Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMEND (2)Agenda Item: 9 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: ' Item to be presented by: Patrick Leclair DATE: October 25, 2011 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 11-116 FOR THE ANNEXATION (ANX 11-003), PREZONE (PRZ 11-002), AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT (SOI 11-003) FOR THE 686.16 -ACRE SOUTH SAND CANYON ANNEXATION AND MASTER CASE 11-117 FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC 11-002) TO CREATE A MOVIE RANCH OVERLAY ZONE IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1) Introduce and pass to second reading an ordinance entitled: " AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, APPROVING PREZONE 11-002 (MASTER CASE 11-116) FOR THE SOUTH SAND CANYON ANNEXATION, AND ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT"; 2) Adopt a resolution requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County (LAFCO) initiate proceedings to amend the City's Sphere of Influence and annex the inhabited, 686.16 -acre South Sand Canyon Annexation Area (Master Case 11-116); 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 MASTER CASE 11-117, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 11-002, TO AMEND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCLUDE A MOVIE RANCH OVERLAY ZONE (MOZ) AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "B" AND ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT." Ad2n g� Ordinance passed to Ordinance passed to s w _ —+9 Second reading Second reading BACKGROUND On July 12, 2011, the City Council approved two Pre -Annexation Agreements, one for the Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria movie ranch and one for the Rancho Deluxe movie ranch. The Pre -Annexation Agreements encompass approximately 540 acres of the 686.16 acres proposed for annexation at this time. In these agreements, the property owners of these movie ranches agreed to support the City's annexation efforts related to the South Sand Canyon Annexation in exchange for the City's agreement to various deal points. Deal points included the City's intent to process a Prezone request to zone the properties consistent with the Open Space — Agriculture (OS -A) zone, as well as to process a Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment to create a Movie Ranch Overlay Zone (MOZ) that would regulate the filming operations for properties in the MOZ, as well as include provisions for the expansion of filming operations within the MOZ. Master Case 11-116 will address the Prezoning of the project site to OS -A, while the amendment to the UDC to create the MOZ is being processed separately under Master Case 11-117. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The City Council is required to approve requests to Prezone property or to change the UDC, as well as to direct staff to proceed with the filing of an application with LAFCO to amend the City's Sphere of Influence and annex territory to the City. Prior to the City Council taking action on these items the Planning Commission must review, and make a recommendation for, the UDC Amendment and Prezone designation of the annexation area to the City Council. On September 20, 2011, the Planning Commission held public hearings where they voted 5-0 to recommend approval for the Prezone and Annexation of the South Sand Canyon Annexation Area. During the public comment portion of the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone hearing, a representative for the applicant asked that staff modify language to the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone to clarify that the sound stages discussed in Section 17.16.115.C.I are "new" sound stages, modifying the language to read as follows: "Up to two (2) new sound stages at a combined maximum square footage of 40,000 square feet shall be permitted by right. All permanent structures shall be subject to Development Review process and must be set back a minimum of 100 feet from off-site residential uses. All permanent structures must comply with applicable building, fire and other life safety regulations. Any sound stage structures proposed outside of these parameters will require a Conditional Use Permit." The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the proposed Movie Ranch Overlay Zone to include the proposed language change; PROJECT SETTING The proposed project consists of approximately 686.16 acres of land in the unincorporated Los Angeles County. The majority of the annexation area (630.3 acres) is located in the Angeles National Forest, held in private ownership. The properties within this portion of the annexation area are in various states of development with portions remaining undeveloped, portions developed as movie ranches used for various filming uses in filming sets and natural areas, as well as portions developed with single-family residences. The remaining approximately 55.86 acres of the annexation area is located just south and east of the Sand Canyon Community and north of Sand Canyon Road, and remains in an undeveloped condition. Major roadways run along the project site including Placerita Canyon Road as it terminates at Sand Canyon Road, and Sand Canyon Road as it turns east along the southern City boundary and then turns south again toward Little Tujunga Canyon Road. Approximately 13 single-family residences are developed within the annexation area. In addition, two movie ranches are developed within the annexation area known as the Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria movie ranch and the Rancho Deluxe movie ranch. The Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria consists of approximately 400 acres of existing temporary filming sets, natural areas used for filming operations, and accessory single-family residences. Rancho Deluxe consists of approximately 140 acres of filming operations as well as accessory single-family residences. These two filming ranches are proposed to be located within the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone. Tentative Parcel Map 065342 is currently pending in the County of Los Angeles. The subdivision includes a request for the creation of four (4) single-family residential lots. The final decision on the subdivision would be subject to the approving body in place at the time approval is sought for the project. ANALYSIS Master Case 11-116 - South Sand Canyon Annexation 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. This annexation area was originally included as a part of the Vista Canyon/Fair Oaks/West Sand Canyon Annexation. that was approved by the City Council in early 2011. However, the annexation area was subsequently removed from that project to_be considered as a separate annexation as the South Sand Canyon Annexation. The project is located within the City's existing General Plan planning area and consists of approximately 686.16 acres of unincorporated territory. 630.3 acres are located outside the City of Santa Clarita's Sphere of Influence (SOI) and will require an amendment to the City's SOI, in addition to annexation to the City of Santa Clarita. This portion of the annexation area is currently designated as Open Space — National Forest (OS -NF) in the City's General Plan and is proposed to be Prezoned Open Space — Agriculture (OS -A). 