp facilities, and three public park sites, two of which are developed. The project area includes open space parcels owned by the City of Santa Clarita as well as approximately 124 single-family residences that have been approved but not yet built. Two power transmission corridors traverse the area along with both Los Angeles City aqueducts. The project -area is located east of San Francisquito Canyon, north of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary, south of the Angeles National Forest, and generally nortb/west of Bouquet Canyon Road. A portion of the eastern project area extends south of Bouquet Canyon Road and is located north of Plum Canyon Road, east of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary, and west of Santa Catarina Road, inclusive of the residences on the east side of the street. The estimated permanent population of the project area is 9,543. This number does not include the youth residents at the County probation camps. The project area consists of three separate communities, each of which will require an individual annexation application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The three annexation areas, Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree, are discussed below. Bouquet Canyon Annexation The Bouquet Canyon Annexation area consists of approximately 450 acres and constitutes the eastern portion of the project area. The annexation area is located both north and south of Bouquet Canyon Road. Primary streets in the north portion of the Bouquet Canyon Annexation area include Kathleen Avenue, Woodside Drive, and Shadow Valley Lane. South of Bouquet Canyon Road, the annexation area includes the two County of Los Angeles probation camps, Camp Scott and Camp Scudder, and also the developed residential neighborhood along Rodgers Drive and Santa Catarina Road. The annexation area is bounded by City -owned open space parcels on the west, the Southern California Edison power lines on the north, the developed residential parcels in the Shadow Valley neighborhood on the east, and Plum Canyon Road on the south. ° cc 3 e.z z -17 EW OAK% r zt'. f. -oK ifli `If 4x, [T—] D IT, zi 'R E c 1-7 . nItc.- P-5 The Bouquet Canyon annexation area includes the 12.3 -acre David March Park, Plum Canyon Elementary School, and a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) corridor that bisects the housing area in the vicinity of Santa Catarina Road and Rodgers Drive. The area was developed under Tract Map Nos. 32208, 35175, 37081, 44311, 44312, 44313, 44838, 44966, 46038, 46268, 46269, 46270, and 47279. The area contains 928 single-family dwelling units (estimated) with a population of 2,784 people (also estimated). There are no shopping centers, office buildings, or commercially -zoned land within the Bouquet Canyon Annexation area and there are no known entitlements or approvals pending with the County of Los Angeles. Haskell Canyon Annexation Haskell Canyon is the largest of the three annexations within the project area. The Haskell Canyon Annexation consists of approximately 1,821 acres, 1,940 single family homes, and has an estimated population of 5,820 residents. The project is bounded by the current City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary on the south and the Angeles National Forest on the north. The annexation area is bounded on the west by the Dry Canyon Reservoir property, and an undeveloped 10 -acre parcel immediately south of the Dry Canyon dam. The area is bounded to the east by privately owned parcels west of Blue Cloud Road. Primary streets within this annexation area include Haskell Canyon Road, Rock Canyon Drive, Garnet Canyon Drive, and Cypress Place. The Haskell Canyon neighborhood contains an 18,860 square -foot commercial center, Mountainview Elementary School, the unused (closed) Bouquet Canyon Elementary School, Pacific Crest Park (7 -acres), and an undeveloped, 8 -acre park site south of Copperhill Drive, opposite Deer Springs Drive. Los Angeles County Fire Station 108 is located on Rock Canyon Drive. The Haskell Canyon community is traversed by LADWP power lines and both Los Angeles aqueducts (running north to south). A Southern California Edison power transmission corridor also traverses the annexation area east -to -west. The area is partially developed with established neighborhoods but also contains wilderness area and undeveloped lands slated for future homes. In June 2011, the City of Santa Clarita purchased 526 acres of land in order to permanently preserve open space in the area. The open space lands are located on either side of the LADWP power lines, generally north of the Southern California Edison power transmission corridor. A portion of the City -owned open space extends further south and is adjacent to Copperhill Drive, opposite Benz Road. The existing neighborhoods were developed under Tract Map Nos. 35783, 46183, 46908, 47657, 50586, 51789, and 52807. Two other tracts have been tentatively approved by Los Angeles County but are not yet built. Tract 52829 would allow 95 new single-family homes to be constructed on 74.76 acres at the northern terminus of Wellston Drive, south of Copperhill Drive. The tract map expires on March 19, 2012. The applicant has the option for four (4) one-year time extensions with the County, which means the expiration date may be pushed out as far as 2016. Tract 66561 would allow for 29 single-family units to be constructed on 80 acres of land at the northern terminus of Phantom Trail and expires on December 17, 2012. The applicant has the option for up to six (6) one-year extensions which means that the expiration date could be as late as 2018. A Negative Declaration was prepared for each of the undeveloped tracts and no mitigation measures were included as part of the project approvals. Raintree Annexation The Raintree neighborhood is located generally east of San Francisquito Canyon and consists of the developed areas north of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate limits and south of the Angeles National Forest. The annexation area extends east to the edge of the developed residential area along Evening Star Court and Celestial Lane. Primary streets within the annexation area include Raintree Place, Valley Oak Place, Black Pine Way, and Boxwood Lane. The Raintree neighborhood consists of approximately 203 acres, 313 single-family homes, and also includes the Dry Canyon Reservoir site that is owned by the LADWP. The area was developed under Tract Map Nos. 45137, 46564 (01, 02, 03, 04, and 05), and 49958. There are no commercial centers, public parks; or schools in the Raintree Annexation area, although a private park is located off Black Pine Lane. The area is primarily developed with an estimated population of 939 people. Project Description The project consists of an Annexation and Prezone each for the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree Annexations as summarized below: Annexation (ANX 11-002) The City of Santa Clarita proposes annexation of three neighborhood areas in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley: Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree. Each neighborhood will require a separate annexation application to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County. Haskell Canyon will occur first, followed by Bouquet Canyon, and then Raintree. Taken together, the three annexation areas are known as the "North Copperhill Annexation Area." The project area is located within the City's existing General Plan area and the subject territory already carries City of Santa Clarita General Plan land use designations as shown in Exhibit II. As such, no General Plan Amendment is necessary. The project area is also located entirely within the existing City of Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence, negating the need for a Sphere of Influence Amendment. Prezone (PRZ 11-001) The project area is zoned under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles. Table II lists the County zoning in the project area, including those zones that apply to each of the three annexation areas: Table II: Existina County Zoning Raintree Annexation Haskell Canyon Annexation Bouquet Canyon Annexation A-2-2: A-1-1 A-1-1 Heavy Agriculture Light Agriculture Light Agriculture Two -acre minimum lot size One -acre minimum lot size One -acre minimum lot size RPD -5000-3.5U: _ A -1 -1 -DP Residential Planned Development Light Agriculture A-2-1 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size One -acre minimurrl lot size Heavy Agriculture 3.5 units per acre Development Pro ram_ _ One -acre minimum_ lot size A-2-1 R-1-5000 Heavy Agriculture Single Family Residential One -acre minimum lot size 5'000 sq. ft, minimum lot size —� R -1 -10000 -DP A-2-2 Single Family Residential Heavy Agriculture 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Two -acre minimum lot size Development Program RPD -6000-5.9U C -2 -DP Residential Planned Development Neighborhood Business 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Development Program 5.9 units per acre RPD -10000-1.9U R-1-5000 Residential Planned Development Single Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 1.9 unitser acre _ R-1-7000 Single Family Residential 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size RPD -1-3 Residential Planned Development One -acre minimum lot size — 3.0 units per acre RPD -1-11U Residential Planned Development one -acre minimum lot size 11 units per ..acre,—.. RPD -5000-3.5U Residential Planned Development 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 3.5 units per acre RPD -5000-4U Residential Planned Development 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 4 units er acre RPD -6000-4U Residential Planned Development 6,000 sq, ft. minimum lot size 4 units per acre Before the City can submit an annexation application to LAFCO, territory in each ofthe proposed annexation areas must be assigned City prezone designations. These prezoning designations are listed below in Tables III through VI. The prezone designations would be consistent with the City's General Plan land use designations for the area and are also consistent with the developed neighborhoods, existing land uses, and the natural condition of vacant parcels. The prezone designations would also be consistent with the development projects that were approved by the County of Los Angeles but that are not yet constructed. Exhibit III shows the Prezone for the North Copperhill Annexation area. Exhibits IV through VI show the Prezone for each of the sub -annexation areas. Table III: North CODDerhill Annexation Area Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Densi Commercial Neighborhood Open4Sace��_ _ 1.8 _ 810.1 Floor Area Ratio = .375:1 N/A Residential Estate f RE Residential Suburban (RS) _ 268.09 1388.98 --� 1 unit per 2 acres 5 units per acre Residential Vey Low(RV L 6.8 1 unit eer acre Total: 2475.8* 1 unit per acre *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. TahlP IV- Rououet Canyon Annexation Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Density Open Space..._ 1.77 _ N/A Residential Estate (REj __37.18 72.01 1 unit _per 2 acres Residential Suburban�RS 335.56 _ � 5. gjii f r acre Residential WEI Low RVL 6.75 1 unit per acre Total: 451.50` *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Tnhla \/• Hackall Canvon Annexation Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Density Commercial Neighborhood 1.77 Floor Area Ratio = .375:1_ ^ Open Space Residential Estate RE _767.50 123.72 N/A 1 unitper 2 acres Residential Suburban (R§L 928.08 5 units per acre Total: 1821.07* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Tnhla I\/• Rnintree Annexation Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Density Offen Space 5.46 N/A Residential Estate LRE) 72.36 1 unit per 2 acres Residential Suburban RS 125.34 5 units per acre Total: 203.16" *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. The built portions of the project -area were entitled through, and environmentally reviewed by, Los Angeles County. Tract Map Nos. 52829 and 66561 have been approved by the County and would allow an additional 124 single-family homes to be built within the project area—specifically, in the Haskell Canyon Annexation area. Negative Declarations were prepared for the undeveloped tracts and no mitigation measures were included as part of the project approvals. MI ttl) ollrlp W -j z -4 C3 Nein: T* axe OL rPi t3 6.j% T—i II / l/f ��r'k�T�� l i1 o an, U E; IT,tao� 6 P, :c x W No construction or development is proposed as part of this project. This project pertains to the annexation and prezoning of unincorporated territory in the County of Los Angeles, and transferring the jurisdiction of that land from the County to the City of Santa Clarita. Any future development that was not previously approved by the County of Los Angeles, would be analyzed and environmentally reviewed by the City. No physical change or additional development is anticipated as a result of the project. Surrounding land uses: North: Angeles National Forest East: Rural and vacant land South: Single-family residential (City and County) West: Single family residential (City) Rural ranch properties (County of Los Angeles/San Francisquito Canyon) Site Access and Infrastructure The project area is served by several major arterial highways, including Bouquet Canyon Road, Copperhill Drive, Haskell Canyon Road, and Plum Canyon Road. Other, smaller collector and residential streets connect the project area to the City of Santa Clarita and surrounding region. The project area contains power transmission corridors, both Los Angeles City aqueducts, and the LADWP Dry Canyon Reservoir facility. There are three elementary schools (one of which is closed), a fire station, three public parks (including one undeveloped park site), and various County flood control basins that are designed to collect debris and to regulate storm water flows. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Local Agency Formation Commission Los Angeles County 700 N. Central Avenue Glendale, CA 91203 12 A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agricultural Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology & Water [ ] Greenhouse Gases [ ] Materials [ ] Quality [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population & Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation Mandatory Findings of [ ] Traffic & Transportation [ ] Utilities & Service Systems [ ] 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. i [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, and an I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Ben Jarvis, Al , Assoc' to Planner Date ti , r ' ce — 1 1 Jason Smisko, Senior Planner Date 13 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 14 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant ' Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ❑ ❑ ® ❑ not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California I Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ ED which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone 14 15 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? 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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ® ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Servicer c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ® ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ® ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of a historical resource as defined in Government Code 15 16 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of an archaeological resource pursuant to Government Code Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑ paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ® ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of A known earthquake fault, as delineated ❑ ❑ ® ❑ on 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) - Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion, or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ loss of topsoil, either on or off site? 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 18-1- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Change in topography or ground surface relief ❑ ❑ ® ❑ features? 16 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation g) Move or generate grading of earth exceeding 10,000 ❑ ❑ cubic yards? ❑ 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? 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: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the . . ❑ . environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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)? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a,project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 17 El Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 18 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, [] an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, [] injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [] , health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge El ® El requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [] ® El 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 El El 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 El [] ® El 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed E] El 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 El 0 El 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 El which would impede or redirect flood flows? 18 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 directions of surface water and/or groundwater? 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, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant and 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? v) Stormwater 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 19 Potentially Less Than Less Than ❑ Significant Significant Significant ❑ Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact -With Impact No Mitigation Impact 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: 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? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ inefficient manner? XII. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ [] ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ _ ❑ ® ❑ directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 20 Potentially Significant Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ Significant necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ With elsewhere? No c) - Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ XIV.. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: ❑ a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision or need of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ❑ ii) Police protection? ❑ iii) Schools? ❑ iy) Parks? ❑ 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. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION — 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? Less Than Less Than Significant Significant ❑ With Impact No Mitigation ® Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ V'►ZIEEM■1 22 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ® ❑ supporting afternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ ❑ ® ❑ water drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ® ❑ provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ® ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? h) Does the proposed project include provisions for the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ 22 Potentially Significant Impact quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means'that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future proj ects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XIX. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME IDE 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 continues viability." 23 Less Than Significant With Mitigation ■❑ Less Than Significant Impact X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact 01 ►Z/ I►1 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts I. AESTHETICS I a. Less Than Significant Impact Impacts related to aesthetics that were not addressed in previously certified Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that were prepared for past development projects in the project area are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project consists of the annexation and prezone of the North Copperhill Annexation area which includes the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree Annexations. The project area consists of approximately 2,475 acres of land that is partially developed. The subject territory contains 3,181 dwelling units, a 18,860 sq. ft. commercial center, three elementary schools, three public parks, and two County probation camps No new development is proposed by the project; however, an additional 124 single-family homes have been approved by the County of Los Angeles. The project would transfer regulatory jurisdiction from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed and the proposed change in jurisdiction would not be expected to adversely impact any scenic vista. Any impact would be less than significant. I b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not located along a state scenic highway and would not impact views of ridgelines, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The project would annex 2,475 acres into the City of Santa Clarita. Developed neighborhoods already exist within the project area and any impacts to scenic resources for the additional 124 residences that were approved by the County for the annexation area would not be significant based on the Negative Declarations that were prepared for the projects. Furthermore, a significant, undeveloped, portion of the project area has been purchased by the City of Santa Clarita for the purposes of open space preservation, thereby ensuring that existing views and natural habitat will be preserved. The proposed prezone designations would not be expected to substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, any impact on visual or aesthetic resources would be less than significant. I c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not change the character of the area or its surroundings in that the project would annex land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The Bouquet Canyon portion of the annexation area is fully developed with single family residences, a school, park, and two County probation camps. The Haskell Canyon annexation area is mostly built and includes two park sites, two schools/sites, and a commercial center. An additional 124 residences are approved in the area and the construction of these units would require grading, street construction, and other facility improvements. Impacts for this construction where analyzed previously by Los Angeles County. The Raintree area is mostly developed with single family homes, the main exception being the unused Dry Canyon Reservoir site which creates a large tract of open space adjacent to the existing neighborhoods. The annexation would not degrade the visual character of the project area nor alter the existing topography in any way. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. I d. Less Than Significant Impact. The prezone designations proposed under the project, as well as the proposed change in jurisdiction from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa 24 Clarita, would not be expected to create any new or substantial light sources in the project area due to the fact that no development is proposed. The Bouquet Canyon and Raintree annexation areas are mostly developed and even without annexation, new and significant light sources in these areas would be unlikely in the long term. The Haskell Canyon annexation area is mostly developed and an additional 124 residences are proposed under Tracts 52829 and 66561. Impacts for these approved housing developments were analyzed previously by the County and a Negative Declaration for each tract was prepared. Given that the project proposes no new development, and given that a significant portion of the project area would be designated as open space thereby preventing any additional development in the future, any impacts due to new light sources would be less than significant. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES II a. No Impact. Impacts related to agricultural resources that were not addressed in previously certified EIRs and other CEQA documents that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. Based on information from the California Department of Conservation, the project area contains no farming resources and no known agricultural operations exist within the project area. The project area is comprised of partially- developed land that includes neighborhoods, utility corridors, public facilities, and open space/vacant acreage. None of the affected parcels within the project area are designated as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the California Department of Conservation (Los Angeles Important Farmland 2008). The California Department of Conservation also has not designated any land within the project area as Farmland of Local Importance. The project area is partially developed. The Bouquet Canyon Annexation and the Raintree Annexation areas consist of mostly developed land. The Haskell Canyon Annexation area has large developed areas as well as open space and vacant acreage. An additional 124 units in two developments have been approved by the County in this annexation area and Negative Declarations for the two projects were prepared. As no farmland or agricultural uses are located in the area, the proposed project would have no impact to agricultural resources. H b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not change the practical land use of the project area; however, a portion of the land in the project would be prezoned from agriculture zoning under the County of Los Angeles, to residential and open space prezoning under the City of Santa Clarita zoning ordinance. In the Bouquet Canyon Annexation area, There are parcels that are zoned A-1-1 (Light Agriculture, One -Acre Minimum Lot Size) and A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, One -Acre Minimum Lot Size). This County zoning is assigned to a residential area north of Bouquet Canyon Road, the County probation facilities (Camp Scott and Camp Scudder), and also the LADWP power transmission corridor that bisects the residential neighborhood in the vicinity of Rodgers Drive and Santa Catarina- Road. The proposed prezone designations of RS (Residential Suburban) and OS (Open Space) would be consistent the with existing land uses in the area and also with previous County approvals. A substantial portion of the Haskell Canyon Annexation area is zoned A-1-1, A- 1-1 DP, A-2-1, and A-2-2. The A-1 zoning designation allows for Light Agriculture with a one -acre minimum lot size. The "DP" abbreviation denotes a "Development Program." The A-2-1 and A-2-2 zones allow for Heavy 25 III. AIR QUALITY Agriculture with a minimum lot size of either one or two acres, respectively. Under the project, the vast majority of the agriculturally zoned land would be prezoned as OS (Open Space). Additional acreage would be prezoned as RS (Residential Suburban) or RE (Residential Estate) to reflect the entitled development for 124 single family homes that were approved by Los Angeles County for Tracts 52829 and 66561. The majority of the Raintree Annexation area is already developed. The area that is zoned A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, Two -Acre Minimum Lot Size) consists of the Dry Canyon Reservoir site and a 10 -acre parcel located immediately to the south. Most of the Annexation area could be prezoned RS (Residential Suburban) to reflect the built environment consisting of single-family homes. The Dry Canyon Reservoir site and the privately owned ten -acre parcel to the south would be prezoned RE (Residential Estate). The proposed prezone designations reflect the existing land uses and would be consistent with the City's General Plan designations for the area. Although the project area has agricultural zoning under the County of Los Angeles, there are currently no known agricultural uses within the project area. Therefore, any impact to agricultural resources, including conflicts with Williamson Act contracts or zoning for agricultural use, would be less than significant. II c. No Impact. The project area is partially developed and has a mix of land uses that include residential, commercial, institutional, and vacant open space. Given that there are no agricultural uses in the project area, and that no development is proposed as part of any of the three annexations that are included in this project, the project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there would be no impact. III a. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to air quality that were not addressed in previously certified EIRs and other CEQA documents that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The project area is located within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The project would prezone 2,475 acres with designations that are consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and that reflect the existing development/conditions of the land. Upon annexation, the prezoning designations would become active under the jurisdiction of the City. No new development is proposed by the project. The proposed prezone and subsequent annexation of the project area would not conflict with nor obstruct the implementation of the SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast region. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. III b, c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which includes all of the non -desert portions of Los Angeles County. Although air quality in the southern California region continues to improve as additional pollution controls are implemented, the air basin remains a non -attainment area for both the federal and state standards for ozone, fine particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PMio), and fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.3). The South Coast Air Basin also fails to meet air quality standards for ozone. Ozone is a pollutant that is formed by a chemical reaction involving 26 reactive organic gasses (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. No construction or development is proposed as part of the project. The project would annex land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project area is partially developed and entitlements have been granted for an additional 124 single-family residences. A large portion of the project area would also be prezoned as open space. The project, whether taken wholly or in terms of the three distinct neighborhood annexations, would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation because no additional development is proposed or would be expected to occur as a result of the annexation. Nothing about the project would create an increase in any criteria pollutant or a significant cumulative increase. Any impact associated with the project would be less than significant. III d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is partially developed with uses that are consistent with surrounding/adjacent land uses located within the City of Santa Clarita or in unincorporated County of Los Angeles territory. No new development is proposed by the prezone and annexation. There are approved entitlements for 124 single-family residences in the 'County, and a park is proposed on Copperhill Drive opposite Deer Springs Drive. As proposed, the project is not anticipated to significantly expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations affecting a substantial number of people because the project would not approve for any new development nor would the project be expected to increase pollutants within in the project area. Any impact would be expected to be less than significant. III e. Less Than Significant Impact. The prezone and subsequent annexation of the three neighborhoods included in the project area would not be anticipated to create any objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Any impact would be less than significant. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV a. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to biological resources that were not addressed in previously certified EIRs and other CEQA documents that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. No new development is proposed as part of 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, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Any impact would be less than significant. IV b, c. Less Than Significant Impact. No new development is proposed nor would be approved by the prezone and annexation of the project area. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). Any impact would be less than significant. 27 IV d. Less Than Significant Impact. No new development is proposed or would be approved by the prezone and annexation of the project area. Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. A portion of the project area in the Haskell Canyon Annexation would, in fact, be prezoned as OS (Open Space) which would preserve the land in its natural state in perpetuity. No development or construction is proposed as part of the project, nor would the project be expected to create the potential for any change to the physical environment. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. IV e. Less Than Significant Impact. 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 designations would be consistent with all County land use planning policies and the current uses/development in the area. The proposal would not conflict with any Los Angeles County or City of Santa Clarita policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. No construction or development is proposed as part of the project and any associated impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. IV f. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. IV g. Less Than Significant Impact The project area is not located within a Significant Ecological Area identified on either Exhibit CO -5 of the City's General Plan. The closest SEA is the San Francisquito Canyon SEA which is located approximately one-third mile west of the project area (Raintree Annexation), on the west side of San Francisquito Road, The Santa Clara River SEA is located 1.5 miles south of the project site (Haskell Canyon and Bouquet Canyon Annexations). The project area is not within an Ecological Reserve or Wildlife Area as defined by the California Department of Fish and Game. The proposal would not affect a designated SEA or Significant Natural Area. Any impact would be less than significant. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES V a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to cultural resources that were not addressed in previously certified EIRs and other CEQA documents that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any known cultural, historical, or archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the Government Code. Development may occur -in the near future within the Haskell Canyon Annexation area as part of Tracts 52829 and 66561. Those impacts were analyzed previously by Los Angeles County and Negative Declarations were prepared for the respective projects. Any impacts would be expected to be less than significant. V c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource, site, nor would the project have the potential to impact or destroy any unique geological feature as no development is proposed by, nor 28 would result from, the prezone and annexation of the different annexation areas. No General Plan Amendment is proposed as part of the project. Any impact would be less than significant. V d. Less Than Significant Impact. No human remains are known to be located within the project area. The project area is not part of a formal cemetery and there is no reason to suspect that the site was used in the past for burial of historic or prehistoric human remains. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No construction or development is associated with the project; the physical environment and existing habitat in the area would remain unchanged. Two developments have been approved by the County of Los Angeles in the Haskell Canyon Annexation area, but have not yet been built (Tracts 52829 and 66561). A Negative Declaration was prepared for each tract map and no impacts were identified. The project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS VI a. Wv. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the prezoning and annexation of the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree communities. No new development is proposed with the prezones and associated annexations. Development may occur, however, as part of the previously entitled projects in Tract Nos. 52829. (95 single-family homes) and 66561 (29 single-family homes) that were approved by the County of Los Angeles. The County reviewed those developments, analyzed potential impacts, and a Negative Declaration for each project was prepared. The annexation of the three communities by the City of Santa Clarita would not be anticipated to substantially any risks due to seismic issues. The project area does not include an Alquist-Priolo fault zone, and seismic hazards or risks would not be increased as a result of the project. Any impact would be less than significant. VI b. Less Than Significant Impact. As, no new development is proposed- with this project, the prezones and annexations would not directly result in soil erosion. It is anticipated, however,- that owever;that development would occur as part of Tract 52829 and Tract 66561. These projects were reviewed and analyzed by the County of Los Angeles and a Negative Declaration for each project was prepared. Any new development that was not previously entitled would be subject to the review of the City and would be subject to all applicable development code requirements and environmental regulations. Therefore, no significant impacts related to substantial wind or water soil erosion, or the loss of topsoil, would be anticipated as a result of the project. VI c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not include any development or physical change to the environment within the project area. Negative Declarations were prepared for development that was approved for Tract 52829 and Tract 66561. The project itself pertains only to the prezone and annexation of the three community areas by the City of Santa Clarita. The project would not increase the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Any impacts would be less than significant. 29 VI d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not create a risk to life or property due. to expansive soil because no construction or development is proposed. The Negative Declarations prepared for Tract Nos. 52829 and 66561 in the Haskell Canyon Annexation area did not identify any issues related to expansive soils. As no development is proposed, any impacts would be less than significant. VI e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project does not include any construction or development. Any construction or development that was previously approved by Los Angeles County would be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system. Subsequently, there would be no need of a septic or alternative waste water disposal system(s) as a result of the project. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. VI Pi. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. Although no development is proposed as part of this project, the Haskell Canyon Annexation area includes two approved tract. maps that have yet to be developed. Tract No. 66561 includes 288,000 cubic yards of grading that was approved by the County of Los Angeles. Tract No. 52829 would also include grading amounts in excess of 10,000 cubic yards. Impacts associated with these tracts were analyzed by the County of Los Angeles and a Negative Declaration was prepared for each development. Given that no development is proposed, the project is not anticipated to create any further need of grading or change to the topography within the project area. The project does not include any grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade in any of the proposed annexation areas, nor would the prezones and associated annexations destroy, cover, or modify any unique geologic or physical feature. Any impact would be less than significant. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS VII a, b. Less Than Significant Impact "Greenhouse gases," so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth, are emitted by human activity and are implicated in global climate change. This is more commonly referred to as "global warming." Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial, long wavelength, heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (COA methane, and nitrous oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor 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. The State of California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statutes and Executive Orders (EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, and EO S-03-05, EO S-20-06, and EO S-01-07. 30 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 prezones and annexations of the Bouquet. Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree neighborhoods do not include any new development. The developed portions of the project area were built under Los Angeles County standards and environmental impacts for the developments were analyzed by the County when those projects were entitled. The undeveloped, entitled, portions of the project area (Tracts 52829 and 66561 in the Haskell Canyon community) were reviewed by the County and Negative Declarations were prepared for each tract. The current proposal to prezone and annex the three communities within the project area would not generate any greenhouse gas emissions and would not create any significant impact, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation that was adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the project would be anticipated to have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VIII a. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that were not addressed in previously certified EIRs and other CEQA documents that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project involves the prezone and annexation of land in three communities within unincorporated territory in the County of Los Angeles. The project would .not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Any impact would be less than significant. VIII b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project would not create any hazards to the public due to accidents or conditions involving an explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation). Any impact would be less than significant. VIII c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project area contains three elementary schools. Plum Canyon School is located on Alfreds Way in the Bouquet Canyon Annexation area. The Haskell Canyon Annexation area contains one functioning elementary school: Mountainview School on Cypress Place, ,and the Bouquet Canyon School site on Wellston Drive. Of the two campuses, only Mountainview School is open and operating. Bouquet Canyon School is currently closed and is used for training purposes. One other school is located within one-quarter mile of the project area: Rosedell School on Urbandale Drive. The proposed prezones and annexations of the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree communities would not create hazardous emissions nor result in the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Any impact would be less than significant. 31 VIII d. No Impact. The project area does not contain any site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact. . VIII e. No Impact. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan nor is the area within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project would not create an aviation -related safety hazard for people who live in or around the project area. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No construction or development is anticipated to occur as a result of the project. Therefore, there would be no impact. VIII f. No Impact. The subject property is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. As stated in section VII e., the project would not result in an aviation -related safety hazard for people who live near the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact. VIII g. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is partially developed with existing residential neighborhoods, a commercial center, and public facilities. The project area also includes undeveloped land. 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. Any impacts would be anticipated to be less than significant. VIII h. Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose any new development or change to the existing environment and would not result in an increased risk to structures or people, including injury or death, due to wildand fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Any impact would be less than significant. VIII i. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the.City of Santa Clarita. The prezone and annexation would not increase the exposure of people to additional sources of potential health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipeline, etc.). The project area contains two major electrical transmission corridors: a LA DWP corridor that runs north/south through the area and a Southern California Edison corridor that runs east/west. The transmission corridors predate residential development in the area and the proposed annexation would not increase residential density or housing units in the vicinity of the power lines because no new development is proposed. Therefore, any impact related to health hazards would be less than significant. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IX a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed prezone and annexation would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project proposes no new development and would not physically change any aspect of the project area. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. 32 IX b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is proposed. The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Any impact would be less than significant. IX c -f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No construction is proposed. The proposed City of Santa Clarita prezoning would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site area, including an alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation either on or off site. The project would not would not substantially increase the amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding either in or outside of the project area. As no development is proposed, .the project would not substantially create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The project would not generate substantial additional sources of polluted runoff nor would the project be anticipated to degrade water quality. Any impact is anticipated to be less than significant. IX g, h. No Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No construction is proposed. The project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map, nor would the proposed prezones and annexations place structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, the project would have no impact. IX i. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed prezone and annexation of the three communities within the project area 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, because no development or change to the physical. environment is proposed. Bouquet Canyon Creek is located in the eastern portion of the project area, ten miles downstream from Bouquet Canyon Reservoir, a water storage facility that is impounded by an earthen dam. In the event of dam failure, water would flow down Bouquet Canyon Creek and through the Bouquet Canyon Annexation area on its way to the Santa Clara River. The proposed change in jurisdiction of the project area from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita would not increase the risk of death or injury due to flooding as the result of the failure of the Bouquet Reservoir dam because no additional development or physical change to the environment is proposed. Any impact would be less than significant. IX j. No Impact. There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the project area that are capable of producing a seiche or tsunami that would impact the project area. Any seiche upstream at Bouquet Canyon Reservoir would not be large enough to cause inundation of the project area, and there is no possibility of tsunami damage, given that the project area is situated well inland of the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of more than 1,000 feet. The project would not alter or change the 33 physical topography of the project area in any way. Therefore, there would be no impact. IX k. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed prezones and annexations would not change the rate of flow, current, course, or direction of either surface or groundwater. The project would change the legal jurisdiction of the subject area from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed as part of the project. The existing terrain and developed neighborhoods would not be altered or changed. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant. IX 1. Less Than Significant Impact. None of the prezones or annexations that constitute the project would result in substantial or significant impacts to stormwater management. Prior to annexation, 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 each year to collect trash and debris, thereby reducing the potential for neighborhood flooding. Furthermore, because no new development is proposed as a part of, this project, the proposed annexation would not create any impacts to stormwater management in any of the following ways: i). Less Than Significant Impact. Since there is no construction proposed, there would be no potential for project construction and/or post -construction activity on stormwater runoff. Any impact would be less than significant. ii). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would neither create nor increase the potential for 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, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas because no development is proposed. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant. iii). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would neither create nor increase the potential for an environmentally harmful increase in the flow, velocity, or volume of storm water runoff because no development is proposed. Any impact would be less than significant. iv). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would neither create nor increase the potential for significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the project area or surrounding areas because no development or physical change to the existing environment is proposed. Any impact would be less than significant. v). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would neither create nor increase the potential for stormwater 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.) because no development is proposed as part of the prezones and annexations for the three communities that constitute the project area. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. 34 vi). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies. The project would prezone partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County and annex that territory to the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed and the project would not result in any physical changes to the environment. Therefore, any impact would be les than significant. vii). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex unincorporated territory in the County of Los Angeles into the City of Santa Clarita and would prezone the subject territory with City prezone designations. Provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy are not required as they are not relevant given that the project would change the jurisdiction of the project area and have no physical impacts. Even so, upon annexation, all residents who live in the any one of the three annexation areas would be able to take advantage of the City's curbside recycling services. Since no development is proposed and recycling services would be extended to all residential and commercial uses within the project area once the territory is annexed, any impact would be less than significant. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING X a -c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed prezones and annexations that are included in this project do not propose any new development. The proposed open space, commercial, and residential prezoning designations would be consistent with the existing development, physical conditions, and County land use planning policies in the project area. The prezoning designations would also be compatible with adjacent land uses. It is not anticipated that there would be any impact or effect related to the disruption or .physical division of an established community, including low-income or minority communities,. since no new development would occur beyond that which was previously approved by the County of Los Angeles. The project would prezone areas with City prezone designations and would change the existing County of Los Angeles zoning and jurisdictional authority. The change to City zoning would not result in a significant impact as it would be consistent with the existing County of Los Angeles land use plan, policies, and regulations. The prezone would also be consistent with the City's General Plan land use designations for the project area. Under the County of Los Angeles, the project area consists of the following zones: A-1 (Light Agriculture), A-2 (Heavy Agriculture), C-2 (Neighborhood Business), R-1 (Single -Family Residential), and RPD (Residential Planned Development). The proposed prezone for the project area includes CN (Commercial Neighborhood), OS (Open Space), RE (Residential Estate), RS (Residential Suburban), and RVL (Residential Very Low). The attached prezone maps identify the proposed zoning for the project area in general as well as for the individual annexation areas (see Exhibits IV through VI). 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 in identified water courses (Seco/Dry Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Plum Canyon 35 drainages, or Bouquet Canyon Creek) because the proposal would not change the applicable state or federal designations in the project area. Any impact associated with the proposed project related to land use or planning would be less than significant. XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES . XI a -b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is not located within a mineral area as identified on Exhibit CO- 2 "Mineral Resources" of the City's General Plan. None of the prezones or annexations proposed by the project would 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. The project would not result in the loss of availability of any locally important mineral resources recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Any impact would be less than significant. XII. NOISE XI c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No construction or development activity is included in the project description nor would the project be expected to create the potential for development beyond what currently exists or what was analyzed and approved by the County of Los Angeles. Therefore, the project would not involve the use of any nonrenewable resources and any impact would be less than significant. XII a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex primarily undeveloped land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. While nothing associated with the proposed project would increase the exposure of people to noise in excess of standards established in the City's general plan and noise ordinance, existing development that is situated adjacent to roadways, commercial uses, or public facilities my experience noise that is associated with daily activities for a suburban community. Regardless, any noise impact would not be expected to be significant. XII b -d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed and no element associated with the proposed project would increase the exposure of people to noise. The project would not increase any groundbourne vibration, noise, or ambient noise levels—either temporarily or permanently—because the project would not change or affect the physical environment of the three annexation areas. The project would change the jurisdictional authority over the subject area from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita. This is a legal procedure that would have no impact on existing or future noise levels either within or outside of the project area. Any impact would be less than significant. XII e, L No Impact. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, nor is the area located within the vicinity of a private air strip. The nearest private airstrip is located in Agua Dulce, eight miles northeast of the project area. The Agua Dulce Airport is the only airport located in the City's General Plan Planning area. The closest commercial and general aviation airports are located well south of the project area in the San Fernando 36 Valley. These include the Van Nuys Airport and the Whitman Airpark which are both located in the City of Los Angeles, as well as the Bob Hope Airport that is located in the City of Burbank. Whitman Airpark, the nearest airport to the project area, is located more than 15 miles southeast of the project area. Therefore, the project would have no impact. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING XIII a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is proposed with the prezones and annexations of the three communities in the project area. The project area contains approximately 3,181 single-family housing units with an additional 124 approved single-family homes that are not yet built in the Haskell Canyon Annexation area. The project area contains, and is surrounded by, infrastructure that is adequate to serve the existing neighborhoods as well as the two approved housing developments that have yet to be constructed. The proposed residential, commercial, and open space prezoning designations would be consistent with the existing development and conditions within the project area and would not change the physical characteristics of any of the three annexation areas that make up the project area. Any impact would be less than significant. XIII b, c. No Impact. The proposed prezone and annexation of the three communities within the project area would not eliminate or displace any existing housing units or people. As such, the project would not necessitate the need to construct replacement housing elsewhere, including affordable housing. Therefore, there would be no impact. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES XIV a. (i) No Impact. The proposed project would not create any significant adverse impacts to fire protection services in the project area because no development is proposed and because each of the annexation areas is already served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Fire Station No. 108 is located in the project area on Rock Canyon Drive. Fire service levels would remain constant regardless if the project is approved or not. Therefore, there would be no impact. (ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in the need for additional new or altered police protection services and will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The proposed project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project area would continue to be served by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, although a greater level of service would be provided through City -funded programs than are currently available to County residents. The annexation area will experience an increase in police patrols and a decrease in non- emergency response times due to .the City's increased police service levels under its contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Sufficient capacity exists within the local Sheriff's department to serve the annexation areas should the project be approved. Therefore, any impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. 37 XV. RECREATION (iii) No Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction is proposed. As such, there would be no additional residents or students in need of educational or recreational services. The project area is currently within the Saugus School District (elementary) and the William S. Hart High School District (junior high school and high school). Given that the project area is already within established school districts, and that no development is proposed, the project would have no impact on school or educational services. (iv) Less Than Significant Impact. Upon annexation, the responsibilities for park maintenance and recreational programs would transfer from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita. The City would also take on the responsibility for streetlight patrols, road maintenance, and other municipal services. These services would be at least partially funded through a negotiated tax transfer agreement between the City and the County. The proposed annexation areas include three public parks, none of which has been developed to its ultimate condition. In the future, it would be reasonable to expect that the City would pursue grant funds . to complete these facilities. However, no such development is proposed as part of the project and the annexations, should they be approved, would not create any additional demand for park services. Therefore, any impact to parks and other public services would not be anticipated to be significant. XIV a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction is proposed with the 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 area once it is annexed to the City of Santa Clarita may increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other City recreational facilities. The lower fees may create a minor increase in usage, but that increase would not be expected to be substantial or significant. The proposed project does not include new development of residential units that would require park development fees or implementation of recreational facilities. The proposed annexation areas include three public parks, none of which has been developed to its ultimate condition. It is not anticipated that there would be any additional adverse physical impact as a result of the prezone and annexation of these park sites. Upon annexation, the responsibility for the maintenance of parks would transfer to the City. Any impact to recreational facilities or services would be less than significant. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC XVI a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita and would not involve any kind of construction or development. Traffic volumes in the vicinity would not increase because the existing physical condition of the land would not change. Without an increase or decrease in traffic volume, there would be no change in the level of service on arterials or highways in the project area, nor would the project 38 create significant or additional traffic volumes on roads or highways designated under the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP). None of the three communities located in the project area contain a CMP road or highway. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. XVI c, d. No Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita and would not involve any kind of construction or development. The project would have no effect on air traffic patterns because the physical topography would remain in its current form, nor would the project increase hazards related to the design of roadways as no roads are proposed. The project consists of prezone and annexation proceedings for three communities located in the project area. The prezone designations reflect existing land uses and conditions within the project area and nothing in the project proposal would introduce incompatible land uses to the local area or region that could reasonably be expected to create traffic hazards (e.g., roads with sharp curves or farm equipment). Therefore,,there would be no impact. XVI e -h. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita and would not involve any kind of construction or development. The project would not alter site access, would not create any additional parking demand, nor would it conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs that promote alternative transportation programs. Lastly, the project would not create a barrier or hazard for bicyclists. Upon annexation, the City may construct new bus stops and/or improve existing bus stops in the project area. The City may also elect to improve streets, sidewalks, and/or install bike lanes on selected streets that are not currently configured for bicyclists. These improvements would reduce hazards and barriers for pedestrians and would not create adverse, substantial impacts to surrounding areas. Any impact would be less than significant. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS XVII a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita and no development or construction would be approved or anticipated as a result of the proposed project. As such, there would be no additional demand or impact to wastewater services or requirements applicable to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, nor would the project require the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. The existing neighborhoods are served by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and effluent is treated at the Districts' reclamation plants in Saugus and Valencia. Given that the project consists of a prezone and annexation for the three communities within the project area, and that no new development is proposed that would have the potential to increase wastewater flows, any impact related to wastewater treatment would be less than significant. XVII c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction is proposed nor would be anticipated as a result of the project. As such, the project would neither require nor result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District maintains storm drain and retention basins in the project area. This would not change should the project be approved. Therefore, 39 any impact to storm water drainage and its associated environmental effects would be less than significant. XVII d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los . Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction is proposed nor would be anticipated as a result of the proposed project. As such,.there would be no additional' demand or impact to existing water supplies. No new or expanded water sources or entitlements would be required. The project area is currently served by the Newhall County Water District, Valencia Water Company, and the Santa Clarita Water Division of the Castaic Lake Water Agency. Since no new construction is proposed and no new demand would be created, any project impact on available water supplies would be less than significant. XVII e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction would be anticipated as a result of the proposed project. As stated in XVIIa and XVIIb, the project area has sanitary sewer service that is provided by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Impacts to the sewer infrastructure were analyzed when the existing neighborhoods were reviewed and constructed under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it does not have adequate capacity to serve existing and projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. XVII &h. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County.into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction would be anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The project area is currently served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project area's disposal needs. The proposed project, which consists of a prezone and annexation for each of the three communities within the project area, would not directly result in a significant impact related to solid waste disposal needs. Upon annexation, the project area would be subject to City franchise agreements for both business and residential solid waste disposal services. The project area currently complies with federal, state, and County statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Upon annexation, businesses would also become subject to the City's Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Businesses and residents would also be able to take advantage of the City's curbside recycling program, bulky item pick-up, etc. Any impact would be less than significant. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the Mandatory Findings of Significance based on the following: XVIII a. No Impact. The project consists of a request for a prezone and annexation of three communities within the project area. No new development is proposed. 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 or eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range 40 of, a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major 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. Therefore, the project would not result in an impact related to degradation of the quality of the environment or habitat of fish and wildlife species. XVIII b. No Impact. The project does not propose new development and would not create impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Any future development that is not previously approved by Los Angeles County would adhere to the City's development standards, would be consistent with the City's General Plan, and would require full environmental review. , Therefore, the project would have no impact. XVIII c. No Impact. The project does not include any new development and would not create any environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project would have no impact. XIX. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `DE MINIMUS' FINDING XVIII a. No Impact. The project includes a request for a prezone for the purposes of annexing partially developed land from Los Angeles County to the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is proposed beyond that which has already been analyzed and approved by the County of Los Angeles. The project would not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources because the project does not include new development and involves a prezone for the purpose of annexation. The physical environment would not be changed or altered as part of the project. 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 impact related to the Department of Fish and Game "De Minimus" finding is anticipated; therefore, there would be no impact. 41 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: 11-038 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Annexation No. 11-002 and Prezone No. 11-001 for the North Copperhill Annexation APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The proposed project consists of approximately 2,475 acres of land generally located east of San Francisquito Canyon, north and south of Bouquet Canyon Road, south of the Angeles National Forest, and north of the existing corporate limit of the City of Santa Clarita, in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: This is a proposal for an Annexation and Prezone of approximately 2,475 acres consisting primarily of both developed and undeveloped land. The project area has an estimated 3,181 homes, an 18,860 square -foot shopping center, a fire station, two elementary schools and one elementary school site, and three park sites, two of which have been developed or partially developed. The annexation area also contains utility corridors (aqueducts and power transmission lines). The project proposes to prezone the territory with the following designations: Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Open Space (OS), Residential Estate (RE), Residential Suburban (RS), and Residential Very Low (RVL). No development is proposed as part of this Annexation and Prezone. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a -Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached Paul D. Brotzman Director of Community Development Prepared by: Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) Approved by: Jeff Hogan, AICP, Senior Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From June 17, 2011 To July 19, 2011 Public Notice Given On June 17, 2011 [X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: S:\CD\CURRENn!201 1\1 1-038 (North Copper Hill Annexations)\Environmental\Initial Study and Neg Dec\Negative Declaration --North Copperhill Annexation 6-6-1 Ldoc CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 11 -03 8 ANNEXATION NO. 11-002, PREZONE NO. 11-001 DATE: July 19, 2011 TO: Chairperson Burkhart and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Paul D. Brotzman, Director of Community Development Lisa Webber, AICP, Planning Manager CASE PLANNER: Ben Jarvis, Associate Planner APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita REQUEST: This is a request for a Prezone of approximately 2,475 acres of land in the North Copperhill Annexation area. LOCATION: The annexation area is located in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley and consists of approximately 2,475 acres: The annexation area is generally located east of San Francisquito Canyon Road, south of the Angeles National Forest boundary, north of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate limit, and west of Bouquet Canyon Road. The annexation area also includes an area generally south of Bouquet Canyon Road, east of the existing City limits, north of Plum Canyon Road, and east of Santa Catarina Drive, inclusive of the residents on the east side of the street. BACKGROUND In response to a letter received in July 2008 from the Pacific Crest Homeowners Association to annex their neighborhood to the City, staff surveyed residents in the Pacific Crest neighborhood along with residents of other nearby, developed, areas in unincorporated County territory to determine the level of support for City annexation. The survey had an approximate response rate of 20%. Of those who responded, 87% indicated that they would support annexation. On March 8, 2011, the City Council directed staff to prepare boundary maps and legal descriptions for the North Copperhill Annexation area. Should the subject territory ultimately be annexed to the City of Santa Clarita, most of the territory between Raintree Place on the west and Bouquet Canyon Road on the east would become part of the City. The annexation area would also include a developed portion of the Plum Canyon area south of Bouquet Canyon Road in the vicinity of Santa Catarina Road. Master Case 11-038 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 2 of 7 PROJECT AREA/PROJECT SETTING This is a request for a Prezone (PRZ) associated with the North Copperhill Annexation area. The City of Santa Clarita is considering the annexation of approximately 2,475 acres of land located in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley generally between the City's existing northern boundary and the Angeles National Forest (see attached vicinity map). The estimated permanent population of the project area is 9,543. The project area consists of residential neighborhoods, vacant residential land, open space, an 18,860 square -foot commercial center, three school sites, three park sites, a fire station, and two Los Angeles County probation camps. The project area contains power transmission corridors for Southern California Edison and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and both Los Angeles City aqueducts. While no development is proposed as part of this project, 124 single-family homes have been approved by Los Angeles County but have yet to be constructed. The City would honor these County approvals provided that the developments are built according to the approved tentative tract maps and that the construction occurs prior to the expiration dates for the respective maps. The North Copperhill Annexation area contains three distinct residential neighborhoods: Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree. The project area is already included in the City of Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence and already carries land use designations under the City's General Plan. As such, neither a Sphere of Influence Amendment nor a .General Plan Amendment is required. A summary of the three neighborhoods is listed below: Bouquet Canyon The Bouquet Canyon area consists of approximately 450 acres and constitutes the eastern portion of the project area. The neighborhood is located both north and south of Bouquet Canyon Road and includes the area in the vicinity of Kathleen Avenue, Woodside Drive, Shadow Valley Lane, Rodgers Drive, and Santa Catarina Road. The Bouquet Canyon sub -area includes two County of Los Angeles probation camps, Camp Scott and Camp Scudder, and is primarily built out. This portion of the annexation area also contains Plum Canyon Elementary School, David March Park (12.3 acres), 928 single-family homes, and has an estimated population of 2,784 permanent residents. Haskell Canyon Haskell Canyon is the largest of the project's three neighborhoods and consists of approximately 1,821 acres, 1,940 single family homes, and an estimated population of 5,820 residents. The Haskell Canyon area is bounded by the current City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary on the south, the Angeles National Forest on the north, the Dry Canyon Reservoir property on the west, and an undeveloped 10 -acre parcel immediately south of the Dry Canyon dam. The area is bounded to the east by privately owned parcels west of Blue Cloud Road. Primary streets within this sub -area include Haskell Canyon Road, Rock Canyon Drive, Garnet Canyon Drive, and Cypress Place. The Haskell Canyon neighborhood contains an 18,860 square -foot commercial center, Mountainview Elementary School, the unused (closed) Bouquet Canyon Elementary School, Pacific Crest Park (7 -acres), and an undeveloped, 8 -acre park site south of Copperhill Drive, opposite Deer Springs Drive. Los Angeles County Fire Station 108 is located on Rock Master Case 11-038 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Canyon Drive. The existing neighborhoods were developed under Tract Map Nos. 35783, 46183, 46908, 47657, 50586, 51789, and 52807. Two other tracts have been tentatively approved by Los Angeles County but are not yet built. Tract 52829 would allow 95 new single-family homes to be constructed on 74.76 acres at the northern terminus of Wellston Drive, south of Copperhill Drive. The tract map expires on March 19, 2012. The applicant has the option for four (4) one- year time extensions with the County, which means the expiration date may be pushed out as far as 2016. Tract 66561 would allow for 29 single-family units to be constructed on 80 acres of land at the northern terminus of Phantom Trail and expires on December 17, 2012. The applicant has the option for up to six (6) .one-year extensions which means that the expiration date could be as late as 2018. A Negative Declaration was prepared for each of the undeveloped tracts and no mitigation measures were included as part of the project approvals. Raintree The Raintree neighborhood is located generally east of San Francisquito Canyon and consists of the developed areas north of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate limits and south of the Angeles National Forest. Primary streets within the neighborhood include Raintree Place, Valley Oak Place, Black Pine Way, and Boxwood Lane. The Raintree neighborhood consists of approximately 203 acres, 313 single-family homes, and also includes the Dry Canyon Reservoir site that is owned by the LADWP. The area was developed under Tract Map Nos. 45137, 46564 (01, 02, 03, 04, and 05), and 49958. There are no commercial centers, public parks, or schools in the Raintree area, although a private park is located off Black Pine Lane. The area is primarily developed with an estimated population of 939 people. PROJECT Pursuant to the State of California Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, annexing cities are required to prezone land. The City proposes a Prezone that would change the zoning designations of the annexation area in order to be consistent with the City's zoning ordinance. The prezone designations would be consistent with the existing Los Angeles County -land use designation for the Santa Clarita Valley area plan and would reflect the existing development and conditions within the proposed annexation area. The project is located within the City's existing General Plan planning area and consists of land use designations that include Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Non -Urban Residential (NU2), Non -Urban Residential (NU3), Non -Urban Residential (NU -5), Open Space (OS), Open Space— Bureau of Land Management (OS-BLM), Public Institution (PI), Urban Residential I (URI), and Urban Residential 2 (UR2), as shown in Table I and the attached General Plan map. A Prezone map for the project area is shown in Exhibit A. Prezone maps for each of the three neighborhood areas are also attached to the staff report. As no changes to the General Plan are proposed, a General Plan Amendment is not required. Master Case 11 -03 8 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Table I: General Plan Land Use Designations General Plan Designation Acres Existing Land Use Commercial Neighborhood (CN) _.............__..__...._...--._......--._... --._....... - - —-._._._..._..---...------ 1.76 ---------- Commercial center ------------...----....- --.._._.. -------...._ Non -Urban Residential 2 NU2 . ............._......_._._........_..........................._._............ ....... .._-(......._._.__.........._.. .........._.__........ 74.69 ---------- - Vacant -------------------------- Non -Urban Residential 3 (NU3) 123.73 Vacant Non -Urban Residential 5 NU5 __ ______ ___......_..........._..__._._. ____..___ __._._.(....)._____ ........... 6.75 1 Residential _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open_ Space (OS) (, 803.85 ............................._.... 1..,.....,._ ................_._. Park sites and vacant .. _. Open Space --Bureau of Land Management 2475.8* OS-BLM .._...............................)._....__.__...._._..._.____._.._..._._._._....__.__._........__._._..._..._.___._........__. _._. 4.90 Vacant Schools, water tanks, LA Public Institution.............____._.............._......... 128.73 ._-._._.. Count.Y.r.._o...._b._.a_._t._i.o._-n-- ._c._._a.....m_._...s ... -_.._P_.. .........___..._..__...._._..__.._..____.__._.____..... Urban Residential 1UR1-) __._._..__....._.-...._._........-.-.------._�._....-- -----------------..--._.....- 351.99 -----------._.__.._.__. Residential and vacant _...._..--...--_...__._....._..---_.__....__._._._._.-...._._..._._..........__..... Urban Residential 2 (UR2) 979.24 Residential and vacant Total: 2475.64 -1 -- *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. The proposed prezone designations for the annexation area include Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Open Space (OS), Residential Estate (RE), Residential Suburban (RS), and Residential Very Low (RVL). These prezone designations are listed in Tables II through V for the overall project area and sub -areas. Existing County of Los Angeles zoning is listed in Table VI. The proposed prezone designations reflect the existing and approved development in the area. Any future development that was not previously approved and/or environmentally analyzed by the County of Los Angeles, would be processed, analyzed, and reviewed by the City. Table II: North Copperhill Annexation Area Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Density Commercial Neighborhood -- 1.8 .........................................._.._._._..._._._........._._..._.__.._.__.._.......__.._.....- Floor Area Ratio = .375:1 ---.._.. Open Space _ ------__..--------._...----------..__....._._......_......_._.__....._...._..._._._...._.. 810.1 N/A ..._......-_-..._-.._............._.........._..._...........---- Residential Estate (RE) 1268.09( ...... _....... ........ _._.._1.._unit ..per_2._acres Residential Suburban (RS)1.388.,98 j 5. units Per acre Residential Ve Low RVL 6.8 1 unit per acre Total: 2475.8* Table III: Bouquet Canvon Prezone Prezone Desi nation Acres Density Open Space 37.18 ... N/A _ --- — Residential Estate (RE) _....._._.__..._...._..._._._._....._.__._._...._.._.._._._.__....._..___._._-._---._......._...._. 72.01 .............._._...._............_._.__........._ E 1 unit per 2 acres ....................... -.....__._..__......... _._._....... ._ Residential Suburban (RSA 335.56 5 units per acre Residential VeryLow RVL 6.75 1 unit er acre Total: 451.50" Table IV: Haskell Canyon Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Density Commercial Neighborhood_ 1_77 Floor Area Ratio = .375.1 Open Space.---- - 767 50 - - - - -- - N/A Residential EstateRE) 123.72 ................................... _........_......._........ Residential Suburban RS 928.08 5 units er acre Total: 1821.07` Master Case 11-038 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Table V: Raintree Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Density Space_._._..._......._._...__.._....._..__._._____..._._._........_._._.........._.._... 5.46 N/A _Open Residential Estate (RE1---- 72.36 _............................................1_._unit...per...2.. acres Residential Suburban RS 125.34 5 units er acre Total: 203.16* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Table VI: Existin4 Countv Zonin Raintree Neighborhood i Haskell Canyon Neighborhood Bouquet Canyon Neighborhood A-2-2: i A-1-1 A-1-1 Heavy Agriculture Light Agriculture Light Agriculture Two -acre minimum lot size :One acre minimum lot size ........................_._..._._...._.._.........._..._._._......................_._..__.........._._._._.-........._._...._ One -acre minimum lot size ........_._._._.__...._......_._...._.....__..........__.............._......... _._._._._........_._.._.._._.........---._._._......_._....._.._._............_._.._.._._._....__._..._ RPD -5000 3.5U: A -1 -1 -DP Residential Planned Development Light Agriculture A-2-1 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size One -acre minimum lot size Heavy Agriculture 3.5 units _per acre _._._. Development Program _.._ ._..._..... .-_. .._._._._.__.._...-- One -acre minimum lot size - -- - _ -- -- - - -- -... - A-2-1 R-1-5000 Heavy Agriculture Single Family Residential One -acre minimum lot size 5,000 s . ft. minimum lot size _9.._.--------------------------- --- ----------------------------------------..__.........._._.........._._.__..._......._..__._.....__...... ----._._......._...---._._.._.__.._.__._....--- R -1 -10000 -DP A-2-2 Single Family Residential Heavy Agriculture 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Two -acre minimum lot size Development Program RPD -6000-5.9U C -2 -DP Residential Planned Development Neighborhood Business 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Development Program..._..................._....__.................._......._..............5:9 units acre RPD -10000-1.9U R-1-5000 € Residential Planned Development Single Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size .............._...._._._..__....__._._._.................................... _.._5,000_s.9�._ft..._minimum..lotsize........_.............._......_........_..._� 9_units..per acre...._. .......... ............ ...... .............. ......._........ ..... R-1-7000 Single Family Residential ............ 7,000 sq. ft;. minimum lot s ........... ............ .,. _..... ........ _............. ._......... .......... - . RPD -1-3 Residential Planned Development One -acre minimum lot size 3.0 units per acre............_._._..._. .............__._._... _. --------------- ------- ------` RPD -1-11U Residential Planned Development One -acre minimum lot size 11 units per acre _..................._._.__.._...........__.... . ............... ..__............_._.. RPD -5000-3.5U Residential Planned Development t 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 3.5 units _.per.acre .................... ........ ....._...._._._........... _...__. RPD -5000-4U Residential Planned Development 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 4 units per acre RPD -6000-4U i Residential Planned Development 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 4 units Der acre I The proposed Prezone and the associated annexation would not create. County islands or non- contiguous City -territory. The Prezone would be consistent with the existing neighborhoods and approved, future, development and would likewise reflect the City's commitment for preserving open space in undeveloped portions of the Santa Clarita Valley. Master Case 11-038 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 6 of 7 ANALYSIS Under Prezone 11-001, the subject territory area would be assigned prezone designations that are consistent with the City of Santa Clarita . General Plan and zoning ordinance. The prezone designations would be generally consistent with the existing County of Los Angeles designations in the project area, as well as the existing land uses. Should the Commission recommend approval of the project and adopt the accompanying resolution, the project would proceed to the City Council for further consideration. The Prezone would become effective when the project area is formally annexed by the City of Santa Clarita. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The current land uses in the project area are consistent with the City's General Plan. The project would assign residential, open space, and commercial prezoning to the unincorporated territory, that both support and are consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the project is consistent with the following policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan: Objective LU 1.1: Maintain an urban form for the Santa Clarita Valley that preserves an open space greenbelt around the developed portions of the Valley, protects significant resources from development, and directs growth to urbanized areas served with infrastructure. Policy LU 1.1.3: Discourage urban sprawl into rural areas by limiting non- contiguous, "leap frog" development outside of areas designated for urban use. The project supports this objective and policy because it would prezone 810 acres as open space which would prevent additional sprawl into natural areas and while directing growth into areas that are currently served by infrastructure by assigning residential zones that carry appropriate densities. PUBLIC NOTICING In compliance with the UDC noticing requirements, a notice advertising this public hearing item was mailed to the 3,284 property owners who own land within the project area. Additional notices were sent to 3,569 property owners who own land within a 1,000' radius of the proposed annexation area. An 1/8 -page advertisement was placed in The Signal, newspaper on June 17, 2011, and six public hearing signs were posted in the project area. Staff has received no letters of opposition to the project. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS An Initial Study was prepared that evaluated the potential impacts of the project. No significant impacts were identified that could reasonably result from the Prezone or ultimate annexation. It is therefore determined that Master Case 11-038 and its associated entitlements would not have a Master Case 11-038 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 7 of 7 significant effect on the environment. The requested Prezone is consistent with Los Angeles County land use planning policies and reflects the project area's existing development and uses. The Negative Declaration for this project was prepared and circulated for public review and comment beginning June 17, 2011, through July 19, 2011. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Open the public hearing; 2) Receive testimony from the public; 3) Close the public hearing; and 4) Adopt Resolution No. P11-15, recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution to adopt the Negative Declaration for the project and approve Master Case 11-038; inclusive of Prezone 11-001, and direct staff to proceed with the application process as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County for the North Copperhill Annexation. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. P11-15 Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study North Copperhill Prezone Map (Exhibit A) Vicinity Map General Plan Map Bouquet Canyon Prezone Map Haskell Canyon Prezone Map Raintree Prezone Map Correspondence S:\CD\CURRENTW011\11-038 (North Copper Hill Annexations)\Planning Commission\MC 11-038 StaffReport.doc WILLIAM T FUJIOKA Chief Executive Officer County of Los Angeles CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 713, Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 974-1101 httpJ/ceo.lacounty, gov Mr. Ben Jarvis Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Jarvis: July 19, 2011 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR NORTH COPPERHILL ANNEXATION Board of Supervisors GLORIA MOLINA First District MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS Second District ZEV YAROSLAVSKY Third District DON KNABE Fourth District MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Fifth District The County has prepared comments on the City of Santa Clarita's Notice of Intent to. adopt a Negative Declaration (ND) for the North Copperhill Canyon Annexation project. The ND evaluates the impacts of a proposed annexation into the City of Santa Clarita of 2,475 acres of land including the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree areas. The ND also evaluates a Master Case and Pre -Zone of this area consisting of residential and commercial territory.. Included in this letter are comments on behalf of the County Chief Executive Office and Departments of Regional Planning, Sheriff, Parks and Recreation, Public Library, and the County of Los Angeles Consolidated Fire Protection District. Departmental letters are included as Attachment A. Chief Executive Office Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Policy The County is obligated to review each annexation and sphere of influence amendment proposal in accordance with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Policy 3.095 — "City Annexations and Spheres of Influence". The Policy includes conditions and guidance for determining the fiscal, geographic, environmental, social, and operational impacts on affected unincorporated communities and the County of Los Angeles, as well as determining any recommended mitigations. The Policy is attached, Attachment B, so that the City can ensure that the proposed annexation is consistent with the County Board of Supervisor's Policy. Department of Regional Planning (DRP) Annexation Boundary DRP concludes that the boundary of the annexation area is appropriate, as it reflects a logical extension of the City's boundary to include adjacent residential areas that require an urban level of services as well as an adjacent open space area that was recently acquired by the City. `To Enrich Lives Through Effective And Caring Service" _--.._..—__-.. .................__---.------Please-Cimserve--Paper=TMs Doc-ume-nt-and-Copps-areTwc-SidFd- Intra -County Correspondence Sent Electronically Only Mr. Ben Jarvis July 19, 2011 Page 2 Land Use and Plannin The proposed annexation area is currently governed by the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan ("Plan"). Attachment A (DRP letter), Exhibits I through VI provide current land use and zoning designations under the Plan and code and a summary of zoning and land use area calculations. These Exhibits provide the City's correct land use and zoning information for their annexation application(s) to the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation- Commission (LAFCO). Note that there are three zoning designations within the Raintree Annexation: A-2-2; RPD -5000-3.5U; and RPD -5000-4.5U. The RPD -5000-4.5U is not referenced in the ND and should be added. DRP concurs with the ND that the annexation will not have a significant impact on land use and planning based on the existing Plan and expected outcome of the joint planning effort in "One -Valley -One -Vision" (OVOV) plan and the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan update which will be adopted by the Board in late 2011 or early 2012. The City's Open Space land use designation is not shown on the latest County Area Plan land use map, because this open space area was recently acquired by the City. The County will apply an Open Space land use designation to this area before the Area Plan land use map is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed zoning designations for the annexation area are appropriate, as they are consistent with the proposed land use designations. Approved/Pending Projects Two approved subdivision projects, not yet constructed, are included within the Haskell Canyon Annexation area: TR 52829 and TR 66561. DRP records indicate that a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and not a Negative Declaration, was prepared for each of the two projects. Please contact DRP's Land Divisions Section at (213) 974-6433 to obtain project documentation and revise the ND accordingly. Two pending but inactive subdivision projects exist within the Haskell Canyon annexation area, TR 47760 and TR 43589, and both require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). City staff confirmed that the City just purchased approximately 526 acres of land in June 2011 including the two pending subdivisions and has pre -zoned it as Open Space for permanent preservation. Therefore, DRP concurs that potential environmental impacts associated with the two pending projects no longer exist and do not need to be discussed in the ND. Population and Housing Upon receiving the official annexation application from LAFCO requesting County review, DRP will calculate a draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) transfer amount associated Mr. Ben Jarvis July 19, 2011 Page 3 with the proposed annexation. In the absence of an official methodology to calculate RHNA transfers for annexations, and with the nature of the RHNA being adopted at a jurisdictional - level, DRP recommends that each RHNA transfer for annexations during the 2008-2014 Housing Element planning period be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The calculation will be advisory and does not preclude other considerations provided through negotiations from informing the final agreed-upon RHNA transfer. The County will request that a group or the City prepare its own estimate and approach to determine the appropriate RHNA transfer. Public/Municipal Services Regional Planning provides land use planning, permitting, and zoning enforcement services to the unincorporated Los Angeles County. The proposed annexation will not result in significant impacts on municipal services provided by DRP to the remaining unincorporated area. Sheriff The proposed annexation area is within the service area of the Department's Santa Clarita Valley Station. The Station is located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway, in the City of Valencia, and is approximately seven (7) miles from the proposed annexation area. The Station's service area encompasses approximately 656 square miles. The Department has no comments on the proposed annexation as it is described in the ND. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Public Parks The proposed annexation area includes three County public park sites: • David March Park • Pacific Crest Park • An undeveloped park site south of Copperhill Drive (provided as part of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47657 "Copperhill") The City must agree to assume ownership and responsibility for all three public parks in their current condition, upon annexation of the area to the City's jurisdiction. Page 38 of the Initial Study indicates that upon annexation, "the responsibilities for park maintenance and recreational programs would transfer from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita". Along with accepting responsibilities for maintenance and programming, it should be noted that a non-negotiable condition of the transfer of County parks to the City, is that the City must comply with California State Government Code Section 25550.5, which states that all residents of the County shall be treated equally regardless of whether or not they are residents of the City. Mr. Ben Jarvis July 19, 2011 Page 4 Trails This annexation area includes two short segments of the proposed Bouquet Canyon County Trail #77 in the proposed Bouquet Canyon area. These short segments are identified in Exhibit VII. The northerly segment connects with an existing City trail. There are no existing trail easements recorded to the County in the annexation area. Additionally, DPR will continue to work closely with the City on any future connection to the County's regional trail alignments. Public Library The proposed Haskell Canyon and Raintree annexation communities are currently served by the Public Library's Stevenson Ranch Express Library, while the proposed Bouquet Canyon annexation community is served by the Santa Clarita Valley Bookmobile. On August 24, 2010, the Santa Clarita City Council adopted Resolution 10-71 to withdraw from the County Library System and assume the responsibility for providing library services to the residents of the City effective July 1, 2011. The three libraries located within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita are Canyon Country Jo Anne Darcy Library, Newhall Library, and Valencia Library. Should this annexation be approved, the City of Santa Clarita will be responsible for providing .library services to these communities and the Public Library would no longer receive its dedicated share of property tax revenues and voter -approved special tax revenues collected from the properties in the annexation area. County of Los Angeles Consolidated Fire Protection District (CFPD) The Fire District provides fire and emergency medical services to both the proposed annexation area and the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed annexation areas are primarily protected by two fire stations: Fire Station 108, which is located within Haskell Canyon at 28799 N. Rock Canyon Drive, Santa Clarita; and Fire Station 111, which is located approximately two miles away at 26829 Seco Canyon Road, Saugus. No change in fire services, or impacts on fire services, would result due to this annexation. The Fire District currently receives approximately 17 percent of the ad valorem property tax and levies a special tax to fund fire protection and emergency medical services in the proposed annexation area. Since the area would remain in the Fire District, the Fire District will continue to receive its current revenues, and there will be no funding impact on fire protection and emergency medical services. In addition, the County and the City of Santa Clarita have both adopted a developer fee to fund construction of new facilities in this area. Mr. Ben Jarvis July 19, 2011 Page 5 . Probation Department The Initial Study lists two Los Angeles County Probation Camps, Camp Scott and Camp Scudder, that are located within the Bouquet Canyon annexation area. The Probation Department was not forwarded a copy of the Initial Study by the City of Santa Clarita. The City should allow the Probation Department to comment on the ND. The Departments of Animal Care and Control, Public Health, and Public Works have no comments. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothea Park at (213) 974-4283 or via e-mail at dpark@ceo.lacountygov. Sincerely, WILLIAM T FUJIOKA Chief Executive Officer R L. BINSON Deputy Chief Executive Officer Community Services Cluster and Capital Programs/Administrative Services WTF:RLR DSP.TH:can Attachments (2) Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich; Fifth District Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff Marcia Mayeda, Director of Animal Care and Control Daryl L. Osby, Fire.Chief Margaret Donnellan Todd, County Librarian Russ Guiney, Director of Parks and Recreation RichardJ. Bruckner, Director of Planning Donald H. Blevins, Chief Probation Officer Dr. Jonathan E. Fielding, Director and Public Health Officer of Public Health Gail Farber, Director of Public Works WCHRONO 2011�CHRONO 2011 [WORDJ OUA&Qry of Santa Cladla ND for North Copperhill Annexation -Ban Jarvia.doc ATTACHMENT A of LO3w,, f � ++ + f k k CAUFORN�� X Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning Planning for the Challenges Ahead Richard J. Bruckner Director July 7, 201.1 TO: Dorothea Park, Manager Office of Unincorporated Area Services Chief Executive Office FROM: Richard J. Bruckner Director SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NORTH COPPER HILL ANNEXATION The City of Santa Clarita ("City") issued the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration ("ND") for the, North Copper Hill Annexation project, which consists of Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon and Raintree annexations. Your office requested that the Department of Regional Planning ("DRP") comment on the proposed ND. We provide the following comments for your review. ANNEXATION BOUNDARY The annexation boundary is appropriate, as it reflects a logical extension of the City's boundary to include adjacent residential areas that require an urban level of services as well as an adjacent open space area that was.recently acquired by the City. LAND USE AND PLANNING The proposed annexation area is currently governed by the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Plan ("Plan") and County Zoning Code. Attachments I through VI provide current land use and zoning designations under the plan and code and Attachment VII is a summary of zoning and land use area calculations. They are for the City's reference to ensure that correct land use and zoning information will be contained in its annexation application(s) to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County (LAFCO). Note .that there. are three zoning designations within the Raintree Annexation: A-2-2, RPD -5000-3.5U and RPD -5000-4.5U. The RPD -5000-4.5U is not referenced in the ND. DRP concurs with the ND that the annexation will not have significant impact on land use and planning based on the existing Plan and expected outcome of the joint planning effort in "One -Valley -One -Vision" (OVOV) project -.the Santa Clarita Plan update: 320 West Temple Street - Los Angeles, CA 90012 - 213-974-6411 - Fax: 213-626-0434 - TDD: 213-617-2292 North Copper Hill Annexation July 7, 2011 Page ( PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT) of 3 The proposed land use designations for the annexation area are appropriate. City staff and County staff have agreed on these land use designations as part of the OVOV planning effort. In June 2011, the City Council adopted a new City General Plan that was developed as part of the OVOV planning effort. In .late 2011 or early 2012, County staff anticipates that the Board of Supervisors will adopt a new Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan (Area Plan) that was developed as part of the OVOV planning effort. The City's Open Space land.use designation is not shown on the latest Area Plan land use map, but this is because this open space area was recently acquired by the City. The County will also apply an Open Space land use designation to this area before the Area Plan land use map is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed zoning designations for the annexation area are appropriate, as they are consistent with the proposed land use designations. APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS Two approved subdivision projects but not yet built are included within the Haskell- Canyon askellCanyon Annexation area: TR. 52829 and TR66561. Our records show that a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and not Negative Declaration, was prepared for eachof the two projects. Please contact DRP's Land Divisions Section at (213) 974- 6433 to obtain project documentation and revise the ND accordingly. Two pending but'inactive subdivision projects exist within the Haskell Canyon -_ Annexation area, TR47760 and TR43589, and both require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). City staff confirmed that the City just purchased approximately 526 acres of land in June 2011 including the two pending subdivisions and has pre -zoned it as Open Space for permanent preservation. Thus, DRP concurs that potential environmental impacts associated with the two pending projects no longer exist and do not need to be discussed in the ND. POPULATION AND HOUSING Upon receiving the official annexation application from LAFCO requesting County review, DRP will calculate a draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) transfer amount associated with the proposed annexation. In the absence of an official methodology to calculate RHNA transfers for annexations, and with the nature of the RHNA being adopted at a jurisdictional -level, DRP recommends that each RHNA transfer for annexations during the 2008-2014 Housing Element planning period be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The calculation will be advisory and does not preclude other considerations that come up from the negotiations from informing the final agreed-upon RHNA transfer. The County will request that a group or the City to prepare its own estimate and approach to determine the appropriate RHNA transfer. North Copper Hill Annexation July 7, 2011 Page { PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT) of 3 PUBLICIMUNICIPAL SERVICES Regional Planning provides land use planning, permitting and zoning enforcement services to the unincorporated Los Angeles County. The proposed annexation will not result in significant impacts on municipal services provided by DRP to the remaining unincorporated area. Should you and your staff have any questions, please contact Ms. Hsiao-Ching Chen at (213) 974-6559 or via email at {HYPERLINK"mailto:hchen@planning.lacounty.gov"}. RJB:hc Attachments c: Lori Glasgow, Fifth Supervisorial District Edel Vizcarra, Fifth Supervisorial District Rosalind Wayman; Fifth Supervisorial District. Tina Herzog; Chief Executive Office . _. County of Los Angeles f Lo.. U Sheriff's Department Headquarters �{ 4700 Ramona Boulevard ' Monterey Park, California 91754-2169 July 14, 2011 Ms. Tina Herzog Chief Executive Office County of Los Angeles Office of Unincorporated Area Services Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 723 Los Angeles,. California 90012 Dear Ms. `Herzog: REVIEW COMMENTS INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT. A NEGATIVE ,DECLARATION FOR THE NORTH. 'COPPERHILL,ANNEXATION PROJECT (MASTER CASE 1.1-038; ANNEXATION 11-002;;.PREZONE 11.001) The Los Angeles County Sheriff's. Department (Department) reviewed the Initial Study (IS) and Negative Declaration (ND) for the North Copperhill Annexation . Project (Project). The proposed Project will add approximately 2,475 acres (Annexation Area) of unincorporated County territory to the City of Santa Clarita (City). The City proposed Annexation Area are within the service area of the Department's Santa Clarita Valley Station (Station). The Station is located at 23740 2Magic Mountain Parkway, in the City of Valencia, and. is approximately 7 .miles from the proposed Annexation Area. The Station's service area encompasses approximately 656 square miles. The Department has no comments on the proposed Project, as it is described in the IS and ND. The Department appreciatesbeing. included in the review process for the proposed Project and we look forward to subsequent reviews of Project documents, as they are developed, in the future. ✓rW `7rad lion ol'&ruice csince 1850 Ms. Herzog -2- July 14, 2011 Should you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact Project Manager, Lester Miyoshi, of my staff, at (626) 300-3012, and refer to FPB Tracking No. 11-022. Mr. Miyoshi may also be contacted, via e-mail, at Ihmivosh(&Iasd.orq. Sincerely; LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF Gary T.K.e, Director Facilities Planning Bureau Ms. Herzog -37 July 14, 2011 GTKT: LM:lm/mm c: Paul Becker, Captain, Santa Clarita Valley Station Jeffrey S. Jackson, Deputy, Santa Clarita Valley Station Michael C. Irving, Lieutenant, Contract Law Enforcement Bureau Joel L. Barnett, Sergeant, Contract Law Enforcement Bureau Meaghan Wang, Supervising Project Manager, Facilities Planning Bureau Lester Miyoshi, Project Manager, Facilities Planning Bureau Chrono (EIR-Initial5tudy-NegDeo NorthCopperhill AnexProj) 0 + p COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ° DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION a �� yr "Creating Community Through People, Parks and Programs" Russ Guiney, Director July19, 2011 Mr. Ben Jarvis, AICD, Associate Planner. Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 9.1355 Dear Mr. Jarvis, NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NORTH COPPER HILL ANNEXATION The' Negative Declaration. for the North Copper Hill Annexation has been reviewed for potential impact on the facilities: of the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Our comments are as follows.- Public ollows:Public Parks The:proposed annexation area includes three County public park sites: • .:David March Park • Pacific Crest Park • An undeveloped park site south of Copperhill Drive (provided as part :of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47657 "Copperhill") The City must agree to assume: ownership and responsibility for all three public parks:in their current condition, upon annexation of the area to the City's jurisdiction. Page 38 of the Initial Study, :indicates that upon annexation, . "the responsibilities: for park maintenance:and recreational programs would:transfer from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita:": Along with accepting responsibilities for. maintenance and programming, it should e. not.ed t at. a non-negotiable.:condition of..the transfer of County parks. to the City,. is that the City'must comply with California State Government' Code Section_ 25550.5, which states that: all residents of the. County shall be treated equally regardless of. whether or not they are residents of.the City. Residential Subdivisions with: Outstanding Quimby, Obligations Theproposed :annexation area contains two residential .subdivisions that have been: tentatively .approved by the County, but have not been recorded. These proposed Plaiuiing and Development Agency • 510 South Vermont Ave • Los Angeles, CA 90020 •: (213) 351-5198 Mr. Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner July 19, 2011 Page 2 { subdivisions have not satisfied their Quimby obligations because they have not entered the final map stage: • Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52829: $147,067 in in -lieu fees • Vesting Tentative Tract Map 66561: $51,875 in in -lieu fees a Trails There are no existing trail easements recorded to the County in the annexation area. However, the annexation area does include two short segments of the proposed Bouquet Canyon County Trail #77. These short segments are identified on the. enclosed Exhibit VII. As you can see, the northerly segment connects with an existing City trail. Please know that DPR will continue to work closely with the City on any future connection to the County's regional trails. Thank you for including this Department in the review of this process. If there are any trail questions, please contact Frank Moreno at 213-351-5136 or by email at: fmoreno(cDParks. lacounty.gov. If there are any other questions, please contact Julie Yom at (213) 351-5127 or by email at: iyom ,,parks:lacounty.gov. Sincerely, i Joan Rupert Section Head Environmental & Regulatory Permitting Section Enclosure: Exhibit VII, North Copper Hill Annexation JR:JY:/response to City of Santa Clarita North Copper Hill Annexation c: Parks and Recreation (N. E. Garcia, F. Moreno, J. Barber, C. Lau, J. Yom) Planning and Development Agency • 510 South Vermont Ave • Los Angeles, CA 90020 • (213) 351-5198 C0�111ty County of Los Angeleg Public Library a. www.colapublib.org r f • a!m�► 7400 East Imperial Hwy.; Downey. CA 90242 -k (562) 940-8400 x L.!brary - Margaret Donnellan Todd CountyLibrarian July 18, 2011 TO: Rita Robinson Chief Deputy, Chief Executive Officer FROM; Yolanda De Ramus Assistant Director, istrative Services SUBJECT: NORTH COPPER: L ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF INTENT FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION . This is in response to your, request for. written: comments on the Notice of Intent for Negative Declaration for:the: above referenced project. As indicated in the documents we received, .the proposed North Copper :Hill annexation includes the. Bouquet Canyon, . Haskell Canyon; and Raintree communities. No Annexation Scenario The proposed Haskell Canyon and Raintree annexation communities are currently: served by the Public: Library's Stevenson Ranch: Express Library, while the, proposed :Bouquet Canyon annexation community is served by the Santa Clarita Valley Bookmobile. If the . ..:. annexation is not approved, the Public Library will continue to serve these communities. Annexation Scenario. On August:24, 2010; the Santa Clarita City Council adopted Resolution 10-71 to withdraw from the:: County Library . System, and . assume the responsibility for providing library services to the residents of the City effective July 1, 2011...The three libraries located. within .the boundaries of the Cityof.Santa Clarita are Canyon. Country Jo Anne Darcy Library, Newhall Library, and Valencia Library. If the annexation is: approved, the City of Santa Clarita: will be responsible: to :provide library:: services to. these communities: The Public. Library will no longer receive its dedicated share of property tax revenues and.voter-approved special tax revenues collected from the Properties in the annexation area.: If you have any questions or:need additional information, please have your staff. contact Malou Rubio at (562) 940-8450. Lanyonapa rcaintree commu or ganja°v.larna 1. n� prujc��t wriaisi� u.: , approxim6tely2,475 acres of partially developed land coptamin approximately 3,181 developed single family residences, an.18-,6. square foot neighborhood shopping center, a fre station,;awo elementary schools,, and elementary school.site, two ' ounty,of Los Angeles probation camp facilities, and three public. park sites The Fire District provides fre and emergency medical services'to both the proposed,. annexation areas arid"the City "of Santa Clarita: The proposed annexation areas are' primarily; protected by two fire stations: Fire Station 108, which is located within Haskell Canyon -at 2$799 N. Ioc . Canyon Drive, Santa Clarita, and Fire Station 1-11, which` is located approximately 2 miles distant at 26829 Seco Canyon Road, Saugus. No change in fire.services,.or.impacts on:fire services, would result due, to this annexation. The Fire District currently receives approximately 17 percent of the ad. valorem property tax and levies a special tax to fund fire protection and emergency medical services in SERVINO THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS DIAMOND BAR HIDDEN HILLS ". LA MIRADA MALIBU _ POMONA SIGNAL HILL ARTESIA CARSON . 'DUARTE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH EL MONTE AZUSA CERRITOS EL MONTE INDUSTRY LAKEWOOD NORWALK ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE BALDWINPARK CLAREMONT GARDENA INGLEWOOD LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TEMPLE CITY BELL COMMERCE GLENDORA IRWINDALE LAWNDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD WALNUT BELL GARDENS COVINA HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE LOMITA PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS WEST HOLLYWOOD BELLFLOWER CUDAHY HAWTHORNE LA HABRA LYNWOOD PICO RIVERA SANTA CLARITA WESTLAKE VILLAGE Tina Herzog July .6; 2011. Page 2 `r the proposed, annexation area Smce. the area would remain in the Fire District, the Fire Distract will continue to receive its current revenues; and there will oe no funding impact on fire protec#ion grid emergency med.icaf services In addition, the County: and the City of Santa Clanta have both.adopted a developer fee to fund construction of new facilites in .thi$, area ifyou have any further questions Qr concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Kien Chm, Planning Analyst, at (323) 881 2404 DA.kc County of Los Angeles `N Department of Animal Care and Control Administrative Office 6) k,fix' 5$98 Cherry Avenue �o NTY OF LOS ANGELES .. Long Beach, C6(ifornia-:9:0805 ANIMAL CARE (562) 728-4610 • Fax (562) 422-3478 ANI)coNTROL March Mayada http:Hanirhalcare.lacoUnty.gov D'IreEtot July 13,,2011: Shelter Locations Downey Shelter To: Tina Herzog 11258 $. Garfield Ave. Downey; -CA 90242 Office of Unin(orporated Area Services (562) 940-68M Chief Executive Office. Carson Shelter 2is w. victoria St. From: Patrick Malekian Gardena, CA 90248 /A Administrative D..: putt' (310) 523ss66` 1361dwingPark`shelter NORTH COPPER HILL ANNEXATION 4275fl;Elton St. Uldwin:Park, CA 91706 (626) 982-3577, In reviewing the City of Santa Clarita's intent to file a Negative Declaration Lancaster Shelter for the North Copper Hill annexation the Department of Animal Care and 5210 W. Avenue I. Lancaster, CA 93536 COrltrol;.(Department) d00S not :have..anyComments at this time.., The. (fist) 940-4191 Department would .continue. to provide services to the affected, area. The castaicShelter City of Santa Clarita would be responsible for any costs incurred as a result' 31044 N. Charlie.Cyn. Rd. of such services. Castaic,. CA ;91384 (681)257=3191 Agoura.Shelter 29525 Agoura Row Agoura, CA 9.1301 (618)991-0071 If you. have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (562) 256-2400. P'M:jl "To -h -U es-Thro.ugh-Effecti.ve-And-.Caring-Sel-vice'-'-.-.--- -h- i-es_T_hr_ough._Effecti.ve_A_ nd_.Caring-Ser-vice"----- ---- COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Public Health JONATHAN E. FIELDING, M.D., M.P.H. Director and Health Officer JONATHAN E. FREEDMAN Chief Deputy Director ANGELO J. BELLOW, REHS Director of Environmental Health Veronica Bauchman, REHS Acting Bureau Director District Surveillance and Enforcement Le Taun Cotton, REHS District Surveillance and Enforcement Region 2 Manager 1435 W. Covina Pkwy., Ste. #14 West Covina, CA 91790 July 11, 2011 TO: Tina Herzog Unincorporated Area Service Office FROM: Le.Taun Cotton, EHS Manager ..Department of Public Health Environmental Health Division RE: City of Santa Clarita Notice of Intent for ND - North Copper Hill Annexation rf BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Gloria Mollne First District Mark Ridley-Thomas Second District Zev Yaroslaysky Third District Don Knabe Fourth District Michael D. Antonovich Fifth District This is in response to a notice of intent from the City of Santa Clarita to file a Negative Declaration for the North Copper Hill .Annexation. The project area consists of three separate communities, each of which will require an individual annexation application to LAFCO. The three annexation communities are: Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree areas. This project includes an Annexation, Master Case, and Prezone. The project consists of approximately 2,475 acres of partially developed land containing approximately 3,181 developed single-family residences, an 18,860 square -foot neighborhood shopping center, a fire station, two elementary schools, an elementary school site, two County of Los Angeles probation camp facilities, and three public park sites (two of which are developed). The project area includes open space, parcels owned by the City of Santa Clariia as well as approximately 124 single-family residences that. have been approved but not yet built. Two power transmission corridors traverse the area along with both Los Angeles City aqueducts. After reviewing the document, Department of Public Health (DPH) -Environmental Division indicated that this project may either have no or only.minor impact on DPH services. Ms. Tina Herzog July 11, 2011 Page 2 Bureau of District Surveillance & Enforcement Our services will remain virtually the same whether or not the City of Santa Clarita proceeds with the North Copper Hill Annexation. The only change (minor) will be that some referrals made to other agencies will be made to the appropriate City agency rather than the County agency. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact me at (626)813-3348. LC: Ic c: Angelo. J. Bellomo, Director of Environmental Health Veronica Bauchman, Acting Bureau Director District Surveillance and Enforcement EXHIBIT ^� Kd � .•'\ »�fy\ l \ yam. �� . � a .�, .: 2r \# 'fill | | | |! ip t e K:{^ `^ ( r � i � ! ) 2 • ...11�.... r s; \ � ® Ili'! , R 3 ƒ) a§/ifl 10 1 M 0 EXHIBIT II \ all oil. ® f ! \• § § \\ ¢ c ) «> a 2 . / 2 ® ( a U ! e a !f.!| || ! § •: , / ! zi | !!. . | { . .i /§ G ■ �... ... «[§ R \ \\ k rI ) 1 tQj \ §\); § ¢ ! EXHIBIT III lu Y Yy 3[ n EZ � � n' 9p9i It NEI ':; �j( C - R inti \{� q Et .'��k1 19 7 T o t AI BL! `l 1HI 1£ � �9a! a�s�8 as S � " 9�e! t it EXHIBIT IV . | H § . `' ! \. as a, BTj s■ ? \ §! | £!\� § B d . ! , t�< Id %A s . | H § . `' ! EXHIBIT V IRA B I. '$ Gy � § M |f \ ! ! / \R • \ rc R\ | | ! HHI // // \] )� § / � \ k § § \§[Q�t\!/\ ) j B I. '$ Gy � § EXHIBIT VI' y� r7; B mu � �| A§2Q �/% G• �jd©" fill 2 UA Ze � 2 a ll.�.! !. �• .a � K� / : \ % } l � � a| | �k k ./i\\ Z § �, /1 t ]\ §§ A§ § s $ kƒ |d CitvofSanta ClaritaAnnexation North Copper Hill T 2,988,420.0851 68.605 C .,C Commercial HIM Hlvl Hillside Manapernent Light agricultural A-2-1 Heavy agricultural A-2-2 Heavy agricultural C -2 -DP :Neighborhood business 213,568.689 !a/,BLM - Open Space (Bureau of Land M P 11 - Public Service Facilities* 31,332,387.718 719.293 -7000 Single-family residence T 2,988,420.0851 68.605 46,699.3301 1.072 �i _agricultural A -1 -1 -DP Light agricultural A-2-1 Heavy agricultural A-2-2 Heavy agricultural C -2 -DP :Neighborhood business 213,568.689 4.903 R--l-3000-DP Single-family residence 31,332,387.718 719.293 -7000 Single-family residence 365,366.3W 8.397 RPD -1-3.01.1 Residential PlarnIned-develoPmePt RPD -10000-1.91-1 �Residential planned development RPD-5000-3.SU !Residential planned development RPD -5000-4.5U Resl ential planned development i�k�sij�nt a] planned development iRPD-6000-4U 'Residential planned development !RPD -6000-5.9u Residential planned development T 2,988,420.0851 68.605 46,699.3301 1.072 43,017,495.596 987.546 733.362 0.017 7,153,556.116 164.223 916,227.929 21.034 213,568.689 4.903 7,940,085.855 182.279 31,332,387.718 719.293 12,79612.i4.2071"' 293.762 365,366.3W 8.397 4,611,469.914i 105.8,65 20,001,219,183i 2,118,198.411 48.627 56,173 1847�,356.4691 421.863 196,999.449�, 4.293 2,094,487.929 48.083 1,101,498.1741 25,287 6,411,747,005, 147.193 636,759.033� 14.618 517,382.370i, 11,877 2,962,799,9861� 68.017 4,611,469.914i 105.8,65 20,001,219,183i 459,165 5,656,3_1__2_T3ij 129.851 EXHIBIT VII mac= W LL 00 a Q ATTACHMENT B County of Los Angeles CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE 713 KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213)974-1101 http:/Iceo.lacounly.gov WILLIAM.T FLIJIOKA Board of supervisors Chief Executive Officer GLORIA MOLINA First District YVONNE B..BURKE December 4, 2007 Second District ZEV YAROSLAVSKY Third District DON KNABE Fourth District The Honorable Board of Supervisors MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH County of Los Angeles Flan District 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Supervisors: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY ANNEXATIONS AND SPHERES OF INFLUENCE POLICY (POLICY NO. 3.095) (ALL SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS) (3 VOTES) . IT IS RECOMMENDED. THAT YOUR BOARD: 1. Approve the .amendment to the City Annexations and Spheres of Influence Policy that is intended to guide the County's review and response to annexation and sphere of influence proposals pursued by cities. 2. Instruct the Chief Executive Officer and other County departments, as appropriate, to implement the amended Board Policy effective immediately. PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION Your Board adopted the Policy on May 13, 2003 with a Sunset Review Date of May 13, 2007. During the sunset review process, it was determined that amendments were necessary to provide. further guidance to the Chief Executive Office (CEO) and County departments when negotiating proposed city annexation and sphere of influence proposals. Implementation of the amended Policy is contingent upon your Board's approval. "To Enrich Lives Through Effective And Caring Service" - The Honorable Board of Supervisors December 4, 2007 Page 2 The amendments provide additional guidelines related to the following Sections of the Policy: Section B 3• Regional Housing Needs Assessments Allocations This Policy amendment will allow the County to negotiate agreements with any city proposing to annex unincorporated territory to transfer Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA) allocations from the County to the annexing city. Currently, transfers of housing units to annexing cities are not part of the annexation process. Therefore, annexations occur without the corresponding transfer of the County's share of housing units to the annexing city and the County is still responsible for the planning of such housing units. By formalizing a process by which such transfers are negotiated, concurrently with city annexations, the County's responsibility for its fair share of housing units will be,more accurately reflected. The amended Policy will also allow the County to oppose an annexation if a city does not accept the RHNA allocation of housing units associated with the land area to be annexed by the city. :Section.B. 5• Annexations that Conflict with_ the.County's Land Use Policy This Policy amendment allows the County to oppose annexations that would result' in patterns of development that conflict with the County's land use plans and policies and/or would negatively impact adjacent unincorporated areas. Section C 2• Unincorporated Area Islands Annexations This Policy amendment will preclude a city from annexing only part of an unincorporated area island, if such an annexation would make it difficult for the County to provide services to the remaining area. Further, partial annexation of an .'unincorporated island" may create illogical boundaries and may further fragment an unincorporated community or area. Implementation of Strategic Plan Goals The Countywide Strategic Plan directs that we provide Organizational Effectiveness (Goal 3) by appropriately evaluating city annexations. In addition, this action is consistent with Fiscal Responsibility (Goal 4) by providing opportunities to maximize the long-term fiscal benefits to the County. The Honorable Board'of Supervisors December 4, 2007 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING Adoption of the amended Policy will not have a direct fiscal impact on current services; however, implementation of the amended Policy will help ensure the County considers opportunities to maximize the potential long-term benefits of annexation and minimize the operational and fiscal impact inherent in certain annexation proposals. Since the amended Policy will also allow the County to transfer an appropriate share of the RHNA allocations to an annexing city, the Department of Regional Planning would not have to expend staffing resources to plan for the housing capacity that would be transferred to an annexing city. FACTS AND PROVISIONSILEGAL REQUIREMENTS Your Board established the'current Policy in.May 2003 to provide: (1) a process for the review and consideration of proposed annexation and sphere' of influence proposals; (2) guidance to County staff in the evaluation of these proposals; and (3) opportunities to negotiate with each city to determine the fiscal, social,.geographic, environmental, operational, :and land use impacts on affected' unincorporated communities and the :County of Los Angeles. Cities within the County were given an opportunityto provide'input on 'the amended Policy during the review process. The draft amended Policy was provided :tothe Councils of Governments (COGs) 'representing various cities in the County and individually to cities that are not represented by a COG. Only the San Gabriel Valley COG and the City of Los Angeles provided input. Based upon the input from both the City of Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley COG,. the proposed amendments were further refined to address both agencies' concerns with the proposed amendments. As required by your Board, County policy revisions. other than an extension of the ' . Sunset Review Date must be presented to, and approved by the Audit Committee. The CEO presented the Policy amendments to the Audit Committee and received final approval on September 20, 2007. The amended Policy was reviewed by County Counsel. The Honorable Board of Supervisors December 4, 2007 Page 4 IMPACT ON CURRENT SERVICES (OR PROJECTS) Approval of the amended Policy will not have a direct impact on current services. However, implementation of the proposed amended Policy will help ensure that the County: (1) appropriately evaluates city annexations to determine the fiscal, social, geographic, environmental, and land use impacts to affected unincorporated communities and the County; and (2) consider opportunities to maximize the potential long-term benefits of annexations and minimize negative impacts to the County and its residents. CONCLUSION Adoption of the amended Policy by your Board will provide further guidance on city annexation and sphereW influence proposals. Upon adoption of: the amended. Policy, the CEO will provide a copy to each city in the County. . Respectfully submitted', W �, - WILLIAM -T FUJIOKA Chief Executive Officer WTF:LS:DSP MJS:os Attachment (1) c: County Counsel Auditor -Controller Director of Regional Planning 120407 CEO Amendment City Annexation® & Spheres of Influence.doc 0li lm e�gekr rounly BOARD OffUPfRVUORlPO(IIYMQNUA! ;Policy #: -- - - — Title_ Effective Date: 3.095 _.- _......_._._.. _.._ . - -05/13/03Ci Annexations and Spheres of Influence ......._._..._.__.....-......-- . - - - - PURPOSE Establish policies for the review and consideration of city annexation proposals and for the 'establishment and updating of city spheres of influence by the Local Agency Formation Commission, which determine where future annexations are likely to occur. The County of Los Angeles supports the concept that urbanizing areas should have the option to attain municipal status through annexation, if so desired by area residents and not 'in conflict with County interests. Recognize that Los: Angeles County is generally an. urban county with a diverse. population and a variety of communities, lifestyles and interests, . and that unincorporated area residents may also chose to remain unincorporated under County government and not become part of a city. In 'recognition of the population .diversity and variation between unincorporated communities, the County will review and evaluate each city annexation proposal or sphere of influence amendment on a case=by-case basis and negotiate with each city:irr good faith as needed, under` the guidance of this policy to determine its fiscal, social; geographic, environmental and/or operational impacts on the affected unincorporated : . community(s) and the County of Los Angeles. Furthermore, it is County policy to provide assistance to residents of unincorporated areas. in determining their preferred government structure alternatives. Finally, while many unincorporated communities reflect distinct., mature, and cohesive identities; other areas are characterized as "islands" created as a result of historical incorporations and annexations. Providing municipal services may involve sending County staff across neighboring cities.to respond to community needs. Ensuring the most cost-effective and responsive services to these areas may involve exploring such vehicles as contracts with surrounding/neighboring cities or expanding County services via contract to address the needs of a larger area. REFERENCE Government Code Section 56000, et seq., Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 POLICY Background: A.. There are three general categories of local government services: 1.. Regional Services are services provided by the County at a standard level to all County residents and properties. Regional services include public health, welfare and social service programs, the criminal justice system, property assessment, tax collection, voter registration and many others. 2. Basic Services are available countywide but are provided by cities, either directly or through contract, within their corporate boundaries, and by the County in unincorporated areas. Basic services include law enforcement, road maintenance, animal control, land use planning,. zoning and building inspection and others. Although service . levelsmay differ between jurisdictions, all cities and the. County provide at. least a basic level of these services. 3. Extended Services maybe ;either additional, non -basic types of services or a higher level of a basic service. Extended services are provided either `by cities orspecial districts. The County generally :does not provide extended services out of general .tax revenue, but ,can -administer dependent taxing districts (e.g.,assessment .and benefit districts)' to support extended" services. B. Traditionally, cities have been incorporated, or their boundaries expanded, to encompass additional areas because residents and/or property owners have desired improved, extended services. C. Pursuant to State. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99, the County Board of Supervisors is responsible for negotiating property tax exchange. resolutions with any city proposing to annex unincorporated territory... The County may also enter into a master property tax exchange agreement with other local agencies within the County to provide for a formula for determining property tax.exchanges. D. Heretofore, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has not adopted a formal policy regarding city annexations. Nor has the Board adopted a master property tax exchange. formula. However, an. informal formula negotiated by the Chief Executive Office and the Los Angeles League of Cities has been historically used. 2 Policies: A. General Policies 1. The County encourages development of unincorporated areas in a manner that permits their assimilation into .adjacent cities, should area residents desire annexation. 2. The County supports revenue allocations that equitably reflect the County's. regional responsibilities, as well as the responsibilities of the County, cities and special districts for basic and extended services. 3. In implementing this Policy, the County may encourage or discourage all or a part of spec'rfic annexations or spheres of influence proposals based upon the impact on an unincorporated community's sense of identity, revenue base, land use planning and pattern of development, and/or impact on County -initiated programs to improve services and infrastructure in the area, so as to avoid premature annexations that may prejudice more favorable longterm government structures. 4. The County Board of Supervisors supports the'concept. of providing positive options to residents of"unincorporated communities who desire.a higher'level of, service, but prefer to remain unincorporated.= "Such options may include "the' 'use of assessment districts* the Countybudget process, local revitalization programs, contracts with •neighboring cities, special: planning standards or other mechanisms; in: needed,, subject to Board approval, and in most cases, subject to the approval of the affected communities. 5. . Based upon the above policies, the County Board of Supervisors has determined that it is in . the best interest of the County's unincorporated communities to review annexation proposals on a case-by-case basis rather than to adopt master agreements or formulas relating to the allocation and/or exchange of revenues between the County and affected. cities. B. Annexation Policies 1. The County will oppose annexations that carve up or fragment an unincorporated community that has a strong sense of identity. 2. The County will oppose annexations of commercial or industrial areas that have a significant negative impact on the County's provision of services, unless the annexing city provides financial or other mitigation satisfactory to the County. 3 3. The County will seek to negotiate agreements with any city proposing to annex unincorporated territory to appropriately transfer Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations from the unincorporated area to an annexing city. The County will oppose annexations with any city that does not accept the SCAG RHNA allocation associated with the land area to be annexed. . 4. Annexations that include areas where the County has established revitalization efforts and/or has committed significant resources for the benefit of the unincorporated community will be reviewed to determine the impact on the County program(s) and may be opposed if the annexation will adversely impact the County program(s). 5. The County may oppose annexations that would result in patterns of development that conflict with the County's land use plans and policies and/or would negatively impact (as defined for each specific annexation) adjacent unincorporated areas. 6 The County will review annexation proposals to ensure that streets.or other County local facilities that sere, the annexing area are included so that the city.assumes responsibility. for maintaining these public facilities., when streets are the demarcation between Junsdictions, tlie: City. f;oundary should be to the. centerline'of the streets that #orris the boundary of their jurisdiction. 7. The cumulative.irnpact of past city,annexations-_on the, County generally, and the affected unincorporated community specifically, will be considered by the Board of Supervisors. 8. The Board of Supervisors requests that any city initiating an •annexation demonstrate support for the annexation by the affected landowners for uninhabited territory or registered voters for inhabited territory. C. Unincorporated "Islands" Policies 1. The Board of Supervisors directs its staff to develop and maintain an inventory of unincorporated islands in urbanized areas that do not include residents or businesses, but consist of County roads, streets, flood channels or other public purpose lands and facilities. These island areas should. be considered for annexation to adjacent cities. 2 The County will oppose annexations that involve only part of an unincorporated area island, if such an annexation would make it financially difficult for County departments to provide services to the remaining area. In addition, in order to create logical boundaries and improve service delivery 4 to certain unincorporated area islands, the County will work with residents, property owners and the community to explore appropriate island annexation strategies for these areas. 3. The County will periodically conduct "make -buy -sell -annex" assessments regarding the most cost-effective, responsive and community -desired manner in which municipal services are delivered to unincorporated "island" communities. 4. These assessments will examine whether services could be provided more effectively by neighboring cities via contracts with the County or if County services could be expanded to other surrounding communities to achieve economies of scale. Formal annexation to a neighboring city will also be reviewed where relevant. 5. The desires and preferences of the residents of the affected "island" community will be a guiding factor in developing recommendations. As appropriate, residents will be provided with service comparison and related information regarding the potential annexation to a neighboring,city. D. .Sphere of Influence, Policies Il. The County Board of Supervisors supports.the intent of Government Code .Section 56425, et seq., and will work with LAFCO and all of the cities: of the County to -review. and update city spheres of influence according to its provisions which provide a process for negotiating'agreerrients between the County and each city on sphere updates. 2. The County will include the above -stated policies as a component of the negotiating process for spheres of influence and may oppose any sphere of influence proposal that is inconsistent with those policies. Chief Executive Office RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT DATE ISSUED/SUNSET DATE Issue Date:.May 13, 2003 Sunset Date: 5/10/2011 Revised 8/20/07:mjs 5 READING FILE DOCUMENTS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NORTH COPPERHILL ANNEXATION AREA GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING TABLE EXHIBITS CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 23, 2011 i auie is t;enerai Tian t_ana use uesianations General Plan Designation Acres Existing Land Use Commercial Neighborhood.(CIV)._._._......._........._._............_....................._._._..._....----._._._._._1.76.1._.._.__...._._._.._._.._._.._--.._._Commercial 1.8 center Non Urban Residential 2 NU2 � ' 74.69 Vacant -- _)._._.__.._..._.__._..- - - ---------- Non -Urban Residential 3 NU3 - - 123.73 --- --- - -- Vacant Non-Urban Residentia....5..(NU5) _.._.__..._._._..__..-:_---._._.._._._.__..-._--....Residential i .__....................._ ....... .. .... ....._........................................................r6.7-5__ Open Space (OS).__.._. ................-........ .... . .... .._.............. .... ..1_-- - - 803.851 Park sites and vacant Open Space --Bureau of Land Management 2475.8* (OS-BLM) 4.90 Vacant _ Schools, water tanks, LA Public Institution (PI) 128.73 Count probation camps _.._.._......._...........-............._.._..........................-......_.._......._.........._...- Urban Residential 1(UR1) 351.99 Residential and vacant -._...--.-.-.--...__.._._._._....___._._._.._....__._..._.......... _ Urban Residential 2 UR2 979.24 ...._.._.____..___......._.___...._._..__.---._-.-._ Residential and vacant Total: ' 2475.64* -- *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Tahle II- North CODDerhlll Annexation Area Prezone Prezone Designation i AcresI Density Commercial Neighborhood _ 1.8 Floor Area Ratio = 375:1 Open Space --- -- -- - 810.1 N/A Residential Estate RE ......_.._...................-----_....._.____......_...__._(..............)...._..__.._._......J......._........_._._........................... 268.09 1 unit per 2 acres _..._.............._.................._._..............._..............p............................................._. Residential Suburban (RS) G......_._._._............_1.388.98 335.56 ._ __.._..... _ ........_.__._......_..---- i .__....................._ ....... .. .... Residential VeryLow RVL 6.8 1 unit er acre Total: 1 2475.8* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. I CIVIC 111. OVU UCL l�Qll VII rI CLV1IC Prezone Designation Acres Density Space 37.18 N/A __Open _._._......_.. Residential Estate RE ....................................._._.....I........._......... _.._......(_.._....._.)_._....._.._....._._._.._:......_...._......................_.................._._........._._._._..............._...._............_...._......................._........P._...._............_._............_..._.... ...._.__..................._.._._....._._.._..................:._.....................__............__...................._._................... 72.01 1 unit per 2 acres Residential Suburban (RS) ----._._....._._.. -- - ---...--._..............._....._... 335.56 ._ __.._..... _ ........_.__._......_..---- 5 units per acre ......._ ._._._._............_._._ Residential Ver Low RVL 6.75: 1 unit per acre Total: 451.50* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Master Case 11 -03 8 North Copperhill Annexation August 23, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Table IV: Haskell Canvon Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Density Commercial Neighborhood1.77 Residential Estate RE -- ---------------�--.�.------ Floor Area Ratio = .375:1 Open Space _..._._._ __._._.-. -_1..-. 767 50 _._. .....-... _N/A Residential Estate RE 123.72 i 1 unit per 2 acres ... _._...._..._..............._---...................__...._._._-.-....__....__......._.._._.............._._..._......._................._...._..._.._ Residential Suburban RS ..._......_.._._..._._....... 928.08 .... _....................._.............P._._._.... ........ _..__.................. 5 units er acre Total: i 1821.07* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Table V: Raintree Prezone Prezone Designation Acres i i Density _.Open_ Spa ce------- -------------- ......-._.-.-....._..-_...------ -_5.46.._x_ ........ ..... _ - - ....._.-.-._-...... -- ...._._.__N/A- . Residential Estate RE -- ---------------�--.�.------ 72.36: 1 unit per 2 acres ...-.-._...__..._.-..._....--_.-...,...-... Residential Suburban RS 125.34 I 5 units er acre Total: 203.16* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Master Case 11 -03 8 North Copperhill Annexation August 23, 2011 Page 3 of 3 I able vi: Lxlstina county Lonln Raintree Neighborhood Haskell Canyon Neighborhood Bouquet Canyon Neighborhood A-2-2: A-1-1 A-1-1 Heavy Agriculture Light Agriculture Light Agriculture Two -acre minimum lot size One -acre minimum lot size :One -acre minimum lot size... .... ..... _._.... ,........ ........... _._ _...._................._.._._._._....._._........._._.._._.._._._.._._._.._._....--.---._.._._....._._.,.-_._....._..................._..........................._...._.........__...._........_................_._..._............_..._._.....__ RPD -5000-3.5U: A -1 -1 -DP ............_._...,......__............_...... .... _............_................ ......... _..... Residential Planned Development Light Agriculture A-2-1 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size One -acre minimum lot size Heavy Agriculture 3_5 units per acre Dev..... .. _.,_............. _...... _. _...... RPD -5000-4.5U: - Residential Planned Development A-2-1 R-1-5000 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Heavy Agriculture Single Family Residential 4.5 unitseer acre _._� _._. _ _ One -acre minimum lot size -5,000 sq. ft, minimum lot size R-1--10000-DP A-2-2 Single Family Residential Heavy Agriculture 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size _.__.............._.__.._._.............._._._.__.._.._...._. Two -acre minimum lot size _._._......._......_._._._...__._......._._._._._...._.............. _...._._...._._._...._.__....._..._._._._._.__.._:.._._._...._...._......p_._._..._.._........_._._g...._........_.__._...._........._.__...._.........._.._._._..... = Development Pro ram RPD -6000-5.9U C -2 -DP = Residential Planned Development Neighborhood Business 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Development ram _ ...9 units per.acre._........... ..Pr ___.._...._......._._. _._. _. RPD -10000-1.9U R-1-5000 Residential Planned Development Single Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size __5,000_sq. ft.. minimum tot size_..,_._......_...._......._._._........_1_9 units...Per_acre.._............... .......... ......_.._..... ._._.._..........._..__._._ R-1-7000 Single Family Residential __._..__._.._._..__..._.__._.._._....._..............._.._._._....._._.._........._...__._._........._._. __ ... _ minimum lot size.........- ...._...__...._.__.. ................. ........._.__......._._........................__........... _.......__._.................--_-...... ....... ..............._ RPD -1-3 Residential Planned Development One -acre minimum lot size 3.0 unitsper acre --.......... ...... ------------------ ....... -......... ........ _._............ ........ _._..... ........ ............_.__._................._...... ------------------------------- -:...------- .------._._.._........................................... .._.__................... RPD -1-11U ----- Residential Planned Development One -acre minimum lot size 11 units oer acre Residential Planned Development 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 3.5 units per acre ....._._....._.......__..__..__........____.__.....__........____._..._.. RPD -5000-4U Residential Planned Development 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 4 units per acre RPD -6000-4U Residential Planned Development 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 4 units per acre Project Title and Master Case Number: Lead Agency name & address: Contact Person and phone number: Project Location: Applicant's Name and Address: Existing General Plan Designation: INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA North Copperhill Annexation Area Master Case 11-038 Annexation 11-002 : Prezone 11-001 " City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department (661)255-4330 The annexation area is located in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley and consists of approximately 2,475 acres. The annexation area is generally located east of San Francisquito Road, south of the Angeles National Forest boundary, north of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate limit, and west of Bouquet Canyon Road. The annexation area also includes an area generally south of Bouquet Canyon Road, east of the existing City limits, north of Plum Canyon Road, and east of Santa Catarina Drive, inclusive of the residents on the east side of the street. City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Existing City of Santa Clarita General Plan designations for the project area include: CN, NU2, NU3, NUS, OS, OS-BLM, PI, URI and UR2. Zoning Designation(s): The project area is zoned by the County of Los Angeles as follows: A-2-1, A-1-1, A -1 -1 -DP, A-2-2, C -2 -DP, R-1-5000, R- 1-7000, R -1 -10000 -DP, RPD -1-1 IU, RPD -1-3.0U, RPD -5000- .3.5U, RPD -5000-4U, RPD -6000-4U, RPD -6000-5.9U, and RPD -10000-1.9U. 1 Project Description and Setting: This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Annexation and Prezone for the North Copperhill Annexation area, inclusive of the proposed Raintree Annexation (203 acres), Haskell Canyon Annexation (1,821 acres), and the Bouquet Canyon Annexation (450 acres). The North Copperhill Annexation area is located within the City of Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence and already carries General Plan land use designations. Therefore, no General Plan Amendment or Sphere of Influence Amendment is necessary under the project. The attached vicinity map shows the project location (see Exhibit 1). Exhibit II shows the General Plan land use designations for the project area and Table I summarizes these land use categories below: Table I: General Plan Land Use Designations General Plan Designation Acres Densi Commercial_Neiqhborhood(CN) _ 1.76_ Floor Area Ratio = .375:1 Non -Urban Residential 2 (NU2) _ _74.6_9 ' _ 1 unit per 10 acres Non -Urban Residential3(NU31 123.73 __ 1 unit per 5 acres Non -Urban Residential 5 (NU5�_ _ _ 6.75 1 unit per acre_ Offen Space (OS) _803.85 _ _ N/A Open Space --Bureau of Land Management (OS-BLM) 4.90 _N/A Public Institution (PI) 128.73 _ N/A Urban Residential 1 (UR1) 351.99 2 units per acre Urban Residential 2 (UR2) 979.24 5 units per acre Total: 2475.64* -- *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Project Setting The proposed project consists of approximately 2,475 acres of partially developed land containing approximately 3,181 developed single-family residences, an 18,860 square -foot neighborhood shopping center, a fire station, two elementary schools, an elementary school site, two County of Los Angeles probation camp facilities, and three public park sites, two of which are developed. The project area includes open space parcels owned by the City of Santa Clarita as well as approximately 124 single-family residences that have been approved but not yet built. Two power transmission corridors traverse the area along with both Los Angeles City aqueducts. The project area is located east of San Francisquito Canyon, north of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary, south of the Angeles National Forest, and generally north/west of Bouquet Canyon Road. A portion of the eastern project area extends south of Bouquet Canyon Road and is located north of Plum Canyon Road, east of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary, and west of Santa Catarina Road, inclusive of the residences on the east side of the street. The estimated permanent population of the project area is 9,543. This number does not include the youth residents at the County probation camps. The project area consists of three separate communities, each of which will require an individual annexation application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The three annexation areas, Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree, are discussed below. Bouquet Canyon Annexation The Bouquet Canyon Annexation area consists of approximately 450 acres and constitutes the eastern portion of the project area. The annexation area is located both north and south of Bouquet Canyon Road. Primary streets in the north portion of the Bouquet Canyon Annexation area include Kathleen Avenue, Woodside Drive, and Shadow Valley Lane. South of Bouquet Canyon Road, the annexation area includes the two County of Los Angeles probation camps, Camp Scott and Camp Scudder, and also the developed residential neighborhood along Rodgers Drive and Santa Catarina Road. The annexation area is bounded by City -owned open space parcels on the west, the Southern California Edison power lines on the north, the developed residential parcels in the Shadow Valley neighborhood on the east, and Plum Canyon Road on the south. I�� I V 990`1; 1+11 M+ m The Bouquet Canyon annexation area includes the 12.3 -acre David March Park, Plum Canyon Elementary School, and a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) corridor that bisects the housing area in the vicinity of Santa Catarina Road and Rodgers Drive. The area was developed under Tract Map Nos. 32208, 35175, 37081, 44311, 44312, 44313, 44838, 44966, 46038, 46268, 46269, 46270, and 47279. The area contains 928 single-family dwelling units (estimated) with a population of 2,784 people (also estimated). There are no shopping centers, office buildings, or commercially -zoned land within the Bouquet Canyon Annexation area and there are no known entitlements or approvals pending with the County of Los Angeles. Haskell Canyon Annexation Haskell Canyon is the largest of the three annexations within the project area. The Haskell -Canyon Annexation consists of approximately 1,821 acres, 1,940 single family homes, and has an estimated population of 5,820 residents. The project is bounded by the current City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary on the south and the Angeles National Forest on the north. The annexation area is bounded on the west by the Dry Canyon Reservoir property, and an undeveloped 10 -acre parcel immediately south of the Dry Canyon dam. The area is bounded to the east by privately owned parcels west of Blue Cloud Road. Primary streets within this annexation area include Haskell Canyon Road, Rock Canyon Drive, Garnet Canyon Drive, and Cypress Place. The Haskell Canyon neighborhood contains an 18,860 square -foot commercial center, Mountainview Elementary School, the unused (closed) Bouquet Canyon Elementary School, Pacific Crest Park (7 -acres), and an undeveloped, 8 -acre park site south of Copperhill Drive, opposite Deer Springs Drive. Los Angeles County Fire Station 108 is located on Rock Canyon Drive, The Haskell Canyon community is traversed by LADWP power lines and both Los Angeles aqueducts (running north to south). A Southern California Edison power transmission corridor also traverses the annexation area east -to -west. The area is partially developed with established neighborhoods but also contains wilderness area and undeveloped lands slated for future homes. In June 2011, the City of Santa Clarita purchased 526 acres of land in order to permanently preserve open space in the area. The open space lands are located on either side of the LADWP power lines, generally north of the Southern California Edison power transmission corridor. A portion of the City -owned open space extends further south and is adjacent to Copperhill Drive, opposite Benz Road. The existing neighborhoods were developed under Tract Map Nos. 35783, 46183, 46908, 47657, 50586, 51789, and 52807. Two other tracts have been tentatively approved by Los Angeles County but are not yet built. Tract 52829 would allow 95 new single-family homes to be constructed on 74.76 acres at the northern terminus of Wellston Drive, south of Copperhill Drive. The tract map expires on March 19, 2012. The applicant has the option for four (4) one-year time extensions with the County, which means the expiration date may be pushed out as far as 2016. Tract 66561 would allow for 29 single-family units to be constructed on 80 acres of land at the northern terminus of Phantom Trail and expires on December 17, 2012. The applicant has the option for up to six (6) one-year extensions which means that the expiration date could be as late as 2018. A Negative Declaration was prepared for each of the undeveloped tracts and no mitigation measures were included as part of the project approvals. Raintree Annexation The Raintree neighborhood is located generally east of San Francisquito Canyon and consists of the developed areas north of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate limits and south of the Angeles National Forest. The annexation area extends east to the edge of the developed residential area along Evening Star Court and Celestial Lane. Primary streets within the annexation area include. Raintree Place, Valley Oak Place, Black Pine Way, and Boxwood Lane. The Raintree neighborhood consists of approximately 203 acres, 313 single-family homes, and also includes the Dry Canyon Reservoir site that is owned by the LADWP. The area was developed under Tract Map Nos. 45137, 46564 (01, 02, 03, 04, and 05), and 49958. There are no commercial centers, public parks, or schools in the Raintree Annexation area, although a private park is located off Black Pine Lane. The area is primarily developed with an estimated population of 939 people. Project Description The project consists of an Annexation and Prezone each for the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree Annexations as summarized below: Annexation (ANX 11-002) The City of Santa Clarita proposes annexation of three neighborhood areas in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley: Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree. Each neighborhood will require a separate annexation application to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County. Haskell Canyon will occur first, followed by Bouquet Canyon, and then Raintree. Taken together, the three annexation areas are known as the "North Copperhill Annexation Area." The project area is located within the City's existing General Plan area and the subject territory already carries City of Santa Clarita General Plan land use designations as shown in Exhibit Il, As such, no General Plan Amendment is necessary. The project area is also located entirely within the existing City of Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence, negating the need for a Sphere of Influence Amendment, Prezone (PRZ 11-001) The project area is zoned under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles. Table II lists the County zoning in the project area, including those zones that apply to each of the three annexation areas: Table II- Existing Countv Zonina Raintree Annexation Haskell Canyon Annexation Bouquet Canyon Annexation A-2-2: A-1-1 A-1-1 Heavy Agriculture Light Agriculture Light Agriculture Two -acre minimum lot size One -acre minimum lot size _ One -acre minimum lot size _ RPD -5000-3.5U: A -1 -1 -DP Residential Planned Development Light Agriculture 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size One -acre minimurq, lot size Heavy Agriculture 3.5 units per acre Development Program One -acre minimum lot size _ A-2-1 R-1-5000 Heavy Agriculture Single Family Residential One -acre minimum lotsize 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size �— R -1 -10000 -DP A-2-2 Single Family Residential Heavy Agriculture 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Two -acre minimum lot size _ Development Program _ �- — RPD -6000-5.9U C -2 -DP Residential Planned Development Neighborhood Business 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Development Pram 5.9 units per acre RPD -10000-1.9U R-1-5000 Residential Planned Development Single Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 1.9 unitser acre R-1-7000 Single Family Residential 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size __�. RPD -1-3 --•--- Residential Planned Development One -acre minimum lot size _ 3.0 units per acre _ RPD -1-11U Residential Planned Development One -acre minimum lot size 11 units per acre __ ____.,___•._ —� RPD -50003.5U Residential Planned Development 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 3.5 units per acre u� RPD -5000-4U Residential Planned Development 5,000 sq, ft. minimum lot size _u 4 units per acre —^_ ___•—__, RPD -60004U Residential Planned Development 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 4 units per acre Before the City can submit an annexation application to LAFCO, territory in each of the proposed annexation areas must be assigned City prezone designations. These prezoning designations are listed below in Tables III through VI. The prezone designations would be consistent with the City's General Plan land use designations for the area and are also consistent with the developed neighborhoods, existing land uses, and the natural condition of vacant parcels. The prezone designations would also be consistent with the development projects that were approved by the County of Los Angeles but that are not yet constructed. Exhibit III shows the Prezone for the North Copperhill Annexation area. Exhibits IV through VI show the Prezone for each of the sub -annexation areas. Tnhla III, Alnrth r:nnnarhill Annaxatinn Am:; PrP.7nne. Prezone Designation Acres Densi Commercial Neighborhood 1.8 Floor Area Ratio = .375:1 Open`S�aceT__ 810.1 _ N/A Residential Estate�RE� Residential Suburban (RS) 268.09. _ 1388.98 1 unit per 2 acres 5 Units per acre Residential Ve Low(RV L 6.8 1 unit per acre Total: 2475.8* 451.50* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Tahla I\/• Rnunuet r :;nvnn Annexation Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Density Space 37.18 _ N/A _Open. Residential Estate (REZ__ 72.01 1 unit per 2 acres Residential Suburban RS ^_ 335.56 _ _ 5 units per acre Residential Very Low RVL 6.75 1 unit er acre Total: 451.50* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Tnhin \/• I-Ineleall ('.nn nn AnnaYatinn Pra-ynne Prezone Designation Acres Density Commercial Neighborhood 1.77 Floor Area Ratio _ .375:1_ Open Space _767.50 Residential Estate (REQL_123.72 _i N/A 1 unit_per 2_acre_s_ Residential Suburban RS 928.08 5 units er acre Total: 1821.07* 203.16* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Tahia I\/• Pnintraa AnnaYatinn PrP7nnA Prezone Designation Acres Density Offen Space__ 5.46 N/A Residential Estate (RE) 72.36 1 unit per 2 acres Residential Suburban RS 125.34 5 units per acre Total: 203.16* *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. The built portions of the project,area were entitled through, and environmentally reviewed by, Los Angeles County. Tract Map Nos. 52829 and 66561 have been approved by the County and would allow an additional 124 single-family homes to be built within the project area—specifically, in the Haskell Canyon Annexation area. Negative Declarations were prepared for the undeveloped tracts and no mitigation measures were included as part of the project approvals. 7 I W 0 I I 11 I I.... r"- w 0 5 � q O W Zi ffi Z W $ m 3 m � o E LU CL d v dgQ O g`=14 9¢� 13 �0.$as 5 X W No construction or development is prolosed as part of this project. This project pertains to the annexation and prezoning of unincorporated territory in the County of Los Angeles, and transferring the jurisdiction of that land from the County to the City of Santa Clarita. Any future development that was not previously approved by the County of Los Angeles, would be analyzed and environmentally reviewed by the City. No physical change or additional development is anticipated as a result of the project. Surrounding land uses: North: Angeles National Forest East: Rural and vacant land South: Single-family residential (City and County) West: Single family residential (City) Rural ranch properties (County of Los Angeles/San Francisquito Canyon) Site Access and Infrastructure The project area is served by several major arterial highways, including Bouquet Canyon Road, Copperhill Drive, Haskell Canyon Road, and Plum Canyon Road. Other, smaller collector and residential streets connect the project area to the City of Santa Clarita and surrounding region. The project area contains power transmission corridors, both Los Angeles City aqueducts, and the LADWP Dry Canyon Reservoir facility. There are three elementary schools (one of which is closed), a fire station, three public parks (including one undeveloped park site), and various County flood control basins that are designed to collect debris and to regulate storm water flows. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Local Agency Formation Commission Los Angeles County 700 N. Central Avenue Glendale, CA 91203 12 A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ J Agricultural Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology & Water [) Greenhouse Gases [ ] Materials [ ] Quality [) Land Use & Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population & Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation Mandatory Findings of [ ] Traffic & Transportation [ ] Utilities & Service Systems [ ] 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 [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. i [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, and an I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. f [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT j be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Ben Jarvis, Al i , Asjitelanner Date I i ce ' ' W - 1 1 Jason Smisko, Senior Planner Date 13 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 14 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No -Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ❑ ❑ ® ❑ not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? H. AGRICULTURE 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California I Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone 14 15 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? 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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ® ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Servicer c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ® ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑El ® ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of a historical resource as defined in Government Code 15 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact 16 u n ❑ Section 15064.5? ❑ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ ❑ of an archaeological resource pursuant to Government ❑ Code Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique ❑ paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ❑ adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated ❑ on 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? ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion, or the ❑ loss of topsoil, either on or off site? 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 18-1- ❑ B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ❑ of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Change in topography or ground surface relief ❑ features? 16 u n ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ .3 /1 /12/ O1 0/ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 17 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact g) Move or generate grading of earth exceeding 10,000 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ cubic yards? 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? 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: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) ' Create a significant hazard to the public or the El ❑ ® ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 17 18 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, E] 0 ® [] 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)? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge El El ® E] requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere El El ® El 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 [] E ® El 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed E] El ® 0 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 El 0 0 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 Ll El which would impede or redirect flood flows? 18 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 directions of surface water and/or groundwater? 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, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant and 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? v) Stormwater 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 19 Potentially Less Than Less Than ❑ Significant Significant Significant ❑ Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 20 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, ❑ 1:1 ® El natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ El ® El 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 E El ® ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and El El ® ❑ inefficient manner? X1I. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels El ❑ 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 E ® ❑ 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 ® El noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 11 E El where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 1:1 ❑ ❑ 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, either 1:1 _ ❑ ® [l directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 20 Potentially Significant Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing Significant elsewhere? ❑ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [l the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Mitigation XIV.: PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: Impact a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with ❑ the provision or need of new or physically altered ❑ governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ❑ ii) Police protection? [] iii) Schools? ❑ iv) Parks? ❑ 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. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION — 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? 21 Less Than Less Than ❑ Significant Significant ❑ With Impact No Mitigation ® Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 22 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ® ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ ❑ ® ❑ water drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ® ❑ provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ® ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? h) Does the proposed project include provisions for the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ 22 Potentially Significant Impact quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means'that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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 continues viability." 23 Less Than Significant With Mitigation ❑E Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 0 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts I. AESTHETICS I a. Less Than Significant Impact Impacts related to aesthetics that were not addressed in previously certified Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that were prepared for past development projects in the project area are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project consists of the annexation and prezone of the North Copperhill Annexation area which includes the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree Annexations. The project area consists of approximately 2,475 acres of land that is partially developed. The subject territory contains 3,181 dwelling units, a 18,860 sq. ft. commercial center, three elementary schools, three public parks, and two County probation camps No new development is proposed by the project; however, an additional 124 single-family homes have been approved by the County of Los Angeles. The project would transfer regulatory jurisdiction from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed and the proposed change in jurisdiction would not be expected to adversely impact any scenic vista. Any impact would be less than significant. I b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not located along a state scenic'highway and would not impact views of ridgelines, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The project would annex 2,475 acres into the City of Santa Clarita. Developed neighborhoods already exist within the project area and any impacts to scenic resources for the additional 124 residences that were approved by the County for the annexation area would not be significant based on the Negative Declarations that were prepared for the projects. Furthermore, a significant, undeveloped, portion of the project area has been purchased by the City of Santa Clarita for the purposes of open space preservation, thereby ensuring that existing views and natural habitat will be preserved. The proposed prezone designations would not be expected to substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, any impact on visual or aesthetic resources would be less than significant. I c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not change the character of the area or its surroundings in that the project would annex land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The Bouquet Canyon portion of the annexation area is fully developed with single family residences, a school, park, and two County probation camps. The Haskell Canyon annexation area is mostly built and includes two park sites, two schools/sites, and a commercial center. An additional 124 residences are approved in the area and the construction of these units would require grading, street construction, and other facility improvements. Impacts for this construction where analyzed previously by Los Angeles County. The Raintree area is mostly developed with single family homes, the main exception being the unused Dry Canyon Reservoir site which creates a large tract of open space adjacent to the existing neighborhoods. The annexation would not degrade the visual character of the project area nor alter the existing topography in any way. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. I d. Less Than Significant Impact. The prezone designations proposed under the project, as well as the proposed change in jurisdiction from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa 24 Clarita, would not be expected to create any new or substantial light sources in the project area due to the fact that no development is proposed. The Bouquet Canyon and Raintree annexation areas are mostly developed and even without annexation, new and significant light sources in these areas would be unlikely in the long term. The Haskell Canyon annexation area is mostly developed and an additional 124 residences are proposed under Tracts 52829 and 66561. Impacts for these approved housing developments were analyzed previously by the County and a Negative Declaration for each tract was prepared. Given that the project proposes no new development, and given that a significant portion of the project area would be designated as open space thereby preventing any additional development in the future, any impacts due to new light sources would be less than significant. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES II a. No Impact. Impacts related to agricultural resources that were not addressed in previously certified EIRs and other CEQA documents that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. Based on information from the. California Department of Conservation, the project area contains no farming resources and no known agricultural operations exist within the project area. The project area is comprised of partially• developed land that includes neighborhoods, utility corridors, public facilities, and open space/vacant acreage. None of the affected parcels within the project area are designated as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the California Department of Conservation (Los Angeles Important Farmland 2008). The California Department of Conservation also has not designated any land within the project area as Farmland of Local Importance. The project area is partially developed. The Bouquet Canyon Annexation and the Raintree Annexation areas consist of mostly developed land. The Haskell Canyon Annexation area has large developed areas as well as open space and vacant acreage. An additional 124 units in two developments have been approved by the County in this annexation area and Negative Declarations for the two projects were prepared. As no farmland or. agricultural uses are located in the area, the proposed project would have no impact to agricultural resources, II b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not change the practical land use of the project area; however, a portion of the land in the project would be prezoned from agriculture zoning under the County of Los Angeles, to residential and open space prezoning under the City of Santa Clarita zoning ordinance. In the Bouquet Canyon Annexation area, There are parcels that are zoned A -1-I (Light Agriculture, One -Acre Minimum Lot Size) and A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, One -Acre Minimum Lot Size). This County zoning is assigned to a residential area north of Bouquet Canyon Road, the County probation facilities (Camp Scott and Camp Scudder), and also the LADWP power transmission corridor that bisects the residential neighborhood in the vicinity of Rodgers Drive and Santa Catarina- Road. The proposed prezone designations of RS (Residential Suburban) and OS (Open Space) would be consistent the with existing land uses in the area and also with previous County approvals. A substantial portion of the Haskell Canyon Annexation area is zoned A-1-1, A- 1-1 DP, A-2-1, and A-2-2. The A-1 zoning designation allows for Light Agriculture with a one -acre minimum lot size. The "DP" abbreviation denotes a "Development Program." The A-2-1 and A-2-2 zones allow for Heavy 25 III. AIR QUALITY Agriculture with a minimum lot size of either one or two acres, respectively. Under the project, the vast majority of the agriculturally zoned land would be prezoned as OS (Open Space). Additional acreage would be prezoned as RS (Residential Suburban) or RE (Residential Estate) to reflect the entitled development for 124 single family homes that were approved by Los Angeles County for Tracts 52829 and 66561. The majority of the Raintree Annexation area is already developed. The area that is zoned A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, Two -Acre Minimum Lot Size) consists of the Dry Canyon Reservoir site and a 10 -acre parcel located immediately to the south. Most of the Annexation area could be prezoned RS (Residential Suburban) to reflect the built environment consisting of single-family homes. The Dry Canyon Reservoir site and the privately owned ten -acre parcel to the south would be prezoned RE (Residential Estate). The proposed prezone designations reflect the existing land uses and would be consistent with the City's General Plan designations for the area. Although the project area has agricultural zoning under the County of Los Angeles, there are currently no known agricultural uses within the project area. Therefore, any impact to agricultural resources, including conflicts with Williamson Act contracts or zoning for agricultural use, would be less than significant. II c. No Impact. The project area is partially developed and has a mix of land uses that include residential, commercial, institutional, and vacant open space. Given that there are no agricultural uses in the project area, and that no development is proposed as part of any of the three annexations that are included in this project, the project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there would be no impact. III a. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to air quality that were not addressed in previously certified EIRs and other CEQA documents that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The project area is located within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The project would prezone 2,475 acres with designations that are consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and that reflect the existing development/conditions of the land. Upon annexation, the prezoning designations would become active under the jurisdiction of the City. No new development is proposed by the project. The proposed prezone and subsequent annexation of the project area would not conflict with nor obstruct the implementation of the SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast region. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. III b, c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which includes all of the non -desert portions of Los Angeles County. Although air quality in the southern California region continues to improve as additional pollution controls are implemented, the air basin remains a non -attainment area for both the federal and state standards for ozone, fine particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PMia), and fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). The South Coast Air Basin also fails to meet air quality standards for ozone. Ozone is a pollutant that is formed by a chemical reaction involving 26 reactive organic gasses (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. No construction or development is proposed as part of the project. The project would annex land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project area is partially developed and entitlements have been granted for an additional 124 single-family residences. A large portion of the project area would also be prezoned as open space. The project, whether taken wholly or in terms of the three distinct neighborhood annexations, would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation because no additional development is proposed or would be expected to occur as a result of the annexation. Nothing about the project would create an increase in any criteria pollutant or a significant cumulative increase. Any impact associated with the project would be less than significant. III d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is partially developed with uses that are consistent with surrounding/adjacent land uses located within the City of Santa Clarita or in unincorporated County of Los Angeles territory. No new development is proposed by the prezone and annexation. There are approved entitlements for 124 single-family residences in the 'County, and a park is proposed on Copperhill Drive opposite Deer Springs Drive. As proposed, the project is not anticipated to significantly expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations affecting a substantial number of people because the project would not approve for any new development nor would the project be expected to increase pollutants within in the project area. Any impact would be expected to be less than significant. III e. Less Than Significant Impact. The prezone and subsequent annexation of the three neighborhoods included in the project area would not be anticipated to create any objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Any impact would be less than significant. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV a. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to biological resources that were not addressed in previously certified EIRs and other CEQA documents that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. No new development is proposed as part of 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, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Any impact would be less than significant. IV b, c. Less Than Significant Impact. No new development is proposed nor would be approved by the prezone and annexation of the project area. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). Any impact would be less than significant. 27 IV d. Less Than Significant Impact. No new .development is proposed or would be approved by the prezone and annexation of the project area. Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. A portion of the project area in the Haskell Canyon Annexation would, in fact, be prezoned as OS (Open Space) which would preserve the land in its natural state in perpetuity. No development or construction is proposed as part of the project, nor would the project be expected to create the potential for any change to the physical environment. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. IV e. Less Than Significant Impact. 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 designations would be consistent with all County land use planning policies and the current uses/development in the area. The proposal would not conflict with any Los Angeles County or City of Santa Clarita policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. No construction or development is proposed as part of the project and any associated impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. IV f. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. IV g. Less Than Significant Impact The project area is not located within a Significant Ecological Area identified on either Exhibit CO -5 of the City's General Plan. The, closest SEA is the San Francisquito Canyon SEA which is located approximately one-third mile west of the project area (Raintree Annexation), on the west side of San Francisquito Road, The Santa Clara River SEA is located 1.5 miles south of the project site (Haskell Canyon and Bouquet Canyon Annexations). The project area is not within an Ecological Reserve or Wildlife Area as defined by the California Department of Fish and Game. The proposal would not affect a designated SEA or Significant Natural Area. Any impact would be less than significant. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES V a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to cultural resources that were not addressed in previously certified EIRs and other C1QA documents that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any known cultural, historical, or archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the Government Code. Development may occur -in the near future within the Haskell Canyon Annexation area as part of Tracts 52829 and 66561. Those impacts were analyzed previously by Los Angeles County and Negative Declarations were prepared for the respective projects. Any impacts would be expected to be less than significant. V c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource, site, nor would the project have the potential to impact or destroy any unique geological feature as no development is proposed by, nor 28 would result from, the prezone and annexation of the different annexation areas. No General Plan Amendment is proposed as part of the project. Any impact would be less than significant. V d. Less Than Significant Impact. No human remains are known to be located within the project area. The project area is not part of a formal cemetery and there is no reason to suspect that the site was used in the past for burial of historic or prehistoric human remains. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No construction or development is associated with the project; the physical environment and existing habitat in the area would remain unchanged. Two developments have been approved by the County of Los Angeles in the Haskell Canyon Annexation area, but have not yet been built (Tracts 52829 and 66561). A Negative Declaration was prepared for each tract map and no impacts were identified. The project would not disturb any human remains, 'including those interred outside of a formal cemetery. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS VI a. i -iv. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the prezoning and annexation of the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree communities. No new development is proposed with the prezones and associated annexations. Development may occur, however, as part of the previously entitled projects in Tract Nos. 52829 (95 single-family homes) and 66561 (29 single-family homes) that were approved by the County of Los Angeles. The County reviewed those developments, analyzed potential impacts, and a Negative Declaration for each project was prepared. The annexation of the three communities by the City of Santa Clarita would not be anticipated to substantially any risks due to seismic issues. The project area does not include an Alquist-Priolo fault zone, and seismic hazards or risks would not be increased as a result of the project. Any impact would be less than significant. VI b. Less Than Significant Impact. As. no new development is proposed with this project, the prezones and annexations would not directly result in soil erosion. It is anticipated, however; that development would occur as part of Tract 52829 and Tract 66561.. These projects were reviewed and analyzed by the County of Los Angeles and a Negative Declaration for each project was prepared. Any new development that was not previously entitled would be subject to the review of the City and would be subject to all applicable development code requirements and environmental regulations. Therefore, no significant impacts related to substantial wind or water soil erosion, or the loss of topsoil, would be anticipated as a result of the project. VI c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not include any development or physical change to the environment within the project area. Negative Declarations were prepared for development that was approved for Tract 52829 and Tract 66561. The project itself pertains only to the prezone and annexation of the three community areas by the City of Santa Clarita. The project would not increase the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Any impacts would be less than significant. 29 VI d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not create a risk to life or property due to expansive soil because no construction or development is proposed. The Negative Declarations prepared for Tract Nos. 52829 and 66561 in the Haskell Canyon Annexation area did not identify any issues related to expansive soils. As no development is proposed, any impacts would be less than significant. VI e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project does not include any construction or development. Any construction or development that was previously approved by Los Angeles County would be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system. Subsequently, there would be no need of a septic or alternative waste water disposal system(s) as a result of the project. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. VI M. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. Although no development is proposed as part of this project, the Haskell Canyon Annexation area includes two approved tract maps that have yet to be developed. Tract No. 66561 includes 288,000 cubic yards of grading that was approved by the County of Los Angeles. Tract No. 52829 would also include grading amounts in excess of 10,000 cubic yards. Impacts associated with these tracts were analyzed by the County of Los Angeles and a Negative Declaration was prepared for each development. Given that no development is proposed, the project is not anticipated to create any further need of grading or change to the topography within the project area. The project does not include any grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade in any of the proposed annexation areas, nor would the prezones and associated annexations destroy, cover, or modify any unique geologic or physical feature. Any impact would be less than significant. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS VII a, b. Less Than Significant Impact "Greenhouse gases," so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth, are emitted by human activity and are implicated in global climate change. This is more commonly referred to as "global warming." Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial, long wavelength, heat radiation. 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 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. The State of California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statutes and Executive Orders (EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, and EO S-03-05, EO 5-20-06, and EO S-01-07. 30 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 prezones and annexations of the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree neighborhoods do not include any new development. The developed portions of the project area were built under Los Angeles County standards and environmental impacts for the developments were analyzed by the County when those projects were entitled. The undeveloped, entitled, portions of the project area (Tracts 52829 and 66561 in the Haskell Canyon community) were reviewed by the County and Negative Declarations were prepared for each tract. The current proposal to prezone and annex the three communities within the project area would not generate any greenhouse gas emissions and would not create any significant impact, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation that was adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the project would be anticipated to have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VIII a. Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that were not addressed in previously certified EIRs and other CEQA documents that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project involves the prezone and annexation of land in three communities within unincorporated territory in the County of Los Angeles. The project would .not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Any impact would be less than significant. VIII b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project would not create any hazards to the public due to accidents or conditions involving an explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation). Any impact would be less than significant. VIII c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project area contains three elementary schools. Plum Canyon School is located on Alfreds Way in the Bouquet Canyon Annexation area. The Haskell Canyon Annexation area contains one functioning elementary school: Mountainview School on Cypress Place, and the Bouquet Canyon School site on Wellston Drive. Of the two campuses, only Mountainview School is open and operating. Bouquet Canyon School is currently closed and is used for training purposes. One other school is located within one-quarter mile of the project area: Rosedell School on Urbandale Drive. The proposed prezones and annexations of the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree communities would not create hazardous emissions nor result in the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Any impact would be less than significant. 31 VIII d. No Impact. The project area does not contain any site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact. . VIII e. No Impact. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan nor is the area within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project would not create an aviation -related safety hazard for people who live in or around the project area. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the . City of Santa Clarita. No construction or development is anticipated to occur as a result of the project. Therefore, there would be no impact. VIII f. No Impact. The subject property is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. As stated in section VII e., the project would not result in an aviation -related safety hazard for people who live near the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact. VIII g. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is partially developed with existing residential neighborhoods, a commercial center, and public facilities. The project area also includes undeveloped land. 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. Any impacts would be anticipated to be less than significant. VIII h. Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose any new development or change to the existing environment and would not result in an increased risk to structures or people, including injury or death, due to wildand fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Any impact would be less than significant. VIII i. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the. City of Santa Clarita. The prezone and annexation would not increase the exposure ofpeople to additional sources of potential health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipeline, etc.). The project area contains two major electrical transmission corridors: a LA DWP corridor that runs north/south through the area and a Southern California Edison corridor that runs, east/west. The transmission corridors predate residential development in the area and the proposed annexation would not increase residential density or housing units in the vicinity of the power lines because no new development is proposed. Therefore, any impact related to health hazards would be less than significant. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IX a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed prezone and annexation would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project proposes no new development and would not physically change any aspect of the project area. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. 32 IX b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is proposed. The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Any impact would be less than significant. IX c -f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No construction is proposed. The proposed City of Santa Clarita prezoning would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site area, including an alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation either on or off site. The project would not would not substantially increase the amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding either in or outside of the project area. As no development is proposed, the project would not substantially create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The project would not generate substantial additional sources of polluted runoff nor would the project be anticipated to degrade water quality. Any impact is anticipated to be less than significant. IX g, h. No Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No construction is proposed. The project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map, nor would the proposed prezones and annexations place structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, the project would have no impact. IX i. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed prezone and annexation of the three communities within the project area 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, because no development or change to the physical environment is proposed. Bouquet Canyon Creek is located in the eastern portion of the project area, ten miles downstream from Bouquet Canyon Reservoir, a water storage facility that is impounded by an earthen dam. In the event of dam failure, water would flow down Bouquet Canyon Creek and through the Bouquet Canyon Annexation area on its way to the Santa Clara River. The proposed change in jurisdiction of the project area from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita would not increase the risk of death or injury due to flooding as the result of the failure of the Bouquet Reservoir dam because no additional development or physical change to the environment is proposed. Any impact would be less than significant. IX J. No Impact. There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the project area that are capable of producing a seiche or tsunami that would impact the project area. Any seiche upstream at Bouquet Canyon Reservoir would not be large enough to cause inundation of the project area, and there is no possibility of tsunami damage, given that the project area is situated well inland of the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of more than 1,000 feet. The project would not alter or change the 33 physical topography of the project area in any way. Therefore, there would be no impact. IX k. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed prezones and annexations would not change the rate of flow, current, course, or direction of either surface or groundwater. The project would change the legal jurisdiction of the subject area from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed as part of the project. The existing terrain and developed neighborhoods would not be altered or changed. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant. IX 1. Less Than Significant Impact. None of the prezones or annexations that constitute the project would result in substantial or significant, impacts to stormwater management. Prior to annexation, 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 each year to collect trash and debris, thereby reducing the potential for neighborhood flooding. Furthermore, because no new development is proposed as a part of this project, the proposed annexation would not create any impacts to stormwater management in any of the following ways: i). Less Than Significant Impact. Since there is no construction proposed, there would be no potential for project construction and/or post -construction activity on stormwater runoff. Any impact would be less than significant. ii). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would neither create nor increase the potential for 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, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas because no development is proposed. Therefore, any. impacts would be less than significant. iii). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would neither create nor increase the potential for an environmentally harmful increase in the flow, velocity, or volume of storm water runoff because no development is proposed. Any impact would be less than significant. iv). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would neither create nor increase the potential for significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the project area or surrounding areas because no development or physical change to the existing environment is proposed. Any impact would be less than significant. v). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would neither create nor increase the potential for stormwater 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.) because no development is proposed as part of the prezones and annexations for the three communities that constitute the project area. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. 34 vi). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies. The project would prezone partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County and annex that territory to the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed and the project would not result in any physical changes to the environment. Therefore, any impact would be les than significant. vii). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex unincorporated territory in the County of Los Angeles into the City of Santa Clarita and would prezone the subject territory with City prezone designations. Provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy are not required as they are not relevant given that the project would change the jurisdiction of the project area and have no physical impacts. Even so, upon annexation, all residents who live in the any one of the three annexation areas would be able to take advantage of the City's curbside recycling services. Since no development is proposed and recycling services would be extended to all residential and commercial uses within the project area once the territory is annexed, any impact would be less than significant. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING X a -c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed prezones and annexations that are included in this project do not propose any new development. The proposed open space, commercial, and residential prezoning designations would be consistent with the existing development, physical conditions, and County land use planning policies in the project area. The prezoning designations would also be compatible with adjacent land uses. It is not anticipated that there would be any impact or effect related to the disruption or .physical division of an established community, including low-income or minority communities, since no new development would occur beyond that which was previously approved by the County of Los Angeles. The project would prezone areas with City prezone designations and would change the existing County of Los Angeles zoning and jurisdictional authority. The change to City zoning would not result in a significant impact as it would be consistent with the existing County of Los Angeles land use plan, policies, and regulations. The prezone would also be consistent with the City's General Plan land use designations for the project area. Under the County of Los Angeles, the project area consists of the following zones: A-1 (Light Agriculture), A-2 (Heavy Agriculture), C-2 (Neighborhood Business), R-1 (Single -Family Residential), and RPD (Residential Planned Development). The proposed prezone for the project area includes CN (Commercial Neighborhood), OS (Open Space), RE (Residential Estate), RS (Residential Suburban), and RVL (Residential Very Low). The attached prezone maps identify the proposed zoning for the project area in general as well as for the individual annexation areas (see Exhibits IV through VI). 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 in identified water courses (Seco/Dry Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Plum Canyon 35 drainages, or Bouquet Canyon Creek) because the proposal would not change the applicable state or federal designations in the project area. Any impact associated with the proposed project related to land use or planning would be less than significant. XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES XI a -b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is not located within a mineral area as identified on Exhibit CO- 2 "Mineral Resources" of the City's General Plan. None of the prezones or annexations proposed by the project would 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. The project would not result in the loss of availability of any locally important mineral resources recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Any impact would be less than significant. XII. NOISE XI c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No construction or development activity is included in the project description nor would the project be expected to create the potential for development beyond what currently exists or what,was analyzed and approved by the County of Los Angeles. Therefore, the project would not involve the use of any nonrenewable resources and any impact would be less than significant. XII a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex primarily undeveloped land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita, While nothing associated with the proposed project would increase the exposure of people to noise in excess of standards established in the City's general plan and noise ordinance, existing development that is situated adjacent to roadways, commercial uses, or public facilities my experience noise that is associated with daily activities for a suburban community. Regardless, any noise impact would not be expected to be significant. XII b -d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development is proposed and no element associated with the proposed project would increase the exposure of people to noise. The project would not increase any groundbourne vibration, noise, or ambient noise levels—either temporarily or permanently—because the project would not change or affect the physical environment of the three annexation areas. The project would change the jurisdictional authority over the subject area from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita. This is a legal procedure that would have no impact on existing or future noise levels either within or outside of the project area, Any impact would be less than significant. XII e, f. No Impact. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, nor is the area located within the vicinity of a private air strip. The nearest private airstrip is located in Agua Dulce, eight miles northeast of the project area. The Agua Dulce Airport is the only airport located in, the City's General Plan Planning area. The closest commercial and general aviation airports are located well south of the project area in the San Fernando 36 Valley. These include the Van Nuys Airport and the Whitman Airpark which are both located in the City of Los Angeles, as well as the Bob Hope Airport that is located in the City of Burbank. Whitman Airpark, the nearest airport to the project area, is located more than 15 miles southeast of the project area. Therefore, the project would have no impact, XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING XIII a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is proposed with the prezones and annexations of the three communities in the project area. The project area contains approximately 3,181 single-family housing units with an additional 124 approved single-family homes that are not yet built in the Haskell Canyon Annexation area. The project area contains, and is surrounded by, infrastructure that is adequate to serve the existing neighborhoods as well as the two approved housing developments that have yet to be constructed. The proposed residential, commercial, and open space prezoning designations would be consistent with the existing development and conditions within the project area and would not change the physical characteristics of any of the three annexation areas that make up the project area. Any impact would be less than significant. XIII b, c. No Impact. The proposed prezone and annexation of the three communities within the project area would not eliminate or displace any existing housing units or people. As such, the project would not necessitate the need to construct replacement housing elsewhere, including affordable housing. Therefore, there would be no impact. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES XIV a. (i) No Impact. The proposed project would not create any significant adverse impacts to fire protection services in the project area because no development is proposed and because each of the annexation areas is already served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Fire Station No. 108 is located in the project area on Rock Canyon Drive. Fire service levels would remain constant regardless if the project is approved or not. Therefore, there would be no impact. (ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in the need for additional new or altered police protection services and will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The proposed project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. The project area would continue to be served by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, although a greater level of service would be provided through City -funded programs than are currently available to County residents. The annexation area will experience an increase in police patrols and a decrease in non- emergency response times due to the City's increased police service levels under its contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. Sufficient capacity exists within the local Sheriff's department to serve the annexation areas should the project be approved. Therefore, any impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. . 37 XV. RECREATION (iii) No Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction is proposed. As such, there would be no additional residents or students in need of educational or recreational services: The project area is currently within the Saugus School District (elementary) and the William S. Hart High School District (junior high school and high school). Given that the project area is already within established school districts, and that no development is proposed, the project would have no impact on school or educational services. (iv) Less Than Significant Impact. Upon annexation, the responsibilities for park maintenance and recreational programs would transfer from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita. The City would also take on the responsibility for streetlight patrols, road maintenance, and other municipal services. These services would be at least partially funded through a negotiated tax transfer agreement between the City and the County. The proposed annexation areas include three public parks, none of which has been developed to its ultimate condition. In the future, it would be reasonable to expect that the City would pursue grant funds to complete these facilities. However, no such development is proposed as part of the project and the annexations, should they be approved, would not create any additional demand for park services. Therefore, any impact to parks and other public services would not be anticipated to be significant. XIV a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction is proposed with the 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 area once it is annexed to the City of Santa Clarita may increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other City recreational facilities. The lower fees may create a minor increase in usage, but that increase would not be expected to be substantial or significant. The proposed project does not include new development of residential units that would require park development fees or implementation of recreational facilities. The proposed annexation areas include three public parks, none of which has been developed to its ultimate condition. It is not anticipated that there would be any additional adverse physical impact as a result of the prezone and annexation of these park sites. Upon annexation, the responsibility for the maintenance of parks would transfer to the City. Any impact to recreational, facilities or services would be less than significant. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC XVI a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita and would not involve any kind of construction or development. Traffic volumes in the vicinity would not increase because the existing physical condition of the land would not change. Without an increase or decrease in traffic volume, there would be no change in the level of service on arterials or highways in the project area, nor would the project 38 create significant or additional traffic volumes on roads or highways designated under the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP). None of the three communities located in the project area contain a CMP road or highway. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. XVI c, d. No Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita and would not involve any kind of construction or development. The project would have no effect on air traffic patterns because the physical topography would remain in its current form, nor would the project increase hazards related to the design of roadways as no roads are proposed. The project consists of prezone and annexation proceedings for three communities located in the project area. The prezone designations reflect existing land uses and conditions within the project area and nothing in the project proposal would introduce incompatible land uses to the local area or region that could reasonably be expected to create traffic hazards (e.g., roads with sharp curves or farm equipment). Therefore, there would be no impact. XVI a -h. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita and would not involve any kind of construction or development. The project would not alter site access, would not create any additional parking demand, nor would it conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs that promote alternative transportation programs. Lastly, the project would not create a barrier or hazard for bicyclists. Upon annexation, the City may construct new bus stops and/or improve existing bus stops in the project area. The City may also elect to improve streets, sidewalks, and/or install bike lanes on selected streets that are not currently configured for bicyclists. These improvements would reduce hazards and barriers for pedestrians and would not create adverse, substantial impacts to surrounding areas. Any impact would be less than significant. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS XVII a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita and no development or construction would be approved or anticipated as a result of the .proposed project. As such, there would be no additional demand or impact to wastewater services or requirements applicable to the Regional Water Quality Control ,Board, nor would the project require the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. The existing neighborhoods are served by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and effluent is treated at the Districts' reclamation plants in Saugus and Valencia. Given that the project consists of a prezone and annexation for the three communities within the project area, and that no new development is proposed that would have the potential to increase wastewater flows, any impact related to wastewater treatment would be less than significant. XVII c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction is proposed nor would be anticipated as a result of the project. As such, the project would neither require nor result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District maintains storm drain and retention basins in the project area. This would not change should the project be approved. Therefore, 39 any impact to storm water drainage and its associated environmental effects would be less than significant. XVII d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction is proposed nor would be anticipated as a result of the proposed project. As such, there would be no additional demand or impact to existing water supplies. No new or expanded water sources or entitlements would be required. The project area is currently served by the Newhall County Water District, Valencia Water Company, and the Santa Clarita Water Division of the Castaic Lake Water Agency. Since no new construction is proposed and no new demand would be created, any project impact on available water supplies would be less than significant. XVII e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction would be anticipated as a result of the proposed project. As stated in XVIIa and XVIIb, the project area has sanitary sewer service that is provided by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Impacts to the sewer infrastructure were analyzed when the existing neighborhoods were reviewed and constructed under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it does not have adequate, capacity to serve existing and projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant. XVII f -h. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would annex partially developed land in unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. No development or construction would be anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The project area is currently served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project area's disposal needs. The proposed project, which consists of a prezone and annexation for each of the three communities within the project area, would not directly result in a significant impact related to solid waste disposal, needs. Upon annexation, the project area would be subject to City franchise agreements for both business and residential solid waste disposal services. The project area currently complies with federal, state, and County statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Upon annexation, businesses would also become subject to the City's Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Businesses and residents would also be able to take advantage of the City's curbside recycling program, bulky item pick-up, etc. Any impact would be less than significant. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the Mandatory Findings of Significance based on the following: XVIII a. No Impact. The project consists of a request for a prezone and annexation of three communities within the project area. No new development is proposed. 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 or eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range 40 of, a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major 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. Therefore, the project would not result in an impact related to degradation of the quality of the environment or habitat of fish and wildlife species. XVIII b. No Impact. The project does not propose new development and would not create impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Any future development that is not previously approved by Los Angeles County would adhere to the City's development standards, would be consistent with the City's General Plan, and would require full environmental review. Therefore, the project would have no impact. XVIII c. No Impact. The project does not include any new development and would not create any environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project would have no impact. XIX. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME'DE MINIMUS' FINDING XVIII a. No Impact. The project includes a request for a prezone for the purposes of annexing partially developed land from Los Angeles County to the City of Santa Clarita. No new development is proposed beyond that which has already been analyzed and approved by the County of Los Angeles.. The project would not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources because the project does not include new development and involves a prezone for the purpose of annexation. The physical environment would not be changed or altered as part of the project. 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 impact related to the Department of Fish and Game "De Minimus" finding is anticipated; therefore, there would be no impact. 41 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: 11-038 PERMITIPROJECT NAME: Annexation No. 11-002 and Prezone No. 11-001 for the North Copperhill Annexation APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The proposed project consists of approximately 2,475 acres of land generally located east of San Francisquito Canyon, north and south of Bouquet Canyon Road, south of the Angeles National Forest, and north of the existing corporate limit of the City of Santa Clarita, in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: This is a proposal for an Annexation and Prezone of approximately 2,475 acres consisting primarily of both developed and undeveloped land. The project area has an estimated 3,181 homes, an 18,860 square -foot shopping center, a fire station, two elementary schools and one elementary school site, and three park sites, two of which have been developed or partially developed. The annexation area also contains utility corridors (aqueducts and power transmission lines). The project proposes to prezone the territory with the following designations: Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Open Space (OS), Residential Estate (RE), Residential Suburban (RS), and Residential Very Low (RVL). No development is proposed as part of this Annexation and Prezone. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached Paul D. Brotzman Director of Community Development Prepared by: Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) Approved by: Jeff Hogan, AICP, Senior Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From June 17, 2011 To July 19, 2011 Public Notice Given On June 17. 2011 [X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: S:\CD\CURRENT-\!2011\11-038 (North Copper Hill Annexations)\Environmental\Initial Study and Neg Dec\Negative Declaration --North Copperhill Annexation 6-6-1'l.doc CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 11-038 ANNEXATION NO. 11-002, PREZONE NO. 11-001 DATE: July 19, 2011 TO: Chairperson Burkhart and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Paul D. Brotzman, Director of Community Development Lisa Webber, AICP, Planning Manager CASE PLANNER: Ben Jarvis, Associate Planner APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita REQUEST: This is a request for a Prezone of approximately 2,475 acres of land in the North Copperhill Annexation area. LOCATION: The annexation area is located in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley and consists of approximately 2,475 acres. The annexation area is generally located east of San Francisquito Canyon Road, south of the Angeles National Forest boundary, north of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate limit, and west of Bouquet Canyon Road. The annexation area also includes an area generally south of Bouquet' Canyon Road, east of the existing City limits, north of Plum Canyon Road, and east of Santa Catarina Drive, inclusive of the residents on the east side of the street. BACKGROUND In response to a letter received in July 2008 from the Pacific Crest Homeowners Association to annex their neighborhood to the City, staff surveyed residents in the Pacific Crest neighborhood along with residents of other nearby, developed, areas in unincorporated County territory to determine the level of support for City annexation. The survey had an approximate response rate of 20%. Of those who responded, 87% indicated that they would support annexation. On March 8, 2011, the City Council directed staff to prepare boundary maps and legal descriptions for the North Copperhill Annexation area. Should the subject territory ultimately be annexed to the City of Santa Clarita, most of the territory between Raintree Place on the west and Bouquet Canyon Road on the east would become part of the City. The annexation area would also include a developed portion of the Plum Canyon area south of Bouquet Canyon Road in the vicinity of Santa Catarina Road. Master Case 11 -03 8 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 2 of 7 PROJECT AREA/PROJECT SETTING This is a request for a Prezone (PRZ) associated with the North Copperhill Annexation area. The City of Santa Clarita is considering the annexation of approximately 2,475 acres of land located in the northern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley generally between the City's existing northern boundary and the Angeles National Forest (see attached vicinity map). The estimated permanent population of the project area is 9,543. The project area consists of residential neighborhoods, vacant residential land, open space, an 18,860 square -foot commercial center, three school sites, three park sites, a fire station, and two Los Angeles County probation camps. The project area contains power transmission corridors for Southern California Edison and the Los . Angeles Department of Water and Power, and both Los Angeles City aqueducts. While no development is proposed as part of this project, 124 single-family homes have been approved by Los Angeles County but have yet to be constructed. The City would honor these County approvals provided that the developments are built according to the approved tentative tract maps and that the construction occurs prior to the expiration dates for the respective maps. The North Copperhill Annexation area contains three distinct residential neighborhoods: Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree. The project area is already included in the City of Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence and already carries land use designations under the City's General Plan. As such, neither a Sphere of Influence Amendment nor a General Plan Amendment is required. A summary of the three neighborhoods is listed below: Bouquet. Canyon The Bouquet Canyon area consists of approximately 450 acres and constitutes the eastern portion of the project area. The neighborhood is located both north and south of Bouquet Canyon Road and includes the area in the vicinity of Kathleen Avenue, Woodside Drive, Shadow Valley Lane, Rodgers Drive, and Santa Catarina Road. The Bouquet Canyon sub -area includes two County of Los Angeles probation camps, Camp Scott and Camp Scudder, and is primarily built out. This portion of the annexation area also contains Plum Canyon Elementary School, David March Park (12.3 acres), 928 single-family homes, and has an estimated population of 2,784 permanent residents. Haskell Canyon Haskell Canyon is the largest of the project's three neighborhoods and consists of approximately 1,821 acres, 1,940 single family homes, and an estimated population of 5,820 residents. The Haskell Canyon area is bounded by the current City of Santa Clarita corporate boundary on the south, the Angeles National Forest on the north, the Dry Canyon Reservoir property on the west, and an undeveloped 10 -acre parcel immediately south of the Dry Canyon dam. The area is bounded to the east by privately owned parcels west of Blue Cloud Road. Primary streets within this sub -area include Haskell Canyon Road, Rock Canyon Drive, Garnet Canyon Drive, and Cypress Place. The Haskell Canyon neighborhood contains an 18,860 square -foot commercial center, Mountainview Elementary School, the unused (closed) Bouquet Canyon Elementary School, Pacific Crest Park (7 -acres), and an undeveloped, 8 -acre park site south of Copperhill Drive, opposite Deer Springs Drive. Los Angeles County Fire Station 108 is located on Rock Master Case 11-038 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Canyon Drive. The existing neighborhoods were developed under Tract Map Nos. 35783, 46183, 46908, 47657, 50586, 51789, and 52807. Two other tracts have been tentatively approved by Los Angeles County but are not yet built. Tract 52829 would allow 95 new single-family homes to be constructed on 74.76 acres at the northern terminus of Wellston Drive, south of Copperhill Drive. The tract map expires on March 19, 2012. The applicant has the option for four (4) one- year time extensions with the County, which means the expiration date may be pushed out as far as 2016. Tract 66561 would allow for 29 single-family units to be constructed on 80 acres of land at the northern terminus of Phantom Trail and expires on December 17, 2012. The applicant has the option for up to six (6) one-year extensions which means that the expiration date could be as late as 2018. A Negative Declaration was prepared for each of the undeveloped tracts and no mitigation measures were included as part of the project approvals. Raintree The Raintree neighborhood is located generally east of San Francisquito Canyon and consists of the developed areas north of the existing City of Santa Clarita corporate limits and south of the Angeles National Forest. Primary streets within the neighborhood include Raintree Place, Valley Oak Place, Black Pine Way, and Boxwood Lane. The Raintree neighborhood consists of approximately 203 acres, 313 single-family homes, and also includes the Dry Canyon Reservoir site that is owned by the LADWP. The area was developed under Tract Map Nos. 45137, 46564 (01, 02, 03, 04, and 05), and 49958. There are no commercial centers, public parks, or schools in the Raintree area, although a private park is located off Black Pine Lane. The area is primarily developed with an estimated population of 939 people. PROJECT Pursuant to the State of California Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, annexing cities are required to prezone land. The City proposes a Prezone that would change the zoning designations of the annexation area in order to be consistent with the City's zoning ordinance. The prezone designations would be consistent with the existing Los Angeles County land use designation for the Santa Clarita Valley area plan and would reflect the existing development and conditions within the proposed annexation area. The project is located within the City's existing General Plan planning area and consists of land use designations that include Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Non -Urban Residential (NU2), Non -Urban Residential (NU3), Non -Urban Residential (NU -5), Open Space (OS), Open Space— Bureau of Land Management (OS-BLM), Public Institution (PI), Urban Residential 1 (URI), and Urban Residential 2 (UR2), as shown in Table I and the attached General Plan map. A Prezone map for the project area is shown in Exhibit A. Prezone maps for each of the three neighborhood areas are also attached to the staff report. As no changes to the General Plan are proposed, a General Plan Amendment is not required. Master Case 11-038 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 4 of 7 I able r General Flan Lana use ueSlanationS General Plan Designation ( Acres Existing Land Use Commercial Neighborhood (CN) 1. _76 Commercial c ............. _ .... Non Urban Residential 2 (NU2) .. 74 69 _ ...._ Vacant Non Urban Residential 3 (NU3) 123.73. ..._.... Vacant . Non Urban Residential 5 NU5 - ..... ...._. ..... ....... Open Space (OS) 803.85 Park sites and vacant Open Space --Bureau of Land Management 1821.07" (OS-BLM) = .... ....... .._..__ .........._........................._._....._.._............._.._.__..............._.._-......._._._.__..............._.__......................._........_.........__._..._._._....._..---- 4.90: ._........_.T._..-----.._..... Vacant _.._.._._.-------_.__..__._.._....._._.......-_..._.__._._.... Schools, water tanks, LA Public Institution (PI) 128 73 County probation camps .... .._ .....-. Urban Residential 1 UR1 _ _ (_ )___._ _ 1_ 351.99 __....__ _._ Residential and vacant __.____.__ Urban Residential 2 (UR2) 979.24: Residential and vacant Total. 2475.64" j -- *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. The proposed prezone designations for the annexation area include Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Open Space (OS), Residential Estate (RE), Residential Suburban (RS), and Residential Very Low (RVL). These prezone designations are listed in Tables Il through V for the overall project area and sub -areas. Existing County of Los Angeles zoning is listed in Table VI. The proposed prezone designations reflect the existing and approved development in the area. Any future development that was not previously approved and/or environmentally analyzed by the County of Los Angeles, would be processed, analyzed, and reviewed by the City. I auie W Norm uo ernill Hnnexauon /Area Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Density Commercial Neighborhood _........._.........._1.:8 Floor Area Ratio = .375:1 Open Space --- - - 81-0.1 N/A Residential Estate (RE) 268.09 j 1 unit per 2 acres - .............. - ... _.__.._..--- -- --- -- .. . Residential Suburban (RS) 1388 98 5 units re Residential VeryLow RVL 6.8 ( 1 unire Total: 1 2475.8" Table III: Bouauet Canvon Prezone Prezone Designation i Acres Density Open_Space....__....._....._._..._.............._._._._......_. _. _._. �. 37.18 , .................,..._......................................................................................._........................................ N/A Residential Estate RE ! 72.01 _.......................__......-....... 1 unit per 2 acres ........................._.............................................._........ _.... .... ....._....___...... ._._._._...._..---...................(_.._........)_._._......_........._._........_.._................................... Residential Suburban RS t 335.56 ! 5 units per acre ..................................... _.__._.._._._._._....._......._._........_.._....._..........._(_._._.._..)..__._....................................................................:................................._.........._...._.......... Residential Ve Low RVL 6.75 1 unit er acre Total: 451.50* 5 units per acre i aoie iv: MasKen Lanyon rrezone Prezone Designation I Acres Density Commercial Neighborhood 1.77 Floor Area Ratio = .375:1 Open Space _. ........ _._._ .. --._. ..... 767 50 . N/A_. .._ Residential Estate (RE) _ . .. 123 72 j 1 unit per 2 acres ........... Residential Suburban RS 928.08 ` 5 units per acre Total: 1 1821.07" Master.Case 11-038 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Table V: Raintree Prezone Prezone Designation Acres Density ._.O.pen Space.---....-.------.-._.._..----.._.._...._...._._....._.._._._......_......._...__...._5........._._........................_.._...._.........................._................._...._._._........._._._N/A.... Residential Estate (REQ 72.36 1 unit per 2 acres -- ----------------- -----...._....._..._.-..-_._._....._.....-----..__..._.__._...._.._...__.._._._....-._._._._. _......_.__....._..... Residential Suburban RS 125.34 i 5 units er acre Total: 203.16" , *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Table VI: Existino Countv Zonin Raintree Neighborhood ` Haskell Canyon Neighborhood Bouquet Canyon Neighborhood A-2-2: i A-1-1 A-1-1 Heavy Agriculture Light Agriculture Light Agriculture Two -acre minimum lot size One -acre minimum lot size ................_._.__._....._____..._._........_....___.__.._..._..___._..-_._.__........_._._._._.....___._.__..__.._...._..__.....__._..........._......._._..........___._...__._...._...__...__. One -acre minimum lot size _._..--.--_-----.-----.--_----------------.-----.._._...-__..._...._..__._._ RPD -5000-3.5U: A -1 -1 -DP Residential Planned Development Light Agriculture A-2-1 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size One -acre minimum lot size Heavy Agriculture Development Program _._._._..__..__..._._._.__.__.._..._One acre minimum lot size ___....._.._._._.... . ............... I A-2-1 R-1-5000 Heavy Agriculture Single Family Residential One -acre minimum lot size -5,000 sq ft. minimum lot size ------------------- --- --- ----- ---- ---.. _. _.... _ _._...._... ---- ..._..... R -1 -10000 -DP A-2-2 Single Family Residential Heavy Agriculture 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Two -acre minimum lot size Program __._.._........._._.._ .........................._ .___._....__..___._.__._......_.':...._Development RPD -6000-5.9U C -2 -DP Residential Planned Development Neighborhood Business 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size _--- -- -- -- -------- --___ -_______Development _ - - - - Program._._....._.._..__._._..___..___._._........,__5.9 units..... acre... _............... RPD -10000-1.9U R-1-5000 Residential Planned Development Single Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size ft_ minimum lot size____. units per acre .. _...................- -- .....-- .... _........... ............ .. ..E.._5000_sq. -....._.._..._._._._._......._.1.9 R-1-7000 i Single Family Residential _._.__.............. ........................_ _._._............ _ _. _.. ....:....7,000 sq_ ft. minimum lot size - ....- ............. _ . RPD -1-3 Residential Planned Development One -acre minimum lot size --- ---' 3.0-units.per_acre.......... _...__...._._....... ........ _...... ....... RPD -1-11U Residential Planned Development One -acre minimum lot size 11 units per acre _._._. ...... _._._....................._...._. RPD -5000-3.5U Residential Planned Development s 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 3.5 units per acre.._..._.. —..._.__....-- ---._...-- .._..... ....- .._...._._...__.._...--._....._.........._._._. ----------- ------------------e RPD -5000-4U Residential Planned Development 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 4 units per acre RPD -6000-4U Residential Planned Development = 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 4 units per acre The proposed Prezone and the associated annexation would not create County islands or non- contiguous City territory. The Prezone would be consistent with the existing neighborhoods and approved, future, development and would likewise reflect the City's commitment for preserving open space in undeveloped portions of the Santa Clarita Valley. Master Case 11 -03 8 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 6 of 7 ANALYSIS Under Prezone 11-001, the subject territory area would be assigned prezone designations that are consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and zoning ordinance. The prezone designations would be generally consistent with the existing County of Los Angeles designations in the project area, as well as the existing land uses. Should the Commission recommend approval of the project and adopt the accompanying resolution, the project would proceed to the City Council for further consideration. The Prezone would become effective when the project area is formally annexed by the City of Santa Clarita. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The current land uses in the project area are consistent with the City's General Plan. The project would assign residential, open space, and commercial prezoning to the unincorporated territory, that both support and are consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the project is consistent with the following policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan: Objective LU 1.1: Maintain an urban form for the Santa Clarita Valley that preserves an open space greenbelt around the developed portions of the Valley, protects significant resources from development, and directs growth to urbanized areas served with infrastructure. Policy LU 1.1.3: Discourage urban sprawl into rural areas by limiting non- contiguous, "leapfrog" development outside of areas designated for urban use. The project supports this objective and policy because it would prezone 810 acres as open space which would prevent additional sprawl into natural areas and while directing growth into areas that are currently served by infrastructure by assigning residential zones that carry appropriate densities. PUBLIC NOTICING In compliance with the UDC noticing requirements, a notice advertising this public hearing item was mailed to the 3,284 property owners who own land within the project area. Additional notices were sent to 3,569 property owners who own land within a 1,000' radius of the proposed annexation area. An 1/8 -page advertisement was placed in The Signal newspaper on June 17, 2011, and six public hearing signs were posted in the project area. Staff has received no letters of opposition to the project. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS An Initial Study was prepared that evaluated the potential impacts of the project. No significant impacts were identified that could reasonably result from the Prezone or ultimate annexation. It is therefore determined that Master Case 11-038 and its associated entitlements would not have a Master Case 11-038 North Copperhill Annexation July 19, 2011 Page 7 of 7 significant effect on the environment. The requested Prezone is consistent with Los Angeles County land use planning policies and reflects the project area's existing development and uses. The Negative Declaration for this project was prepared and circulated for public review and comment beginning June 17, 2011, through July 19, 2011. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Open the public hearing; 2) Receive testimony from the public; 3) Close the public hearing; and 4) Adopt Resolution No. P11-15, recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution to adopt the Negative Declaration for the project and approve Master Case 11-038; inclusive of Prezone 11-001, and direct staff to proceed with the application process as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County for the North Copperhill Annexation. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. P11-15 Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study. North Copperhill Prezone Map (Exhibit A) Vicinity Map General Plan Map Bouquet Canyon Prezone Map Haskell Canyon Prezone Map Raintree Prezone Map Correspondence S:\CD\CURRENT\!2011\11-038 (North Copper Hill Annexations)\Planning Commission\MC 11-038 Staff Report.doc CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NORTH COPPERHILL ANNEXATION AREA GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING TABLE EXHIBITS CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 23, 2011 I able I: Veneral clan Land Use uesianations General Plan Designation Acres Existing Land Use Commercial Neighborhood (CN) _... ._. 1.76 Commercial center -.- ......... -- .- _._... Non -Urban Residential 2 (NU2) 74.69 Vacant _ _............_....... ....... .... ............................... Non -Urban Residential 3 (NU3) .. ............ ....... ....... _._...... .. .... ._._._... _._. 123.73 -- -- ...... Vacant Residential 5 (NU5) 6.75 Residential Open Space(OS)..... ._................... ._.._------------- --- ._._...._.__.__._.-..-.--.--.._....�--- - 803.851------- - Park sites and vacant Open Space --Bureau of Land Management 2475.8" (OS-BLM)4.90 Vacant _...._.........................................._................................................................,........-.... Schools, water tanks, LA Public Institution (PI) _...._............._.........._..........__..._..........__.__..__....__.__..__..__.__.._..,.._._.._.._ 128.73 County probation camps _-- _ Urban Residential 1 (UR1) _.__..._._._....._.-_........_..-._.-.._...._...__._._..-._._._...._.._._.__......._._.._..._.-.............__.__.__..._... 351.99 Residential and vacant Urban Residential 2 (UR2) Residential and vacant Total:: 2475.64` -- *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. Tahle It- North Connerhill Annexation Area Prezone Prezone Designation ; Acres j Density Commercial Neighborhood---............._._..........._......._............_1....8.............._.............._Floor 37.18 _._._.__........._.__...---._.._._._._.._._..__._._....._....--.--.--..._.._._.__.._...........-- Area Ratio ..... _=....._375.:_1_._. Open Space j 810.1 N/A Residential Estate RE 268.09 1 unit per 2 acres Residential Suburban (RS) - - ----------------- -- -------....................._._._.__..._...._.__._._......._._.__._._......_...._------..__._._._..._... 1388.98 ; 5 units per acre -----........._._._. Residential VeryLow RVL 6.8 1 unit er acre Total: 2475.8" *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. i ame iii: bouauet c;anvon rrezone Prezone Designation Acres Density _Open Space _ ...............__...._._._........._..__._._._......-.: 37.18 _._._.__........._.__...---._.._._._._.._._..__._._....._....--.--.--..._.._._.__.._...........-- N/A Residential Estate (RE) 72.01 1 uni............................ ......... Residential Suburban QRS) 335.56 5.. units per acre Residential Very Low RVL 6.75 1 unit per acre Total: 451.50" *Acreage is approximate due to rounding. WILLIAM T FUJIOKA Chief Executive Officer County of Los Angeles CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 713, Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 974-1101 httpY/ceo.lacounty.gov Mr. Ben Jarvis Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Jarvis: July 19, 2011 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR NORTH COPPERHILL ANNEXATION Board of Supervisors GLORIA MOLINA First District MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS Second District ZEV YAROSLAVSKY Third District DON KNABE Fourth District MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Fifth District The County has prepared comments on the City of Santa Clarita's Notice of Intent to. adopt a Negative Declaration (ND) for the North Copperhill Canyon Annexation project. The ND evaluates the impacts of a proposed annexation into the City of Santa Clarita of 2,475 acres of land including the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon, and Raintree areas. The ND also evaluates a Master Case and Pre -Zone of this area consisting of residential and commercial territory.. Included in this letter are comments on behalf of the County Chief Executive Office and Departments of Regional Planning, Sheriff, Parks and Recreation, Public Library, and the County of Los Angeles Consolidated Fire Protection District. Departmental letters are included as Attachment A. Chief Executive Office Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Policy The County is obligated to review each annexation and sphere of influence amendment proposal in accordance with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Policy 3.095 — "City Annexations and Spheres of Influence". The Policy includes conditions and guidance for determining the fiscal, geographic, environmental, social, and operational impacts on affected unincorporated communities and the County of Los Angeles, as well as determining any recommended mitigations. The Policy is attached, Attachment B, so that the City can ensure that the proposed annexation is consistent with the County Board of Supervisor's Policy. Department of Regional Planning (DRP) Annexation Boundary DRP concludes that the boundary of the annexation area is appropriate, as it reflects a logical extension of the City's boundary to include adjacent residential areas that require an urban level of services as well as an adjacent open space area that was recently acquired by the City. 'To Enrich Lives Through Effective And Caring Service" - --Please Conserve -Paper= TMs Document -and -Copies are Two-Slded__ Intra -County Correspondence Sent Electronically Only Mr. Ben Jarvis July 19, 2011 Page 2 Land Use and Planninq The proposed annexation area is currently governed by the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan ("Plan"). Attachment A (DRP letter), Exhibits I through VI provide current land use and zoning designations under the Plan and code and a summary of zoning and land use area calculations. These Exhibits provide the City's correct land use and zoning information for their annexation application(s) to the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Note that there are three zoning designations within the Raintree Annexation: A-2-2; RPD -5000-3.5U; and RPD -5000-4.5U. The RPD -5000-4.5U is not referenced in the ND and should be added. DRP concurs with the ND that the annexation will not have a significant impact on land use and planning based on the existing Plan and expected outcome of the joint planning effort in "One -Valley -One -Vision" (OVOV) plan and the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan update which will be adopted by the Board in late 2011 or early 2012. The City's Open Space land use designation is not shown on the latest County Area Plan land use map, because this open space area was recently acquired by the City. The County will apply an Open Space land use designation to this area before the Area Plan land use map is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed zoning designations for the annexation area are appropriate, as they are consistent with the proposed land use designations. Approved/Pending Projects Two approved subdivision projects, not yet constructed, are included within the Haskell Canyon Annexation area: TR 52829 and TR 66561. DRP records indicate that a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and not a Negative Declaration, was prepared for each of the two projects. Please contact DRP's Land Divisions Section at (213) 974-6433 to obtain project documentation and revise the ND accordingly. Two pending but inactive subdivision -projects exist within the Haskell Canyon annexation area, TR 47760 and TR 43589, and both require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). City staff confirmed that the City just purchased approximately 526 acres of land in June 2011 including the two pending subdivisions and has pre -zoned it as Open Space for permanent preservation. Therefore, DRP concurs that potential environmental impacts associated with the two pending projects no longer exist and do not need to be discussed in the ND. Population and Housing Upon receiving the official annexation application from LAFCO requesting County review, DRP will calculate a draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) transfer amount associated Mr. Ben Jarvis July 19, 2011 Page 3 with the proposed annexation. In the absence of an official methodology to calculate RHNA transfers for annexations, and with the nature of the RHNA being adopted at a jurisdictional - level, DRP recommends that each RHNA transfer for annexations during the 2008-2014 Housing Element planning period be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The calculation will be advisory and does not preclude other considerations provided through negotiations from informing the final agreed-upon RHNA transfer. The County will request that a group or the City prepare its own estimate and approach to determine the appropriate RHNA transfer. Public/Municipal Services Regional Planning provides land use planning, permitting, and zoning enforcement services to the unincorporated Los Angeles County. The proposed annexation will not result in significant impacts on municipal services provided by DRP to the remaining unincorporated area. Sheriff The proposed annexation area is within the service area of the Department's Santa Clarita Valley Station. The Station is located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway, in the City of Valencia, and is approximately seven (7) miles from the proposed annexation area. The Station's service area encompasses approximately 656 square miles. The Department has no comments on the proposed annexation as it is described in the ND. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Public Parks The proposed annexation area includes three County public park sites: • David March Park Pacific Crest Park • An undeveloped park site south of Copperhill Drive (provided as part of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47657 "Copperhill") The City must agree to assume ownership and responsibility for all three public parks in their current condition, upon annexation of the area to the City's jurisdiction. Page 38 of the Initial Study indicates that upon annexation, "the responsibilities for park maintenance and recreational programs would transfer from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita". Along with accepting responsibilities for maintenance and programming, it should be noted that a non-negotiable condition of the transfer of County parks to the City, is that the City must comply with California State Government Code Section 25550.5, which states that all residents of the County shall be treated equally regardless of whether or not they are residents of the City. Mr. Ben Jarvis July 19, 2011 Page 4 Trails This annexation area includes two short segments of the proposed Bouquet Canyon County Trail #77 in the proposed Bouquet Canyon area. These short segments are identified in Exhibit VII. The northerly segment connects with an existing City trail. There are no existing trail easements recorded to the County in the annexation area. Additionally, DPR will continue to work closely with the City on any future connection to the County's regional trail alignments. Public Library The proposed Haskell Canyon and Raintree annexation communities are currently served by the Public Library's Stevenson Ranch Express Library, while the proposed Bouquet Canyon annexation community is served by the Santa Clarita Valley Bookmobile. On August 24, 2010, the Santa Clarita City Council adopted Resolution 10-71 to withdraw from the County Library System and assume the responsibility for providing library services to the residents of the City effective July 1, 2011. The three libraries located within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita are Canyon Country Jo Anne Darcy Library, Newhall Library, and Valencia Library. Should this annexation be approved, the City of Santa Clarita will be responsible for providing .library services to these communities and the Public Library would no longer receive its dedicated share of property tax revenues and voter -approved special tax revenues collected from the properties in the annexation area. County of Los Angeles Consolidated Fire Protection District (CFPD) The Fire District provides fire and emergency medical services to both the proposed annexation area and the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed annexation areas are primarily protected by two fire stations: Fire Station 108, which is located within Haskell Canyon at 28799 N. Rock Canyon Drive, Santa Clarita; and Fire Station 111, which is located approximately two miles away at 26829 Seco Canyon Road, Saugus. No change in fire services, or impacts on fire services, would result due to this annexation. The Fire District currently receives approximately 17 percent of the ad valorem property tax and levies a special tax to fund fire protection and emergency medical services in the proposed annexation area. Since the area would remain in the Fire District, the Fire District will continue to receive its current revenues, and there will be no funding impact on fire protection and emergency medical services. In addition, the County and the City of Santa Clarita have both adopted a developer fee to fund construction of new facilities in this area. Mr. Ben Jarvis July 19, 2011 Page 5 Probation Department The Initial Study lists two Los Angeles County Probation Camps, Camp Scott and Camp Scudder, that are located within the Bouquet Canyon annexation area. The Probation Department was not forwarded a copy of the Initial Study by the City of Santa Clarita. The City should allow the Probation Department to comment on the ND. The Departments of Animal Care and Control, Public Health, and Public Works have no comments. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothea Park at (213) 974-4283 or via e-mail at:dpark@ceo.lacounty:aov. Sincerely, WILLIAM T FUJIOKA Chief Executive Officer R L. BINSON Deputy Chief Executive Officer Community Services Cluster and Capital Programs/Administrative Services WTF:RLR DSP:TH:can Attachments (2) c: Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, Fifth District Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff .Marcia Mayeda, Director of Animal Care and Control Daryl L. Osby, Fire Chief Margaret Donnellan Todd, County Librarian Russ Guiney, Director of Parks and Recreation Richard J. Bruckner, Director of Planning Donald H. Blevins, Chief Probation Officer Dr. Jonathan E. Fielding, Director and Public Health Officer of Public Health Gail Farber, Director of Public Works UICHRONO 20111CHRONO 2011 JWORDrOUAS1Qty of Santa Cladta ND for North Copperhill Ann"alion Ben Jarvla.doc ATTACHMENT A �y OF LOS l�N f t ++ � f k >< x x' CA11FORN� Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning Planning for the Challenges Ahead Richard J. Bruckner Director July 7, 2011 TO: Dorothea Park, Manager Office of Unincorporated Area Services Chief Executive Office FROM: Richard J. Bruckner Director SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NORTH COPPER HILL ANNEXATION The City of Santa Clarita ("City") issued the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration ("ND") for the North Copper Hill Annexation project, which consists of Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon and Raintree annexations. Your office requested that the Department of Regional Planning ("DRP") comment on the proposed ND. We provide the following comments for your review. ANNEXATION BOUNDARY The annexation boundary is appropriate, as it reflects a logical extension of the City's boundary to include adjacent residential areas that require an urban level of services as well as an adjacent open space area that was recently acquired by the City. LAND USE AND PLANNING The proposed annexation area is currently governed by the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Plan ("Plan") and County Zoning Code. Attachments I through VI provide current land use and zoning designations under the plan and code and Attachment VII is a summary of zoning and land use area calculations. They are for the City's reference to ensure that correct land use and zoning information will be contained in its annexation application(s) to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County (LAFCO). Note .that there, are three zoning designations within the Raintree Annexation: A-2-2, RPD -5000-3.5U and RPD -5000-4.5U. The RPD -5000-4.5U is not referenced in the ND. DRP concurs with the ND that the annexation will not have significant impact on land use and planning based on the existing Plan and expected outcome of the joint planning effort in "One -Valley -One -Vision" (OVOV) project - the Santa Clarita Plan update: 320 West Temple Street - Los Angeles, CA 90012 - 213-974-6411 - Fax: 213-626-0434 - TDD: 213-617-2292 North Copper Hill Annexation July 7, 2011 Page { PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT } of 3 The proposed land use designations for the annexation area are appropriate. City staff and County staff have agreed on these land use designations as part of the OVOV planning effort. In June 2011, the City Council adopted a new City General Plan that was developed as part of the OVOV planning effort. In late 2011 or early 2012, County staff anticipates that the Board of Supervisors will adopt a new Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan (Area Plan) that was developed as part of the OVOV planning effort. The City's Open Space land use designation is not shown on the latest Area Plan land use map, but this is because this open space area was recently acquired by the City. The County will also apply an Open Space land use designation to this area before the Area Plan land use map is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed zoning designations for the annexation area are appropriate, as they are consistent with the proposed land use designations. APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS Two approved subdivision projects but not yet built are included within the Haskell Canyon Annexation area: TR 52829 and TR66561. Our records show that.a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and not Negative Declaration, was prepared for each .'of: the. two'.., projects. Please contact DRP's Land Divisions Section at (213) 974- 6433 to obtain . project documentation and revise the ND accordingly. Two pending Out' inactive subdivision projects exist within the Haskell Canyon: Annexation area, TR47760 and TR43589, and both require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). City staff confirmed that the City just purchased approximately 526 acres of land in June 2011 including the two pending subdivisions and has pre -zoned it as Open Space for permanent preservation. Thus, DRP concurs that potential environmental impacts associated with the two pending projects no longer exist and do not need to be discussed in the ND. POPULATION AND HOUSING Upon receiving the official annexation application from LAFCO requesting County review, DRP will calculate a draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) transfer amount associated with the proposed annexation. In the absence of an official methodology to calculate RHNA transfers for annexations, and with the nature of the RHNA being adopted at a jurisdictional -level, DRP recommends that each RHNA transfer for annexations during the 2008-2014 Housing Element planning period be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The calculation will be advisory and does not preclude other considerations that come up from the negotiations from informing the final agreed-upon RHNA transfer. The County will request that a group or the City to prepare its own estimate and approach to determine the appropriate RHNA transfer. North Copper Hill Annexation July 7, 2011 Page ( PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT) of 3 PUBLIC/MUNICIPAL SERVICES Regional Planning provides land use planning, permitting and zoning enforcement services'to the unincorporated Los Angeles County. The proposed annexation will not result in significant impacts on municipal services provided by DRP to the remaining unincorporated area. Should you and your staff have any questions, please contact Ms. Hsiao-Ching Chen at (213) 974-6559 or via email at (HYPERLINK"mailto:hchen@planning.lacounty.gov"). RJB:hc Attachments c: Lori Glasgow, Fifth Supervisorial District Edel Vizcarra, Fifth Supervisorial District Rosalind Wayman, Fifth Supervisorial. District Tina Herzog; Chief Executive Office . County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Headquarters 4700 Ramona Boulevard 0 Monterey Park, California 91754-2169 C�aroJ D. 1�. oco,,cS6ari�" . July 14, 2011 Ms. Tina Herzog Chief Executive Office County of Los Angeles Office of Unincorporated Area Services Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 723 Los Angeles,. California .90012 Dear Ms. `Herzog: REVIEW COMMENTS INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE NORTH COPPERHILL ANNEXATION. PROJECT (MASTER CASE 1,1-038; ANNEXATION ,11-002; .PREZONE 11.001) . The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Department) reviewed the Initial Study (IS) and Negative Declaration (ND) for the North Copperhill Annexation . Project (Project). The proposed Project will add approximately 2,475 acres (Annexation Area) of unincorporated County territory to the City of Santa Clarita (City). The City proposed Annexation Area are within the service area of the Department's Santa Clarita Valley Station (Station). The Station is located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway, in the City of Valencia, and is approximately 7 .miles from the proposed Annexation Area. The Station's service area encompasses approximately 656 square miles. The Department has no comments on the proposed Project, as it is described in the IS and ND. The Department appreciates being included in the review process for the proposed Project and we look forward .to subsequent ,reviews of Project documents, as they are developed, in the future. ✓`' 5r ad_',lion ol_&r•uice cSince 1850 Ms. Herzog -2- July 14, 2011 Should you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact Project Manager, Lester Miyoshi, of my staff, at (626) 300-3012, and refer to FPB Tracking No. 11-022. Mr. Miyoshi may also be contacted, via e-mail, at Ihmivosh(Mlasd.orq. Sincerely, LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF Gary T.K. Ple, Director Facilities Planning Bureau Ms. Herzog -3- July 14, 2011 GTKT:LM:lm/mm c: Paul Becker, Captain, Santa Clarita Valley Station Jeffrey S. Jackson, Deputy, Santa Clarita Valley Station Michael C. Irving, Lieutenant, Contract Law Enforcement Bureau Joel L. Barnett, Sergeant, Contract Law Enforcement Bureau Meaghan Wang, Supervising Project Manager, Facilities Planning Bureau Lester Miyoshi, Project Manager, Facilities Planning Bureau Chrono (EIR-InitialStudy-NegDec NorthCopperhill AnexProj) i 0 fCOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES x x DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION yr "Creating Community Through People, Parks and Programs" Russ Guine , Director ,luly 19, 2011 Mr, Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Santa. Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 9.1355 j Dear Mr.: Jarvis: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NORTH COPPER HILLANNEXATION The Negative Declaration..for the North Copper Hill Annexation has been reviewed for potential impact on the facilities: of the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Our comments are as follows: Public Parks The:proposed annexation area includes three County public park sites:: •. :David March:Park . • Pacific Crest Park An undeveloped park site south: of:Copperhill Drive (provided as part of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47657 "Copperhill") The City must agree to assume: ownership and responsibility for all three public parks in their current condition, upon annexation of the area to the City's jurisdiction. Page' 38-6f ttie Initial Study indicates that upon annexation, "the responsibilities for park maintenance :and recreational programs would transfer from the County of Los. Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita:": Along with accepting responsibilities for maintenance and { programming, it should be noted that, a non-negotiable.. condition of..the transfer of County..parks. to the City, is that the City must comply with California State Government Code Section. 25550.5, : which states that all . residents of the. County shall be treated equally regardless of. whether or not they are residents of.the City. Residential Subdivisions with: Outstanding Quimby Obligations The: proposed :annexation area contains two residential subdivisions that have been tentatively . approved by the County, but have .not been recorded. These proposed Planning and Development Agency • 510 South Vermont Ave • Los Angeles, CA 90020 •; (213) 351-5198 Mr. Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner July 19, 2011 Page 2 subdivisions have not satisfied their Quimby obligations because they have not entered the final map stage: • Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52829: $147,067 in in -lieu fees • Vesting Tentative Tract Map 66561: $51,875 in in -lieu fees Trails There are no existing trail easements recorded to the County in the annexation area. However, the annexation area does include two short segments of the proposed Bouquet .Canyon County Trail #77. These short segments are identified on the enclosed Exhibit .VII. As you can see, the northerly segment connects with an existing City trail. Please know that DPR will continue to work closely with the City on any future connection to the County's regional trails. Thank you for including this Department in the review of this process. If there are any trail questions, please contact Frank Moreno at 213-351-5136 or by email at: frnoreno ED parks.lacounty.gov. If there are any other questions, please contact Julie Yom at (213) 351-5127 or by email at: iyomeparks.lacounty.gov. Sincerely, Joan Rupert Section Head Environmental & Regulatory Permitting Section Enclosure: Exhibit VII, North Copper Hill Annexation JR:JY:/response to City of Santa Clarita North Copper Hill Annexation c: Parks and Recreation (N. E. Garcia, F. Moreno, J. Barber, C. Lau, J. Yom) Planning and Development Agency • 510 South Vermont Ave • Los Angeles, CA 90020 • (213) 351-5198 County Library Margaret Donnellan Todd County Librarian July 18, 2011 County of Los Angeles Public Library m . www.colapublib.org 7400 East Imperial Hwy.; Downey, CA 90242 w (562) 940-8400 TO: Rita Robinson Chief Deputy, Chief Executive Officer FROM; Yolanda De Ramus Assistant: Director, istrative Services SUBJECT.- NORTH COPPER L ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF INTENT FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION This is in response to your: request for. written: comments on the Notice of Intent for Negative Declaration for the: above referenced ro ect As indicated in the documents we g . p 1. . received, . the proposed North Copper. Hill annexation includes the Bouquet Canyon, Haskell Canyon; and Raintree communities. No -Annexation Soenario The proposed Haskell Canyon and Raintree annexation communities are currently: served by the Public Library's Stevenson Ranch: Express. Library, while the. proposed Bouquet Canyon annexation community is: served by the Santa Clarita Valley Bookmobile. If the annexation is not approved, the Public Library will continue to serve these communities. Annexation Scenario On August 24:, 2010; the Santa Clarita City Council adopted Resolution 10-71 to withdraw from the:: County Library System and assume the responsibility for providing library services to the residents of the City. effective July 1, 2011. The three libraries located within the boundaries of the City of.Santa Clarita are Canyon. Country Jo Anne Darcy Library, Newhall Library, and Valencia Library. If the annexation is: approved, the City of"Santa Clarita: will be responsible to :provide library:. services to these communities. The Public Library will no -longer receive its dedicated share of property tax revenues and voter -approved special tax revenues collected from the Properties in the annexation area. If you have :any questions or :need additional, information, please have your staff contact Malou Rubio at (562) 940-8450. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE - LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 (323) 881-240.4 developed single family residences, an 18,860 square toot neignoornooa shopping center, a fire station, wo elementary schools; and elementary school ite, two County,of Los Angeles probation camp facilities, and three public. park sites The Fire District provides.fire and emergency medical services. both the proposed. annexation areas and`the City of Santa:Clarita. the proposed `annexation'areas are primarily, protected by two fire stations; Fire Station 108, which is located within Haskell Canyon at 2$799 N. ,Rock Canyon Drive, Santa Clanta, and Fire Sfation 1-11,. which is located approximately 2 miles distant at 26829 Seco Canyon Road;,Saugus. No change in fire seryices, or. impacts.on fire sore ces, would resuit due to this annexation. The Fire bistrict currently receives approximately 17 percent of the ad valorem property ial tax and levies a spectax to fund fire protection and emergency medical services in SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS ' DIAMOND BAR HIDDEN HILLS LA MIRADA MALIBU.. . POMONA SIGNAL HILL ARTESIA CARSON . .DUARTE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH EL MONTE AZUSA CERRITOS EL MONTE INDUSTRY LAKEWOOD NORWALK ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE BALDWIN PARK CLAREMONT GARDENA INGLEWOOD LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TEMPLE CITY BELL COMMERCE GLENDORA IRWINDAL6 LAWNDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD WALNUT BELL GARDENS COVINA HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE LOMITA PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS WEST HOLLYWOOD BELLFLOWER CUDAHY HAWTHORNE LA HABRA LYNWOOD PICO RIVERA SANTA CLARITA WESTLAKE VILLAGE �DHUKY -- - - ---- -WHITTIER- c: Jason Tali ma, Office of Unincorporated A(ea Services, CEO Shelter Locations County of Los Angeles To: Tina Herzog Department of Animal Care and Control Office of UnincorporatedArea Services Administrative Office Chief Executive Office 58.98 Cherry Avenue �o— NTY or Long Beach, California: 90805 LOS ANGELES ANIMAL CARE (562) 72874610 - Fax (562) 422-3478 AND CONTROL http://animalcare.lacounty.gov Administrative D` . p July 13, 2011' Downey Shelter To: Tina Herzog 1`1258 S. Garfield Ave. Downey, CA 90242 Office of UnincorporatedArea Services (562) 940-6898 Chief Executive Office 29525 Agoura Rd,. Carson Shelter 216 w. Victoria St. From: Patrick Malekian�YoGardena, ca so2as Administrative D` . p (310)523:9566 aaldwlnrPark'Sheiter NORTH COPPER HILL ANNEXATION 42M.'N;.,:.Elton St. BaldwinPark, CA 91706 - (626) 962-3577 In reviewing the City -of Santa Clarita's intent to file a Negative Declaration Lanc5210 .Aveer ner 5210 W. Avenue I. for the North Copper Hill annexation, the Department of Animal Care and � pp p Lancaster, CA 93536_ Control ,(Department) .does not have, any, comments at this time:.- The. (661) 990-4191 Department would .contin.ue to provide. Services to the affected area. The Castaic Shelter City of Santa Clarita would be responsible for. any costs incurred as a result 3.1044 N. Charlie Cyn. Rd. of such services. Castaic,. CA :91384 (681) 257-3191 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me Agoura Shelter at (562) 256-2400. 29525 Agoura Rd,. Agoura. CA 91301 (ala) 991-0071 PM:j,I -_--- ____----"TQ -EUrech-Uves_Thr-ough-Etfecti.ve_And--Caring-Service"-.------=----- COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Public Health JONATHAN E. FIELDING, M.D., M.P.H. Director and Health Officer JONATHAN E. FREEDMAN Chief Deputy Director ANGELO J. BELLOW, REHS Director of Environmental Health Veronica Bauchman, REHS Acting Bureau Director District Surveillance and Enforcement Le Taun Cotton, REHS District Surveillance and Enforcement Region 2 Manager 1435 W. Covina Pkwy., Ste. #14 West Covina, CA 91790 July 11, 2011 TO: Tina Herzog Unincorporated Area Service Office FROM: Le_Taun Cotton, EHS Manager Department of Public Health Environmental Health Division .RE: City of Santa Clarita Notice of Intent for ND - North Copper Hill Annexation BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Gloria Molina First District Mark Rldley-Thornas Second District Zev Yaroslaysky Third District Don Knabe Fourth District Michael D. Antonovlch Fifth District This is in response to a notice of intent from the City of Santa Clarita to file a Negative Declaration for the North Copper Hill .Annexation. The project area consists of three separate communities, each of which will require an individual annexation application to LAFCO. The three annexation communities are: Bouquet Canyon, Haskell. Canyon, and Raintree areas. This project includes an Annexation, Master Case, and Prezone. The project consists of approximately 2,475 acres of partially developed land containing approximately 3,181 developed single-family residences, an 18,860 square -foot neighborhood shopping center, a fire station, two elementary schools, an elementary school site, two County of Los Angeles probation camp facilities, and three public park sites (two of which are developed). The project area includes open space, parcels owned by the City of Santa Clarita as well as approximately 124 single-family residences that, have been approved but not yet built. Two power transmission corridors traverse the area along with both Los Angeles City aqueducts. After reviewing the document, Department of Public Health (DPH) -Environmental Division indicated that this project may either have no or only minor impact on DPH services. Ms. Tina Herzog July 11, 2011 Page 2 Bureau of District Surveillance & Enforcement Our services will remain virtually the same whether or not the City of Santa Clarita proceeds with the North Copper Hill Annexation. The only change (minor) will be that some referrals made to other agencies will be made to the appropriate City agency rather than the County agency. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact me at (626) 813-3348. LC: Ic c: Angelo J. Bellomo, Director of Environmental Health Veronica Bauchman, Acting Bureau Director District Surveillance and Enforcement EXHIBIT 3F 3 sr, a 0 ee d � V z G y 2 S, �8� J y a` ¢ m° �� 9; I I�: � J t. J, 01 ld EXHIBIT II _pp � ; ee N g � a � � � � � ��� Rig � ��� 1� tri �; j ��� ` .� { � m U Z o U e' §l�� � � gg� gat � a �ql ': r �r Is�'1 y i � � F EXHIBIT III gas � U a y p e a c [ s{ g��l EXHIBIT IV EXHIBIT V a EXE r j 4 !« . � ( a a ^| _ . City of Santa Clarita Annexation North Copper Hill . { j Landuse x a YNO W: �. _s-f� W wtw 2 988 420 085 68.605, 46,699.330 1072' 43 017I 495.596 987.546' -„ , .s.,,....... , . ...-.--. x 733.362 0.017, N 2c� _U ,, 2 (0, 5 4 r, 1 0 e! + � 7,153 556 116e 164,223i rs s f� p r ,r { s 916,227.929 21034 .. K rid a .... _ i-) 1n .�r �rx � e 4k3t! f, �� �r .r, xt sr. 1!t 213,568 689 4.903 P "!<,t F,_il t€r s 7 940,085 8558 182 279! _ U1 ..._ _. ?tia Or`=!r ` w� `-3 Uupacj a _.,._ 31,332,387.7181 719.293 U2. 7 UiIbn ` ctt' r; _..,. 1 12,796,264.207; 293 762`t U3 a rn 3 i c) 365,766.380p ._,.._.... 8 397, W o zvd to Il gr cs = 3 977,693472 $ . 91 315! _., 1 i71_ 3 2, 542.4451 3 AZ� nY 1 ^�.. AA. 1 _ Light agncultural ( 2,118,198411 48 627; A 1 1 DP 'fight agncultural 2 A46 914 $08� a6 173 A ? 1 Heavy agricultural _._ .__ ___... _ _. b ......�.. 1 18,376,356 4691 27 384 243 6081 411 863j 628 6561 A .2-2 Heavy agncultural ! 186 989 449, 4 293 C-2-DP iVE rFahtYorhood busrnpss R-1-:10000-DP ___..._.._ _ 5rn le-E, rnlI residence .m �_ y__.__ _ _ � 2,094,48T929! 929! 48 083, R--1 3000 DP l5+ng4e family residence 1.,101 498.1741 25287 R-1-5000 S--ingle-far"nily residence 411,74.7,005; 147193 R 1 7000 jSin le fiamil residence y 636 759 0331 _ 14 Rr D 1 1111 'Residential planned development . i 517 382 3701 (l H77 8771 RPD1 3 OU Re idcntial planned development 2 96 799.9861 68.01.7, RPU 10000 1 9UFtesidentiai planned develaprnent 4,611,469,914i 105 8651 RPD-5000-3.SU ,Residential planned development _._ 20 001 219 183 n59 165 RPU 5000 4 5U rmmm planned development 81 5!4 480 1.9711 RPD-5000-4U MyResidential �Residential planned development __ 5 6S6 312 933f 129.8511 _. WD-6000-4U _ 1 2 950 538 473 JResidential planned development - - 67.735 1 RPD-6000-5,9U Residential planned development r 1,910,814'.2 3 866 _43.86 - total` {MIhlU5 R Q VJJ 1.283 041 ._ I i i EXHIBIT VII 010 ATTACHMENT B WILLIAM.T FUJIOKA Chief Executive Officer December 4, 2007 . County of Los Angeles CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE 713 KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 974-1101 http://ceo.lacounty.gov The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Supervisors: Board of Supervisors GLORIA MOLINA First District YVONNE B..BLIRKE Second District ZEV YAROSLAVSKY Third District DON KNABE Fourth District MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Fifth District AMENDMENT TO THE CITY ANNEXATIONS AND SPHERES OF INFLUENCE POLICY (POLICY NO. 3.095) (ALL SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS) (3 VOTES) IT IS RECOMMENDED. THAT YOUR BOARD: 1. Approve the .amendment to the City Annexations and Spheres of Influence Policy that is intended to guide the County's review and response to annexation and sphere of influence proposals pursued by cities. 2. Instruct the Chief Executive Officer and other County departments, as appropriate, to implement the amended Board Policy effective immediately. PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION Your Board adopted the Policy on May 13, 2003 with a Sunset Review Date of May 13, 2007. During the sunset review process, it was determined that amendments were necessary to provide. further guidance 'to the Chief Executive Office (CEO) and County departments when negotiating proposed city annexation and sphere of influence proposals. Implementation of the amended Policy is contingent upon your Board's approval. "To Enrich Lives Through Effective And Caring Service" The Honorable Board of Supervisors December 4, 2007 Page 2 The amendments provide additional guidelines related to the following Sections of the Policy: Section B. 3: Regional Housing Needs Assessments Allocations This Policy amendment will allow the County to negotiate agreements with any city proposing to annex unincorporated territory, to transfer Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA) allocations from the County to the annexing city. Currently, transfers of housing units to annexing cities are not part of the annexation process. Therefore, annexations occur without the corresponding transfer of the County's share of housing units to the annexing city and the County is still responsible for the planning of such housing units. By formalizing a process by which such transfers are negotiated .concurrently with city annexations, the County's responsibility for its fair share of housing units will be more accurately reflected. The amended Policy will also allow the County to oppose an annexation if a city does not accept the RHNA allocation of housing units associated with the land area to be annexed by the city. :Section B 5: Annexations that Conflict with the.County's Land Use Policy This Policy amendment allows the .County to oppose annexations that would result' in patterns of development that conflict with the County's land use plans and policies and/or would negatively impact adjacent unincorporated areas. Section C 2: Unincorporated Area Islands Annexations This Policy amendment will preclude a city from annexing only part of an unincorporated area island, if such an annexation would make it difficult for the County to provide services to the remaining area. Further, partial annexation of an "unincorporated island" may create illogical boundaries and may further fragment an unincorporated community.or area. Implementation of Strategic Plan Goals The Countywide Strategic Plan directs that we provide Organizational Effectiveness (Goal 3) by appropriately evaluating city annexations. In addition, this action is consistent with Fiscal Responsibility (Goal 4) by providing opportunities to maximize the long-term fiscal benefits to the County. The Honorable Board of Supervisors December 4, 2007 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING Adoption of the amended Policy will not have a direct fiscal impact on current services; however, implementation of the amended Policy will help ensure the County considers opportunities to maximize the potential long-term benefits of annexation and minimize the operational and fiscal impact inherent in certain annexation proposals. Since the amended Policy will also allow the County to transfer an appropriate share of the RHNA allocations to an annexing city, the Department of Regional Planning would not have to expend staffing resources to plan for the housing capacity that would be transferred to an annexing city. FACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Your Board established the Current Policy in.May 2003 to provide: (1) a process for,the review and consideration of 'proposed annexation and sphereof influence proposals; (2) quide"nce to County staff in the evaluation of these proposals; and (3) opportunities -to negotiate with each city to determine the fiscal, social,, geographic, environmental, operational, _and land use impacts on affected' unincorporated communities and the County of Los Angeles. Cities -;within the. County were given an opportunity to provide'`input on the amended Policy during the review process. The draft amended Policy was provided :to .the Councils of Governments (COGs) representing various cities in the County and individually to cities that are not represented by a COG. Only the San Gabriel Valley COG and the City of Los Angeles provided input. Based upon the input from both the City of Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley COG, the proposed amendments were further refined to address both agencies' concerns with the proposed amendments. As required by your Board, County policy revisions. other than an extension of the Sunset Review Date must be presented to, and approved by the Audit Committee. The CEO presented the Policy amendments to the Audit Committee and received final approval on September 20, 2007. The amended Policy was reviewed by County Counsel. The Honorable Board of Supervisors December 4, 2007 Page 4 IMPACT ON CURRENT SERVICES (OR PROJECTSI Approval of the amended Policy will not have a direct impact on current services. However, implementation of the proposed amended Policy will help ensure that the County: (1) appropriately evaluates city_ annexations to determine the fiscal, social, geographic, environmental, and land use impacts to affected unincorporated communities and the County; and (2) consider opportunities to maximize the potential long-term benefits of annexations and minimize negative impacts to the County and its residents. CONCLUSION Adoption of the amended Policy by your Board will provide further guidance on city annexation and sphere of influence proposals. Upon adoption of the amended Policy, the CEO will provide a copy .to each city in the County. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM -T FUJIOKA Chief Executive Officer WTF:LS:DSP MJS:os Attachment (1) c: County Counsel Auditor -Controller Director of Regional Planning 120407 CEO Amendment City Annexations & Spheres of Influence. doc Io, MyrM cosh " BOARD OfJUPFRVIfORlPOlICYMdNUAt i Policy #: Title: tive Date: Effec 3.095 ICity Annexations and Spheres of Influence 05/13/03 PURPOSE ' Establish policies for the review and consideration of city annexation proposals and for the establishment and updating of city spheres of influence by the Local Agency Formation Commission, which determine where future annexations are likely to occur. The County of Los Angeles supports the concept that urbanizing areas should have the option to attain municipal status through annexation, if so desired by area residents and not 'in conflict with County interests. Recognize that Los Angeles County is generally an. urban county with a diverse population and a variety of communities, lifestyles and interests, and that unincorporated area residents may also chose to remain Unincorporated under County government and not become part of a city. In recognition of the population .diversity and variation between unincorporated communities, the County will review and evaluate each city annexation proposal or :. sphere of influence amendment on a .case=by-case basis and negotiate with each city)rr good faith as needed, under the guidance of this policy to determine its fiscal, .social; geographic,environmental and/or operational impacts on the affected unincorporated : . community(s) and the County of Los Angeles. Furthermore, it is County policy to provide assistance to residents of unincorporated areas. in determining their preferred government structure alternatives. Finally, while many unincorporated communities reflect distinct., mature, and cohesive identities; other areas are characterized as "islands" created as a result of historical incorporations and annexations. Providing municipal services may involve sending County staff across neighboring cities to respond to community needs. Ensuring the most cost-effective and responsive services to these areas may involve exploring such vehicles as contracts with surrounding/neighboring cities or expanding County services via contract to address the needs of a larger area. REFERENCE Government Code Section 56000, et seq., Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 POLICY Back round: A. There are three general categories of local government services: 1. Regional Services are services provided by the County at a standard level to all County residents and properties. Regional services include public health, welfare and social service programs, the criminal justice system, property assessment, tax collection, voter registration and many others. 2. Basic Services are available countywide but are provided by cities, either directly or through contract, within their corporate boundaries, and by the County in unincorporated areas. Basic services include law enforcement, road maintenance, animal control, land use planning,. zoning and building inspection and others. Although service levels.. may differ between jurisdictions, all cities and the. County provide at.least a basic level of these services. 3. Extended Services may.be either additional, non -basic types of services or a higher level of a basic service. Extended services are provided either'by cities or special districts. The County generally:does not.provide extended services out of general .tax revenue, but ,can -administer dependent_ taxing districts' (e:g., -assessment.and benefit districts)' to support extended' services. B. Traditionally, cities have been incorporated, or their boundaries expanded, to encompass additional areas because residents and/or property owners have desired improved, extended services. C. Pursuant to State. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99, the County Board of Supervisors is responsible for negotiating property tax exchange. resolutions with any city proposing to annex unincorporated territory.. The County. may also enter into a master property tax exchange agreement with other local agencies within the County to provide for a formula for determining property tax.exchanges. D. Heretofore, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has not adopted a formal policy regarding city annexations. Nor has the Board adopted a master property tax exchange. formula. However, an. informal formula negotiated by the Chief Executive Office and the Los Angeles League of Cities has been historically used. 2 Policies: A. General Policies 1. The County encourages development of unincorporated areas in a manner that permits their assimilation into adjacent cities, should area residents desire annexation. 2. The County supports revenue allocations that equitably reflect the County's. regional responsibilities, as well as the responsibilities of the County, cities and special districts for basic and extended services. 3. In implementing this Policy, the County may encourage or discourage all or a part of specific annexations or spheres of influence proposals based upon the impact on an unincorporated community's sense of identity, revenue base, land use planning and pattern of development, and/or impact on County -initiated programs to improve services and infrastructure in the area, so as to avoid premature annexations that may prejudice more favorable long{term government structures. 4. The County Board of Supervisors supports the toncept of providing positive options to residents of_uniricorporated communities who desire a higher level of service, but prefer to remain unincorporatedc Such options may include "theuse of assessment districts,the County budget process', local revitalization programs, contracts . with neighboring cities, special: planning standards or other mechanisms; pa's needed,, subject to Board approval, and inmost cases, subject to the approval of the affected communities. 5. Based upon the above policies, the County Board of Supervisors has determined that it is in the best interest of the County's unincorporated communities to review annexation proposals on a case-by-case basis rather than to adopt master agreements or formulas relating to the allocation and/or exchange of revenues between the County and affected. cities. B. Annexation Policies 1. The County will oppose annexations that carve up or fragment an unincorporated community that has a strong sense of identity. 2. The County will oppose annexations of commercial or industrial areas that have a significant negative impact on the County's provision of services, unless the annexing city provides financial or other mitigation satisfactory to the County. 3 3. The County will seek to negotiate agreements with any city proposing to annex unincorporated territory to appropriately transfer Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)_ Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations from the unincorporated area to an annexing city. The County will oppose annexations with any city that does not accept the SCAG RHNA allocation associated with the land area to be annexed: 4. Annexations that include areas where the County has established revitalization efforts and/or has committed significant resources for the benefit of the unincorporated community will be reviewed to determine the impact on the County program(s) and may be opposed if the annexation will adversely impact the County program(s). 5. The County may, oppose annexations that would result in patterns of development that conflict with the County's land use plans and policies and/or would negatively impact (as defined for each specific annexation) adjacent unincorporated areas. 6 The County will review annexation proposals to ensure that streets.or other County local facilities that;serye the annexing area are included so that the city. assumes responsibility. for maintaining these public facilities:. When streets are the demarcation between Jurisdictions, the City, boundary should be to the_centerline'of the sfreets that #orM the boundary of their lunsdiction. " r 7. The .cumulative impact of past city,annexation . on the"County generally, and the affected unincorporated community specifically, will be considered by the Board of Supervisors. 8. The Board of Supervisors requests that any city initiating an annexation demonstrate support for the annexation by the affected landowners for uninhabited territory or registered voters for inhabited territory. C. Unincorporated "Islands" Policies 1. The Board of Supervisors directs its staff to develop and maintain an inventory of unincorporated islands in urbanized areas that do not include residents or businesses, but consist of County roads, streets, flood channels or other public purpose lands and facilities. These island areas should be considered for annexation to adjacent cities. 2 The County will oppose annexations that involve only part of an unincorporated area island, if such an annexation would make it financially difficult for County departments to provide services to the remaining area. In addition, in order to create logical boundaries and improve service delivery 4 to certain unincorporated area islands, the County will work with residents, property owners and the community to explore appropriate island annexation strategies for these areas. 3. The County will periodically conduct "make -buy -sell -annex" assessments regarding the most cost-effective, responsive and community -desired manner in which municipal services are delivered to unincorporated ".island" communities. 4. These assessments will examine whether services could be provided more effectively by neighboring cities via contracts with the- County or if County services could be expanded to other surrounding communities to. achieve economies of scale. Formal annexation to a neighboring city will also be reviewed where relevant: 5. The desires and preferences of the residents of the affected "island" community will be a guiding factor in developing recommendations. As appropriate, residents will be provided with service comparison and related information regarding the potential annexation to a neighboring city. D. Sphere of Influence, Policies T. The County Board of Supervisors supports•the..:intent of Government Code Section 56425; et seq., and will work•with. LAFCO and all of the cities. of the County to, review and update city spheres of influence :according to its provisions which provide a process fo'- negotiating' ag reements between the County and each city on sphere updates. 2. The County will include the above -stated policies as a component of the negotiating process for spheres of influence and may oppose any sphere of influence proposal that is inconsistent with those policies. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT Chief Executive Office DATE ISSUED/SUNSET DATE Issue Date:.May 13, 2003 Sunset Date: 5/10/2011 Revised 8/20/07:mjs 5