55.86 acres are located in the City's SOI and will only require annexation to the City. This portion of the annexation area is currently designated a Non -Urban 1 (NU 1) in the City's General Plan and is proposed be Prezoned Residential Estate (RE). As previously discussed, the City is currently processing a Unified Development Code Amendment for the creation of a Movie Ranch Overlay (MOZ) that would establish regulations for filming operations, as well as for expansion of filming operations within the MOZ. The MOZ is proposed under separate permit (Master Case 11-117) to be placed on the 540 acres of existing filming operations. 3 The proposed Prezone is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designations and is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan. More specifically, the proposed Prezoning is consistent with the following Objectives and Policies 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. Objective LU 1.2 Maintain the distinctive community character of villages and neighborhoods throughout the planning area by establishing uses, densities, and design guidelines appropriate to the particular needs and goals of each area. The project supports these objectives and policy because it would Prezone 686.16 acres consistent with the City's General Plan, allowing zoning categories that would keep the annexation area consistent with the existing and surrounding land uses of the Sand Canyon Community and provide a low density buffer to the adjoining Angeles National Forest. The designation of the property as OS -A and RE would prevent additional sprawl into natural areas while directing growth into areas that are currently served by infrastructure by assigning residential zones that carry appropriate densities. Master Case 11-117 - Move Ranch Overlay Zone The proposed project includes Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendment 11-002 for the creation of Section 17.16.115 of the Unified Development Code for the creation of the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone (MOZ). The MOZ would establish provisions to regulate filming operations, as well as address the expansion of filming operations within the MOZ. The proposed MOZ language is attached to the MOZ Ordinance as Exhibit "A". Currently, the MOZ does not exist on any properties within the City of Santa Clarita. The proposal at this time would be to place the MOZ on the Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria movie ranch and the Rancho Deluxe movie ranch. These movie ranches are currently located in the unincorporated portion of Los Angeles County in the Santa Clarita Valley. Upon annexation to the City, the proposed MOZ would be effective on the movie ranches as shown in Exhibit "B" to the MOZ Ordinance. The requirements of the base zoning designations will remain in place for all property in the MOZ. However the MOZ will provide regulations and development standards that will regulate existing filming operations and provide regulations for the expansion of filming operations in the MOZ. It is anticipated that the MOZ could be placed on additional movie ranches in the City, including movie ranches that could be annexed in the future. However, no additional properties are proposed at this time. Should additional properties be included in the MOZ, further consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as the City's UDC would be required. Unified Development Code Amendment 11-002 is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code, development policies of the City, and the General Plan including Objective LU 1.2 of Goal 1 of the Land Use Element which seeks, to "Maintain the distinctive community character of villages and neighborhoods throughout the planning area by establishing uses, densities, and design guidelines appropriate to the particular needs and goals of each area". The creation of the MOZ will preserve the existing filming operations on these movie ranches and will further provide regulations for the expansion of filming operations if necessary in the future. Further, the MOZ could be included on other properties throughout the City to further protect other filming operations that have been a part of the fabric of the Santa Clarita Valley. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for each project, Master Case 11-116 and Master Case 11-117. The Initial Studies determined that there are no environmental impacts associated with either project. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared for each project in accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA and was circulated for public review from August 30,2011 through September 20, 2011. PUBLIC NOTICING All noticing required for the South Sand Canyon Annexation Area was complied with including a legal advertisement in The Signal Newspaper, sign posting, and mailing to property owners within the annexation area and within 1,000 feet of the annexation area. In addition, all noticing required for the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone was complied with including a 1 /8th page legal advertisement in The Signal Newspaper. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT Annexation of the South Sand Canyon Annexation Area will include residential properties, as well as filming ranches. The annexation of this property is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact. Further, the creation of the Movie Ranch Overlay is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact. ATTACHMENTS Boundary Map General Plan Map Ordinance - South Sand Canyon Pre -zone and CEQA Ordinance Exhibit A - South Sand Canyon Prezone Map South Sand Canyon - Negative Declaration and Initial Study Resolution - South Sand Canyon Annexation and SOI Resolution Movie Ranch Overlay Zone Ordinance Exhibit A - Section 17.16.115 Movie Ranch Overlay Zone Exhibit B - Movie Ranch Overlay Map Movie Ranch Overlay Negative Declaration and Initial Study 0 b 4•� 9 p D .... �• 3 Im Myr+} it Q -6 , Z is �es� z 11 Z �g: .a o a LL p 4 o �s^---• aye ° � o N Z v Q >, c i V r^ > > e G Q m m r %x 0 N C C c f CoT T LL 0 U U O Qv v "m c rf N mm r �1 r1*61 L .< .:,:'i J A + =- Oy NOANVO ONVS 5:..- 1 , t aaa�Yf O , py; it`s 1; ..�.. `� y .._ v� v MA At to fit. 'dk ice. tea„ '�M�'yk Si(� �F ORDINANCE NO. I I - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, . CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PREZONE 11-002 (MASTER CASE 11-116) FOR THE SOUTH SAND CANYON ANNEXATION AREA, AND ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT 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 April 26, 2011, the City Council approved the Vista Canyon project including the annexation of the Vista Canyon project area, the existing Fair Oaks Ranch community, the West Sand Canyon community, and the Jakes Way neighborhood. The annexation area associated with Master Case 11-116 was originally part of this annexation, but was removed during the project to be considered as its own annexation area, the South Sand Canyon annexation area; b. On July 12, 2011, the City Council approved two -Pre-Annexation Agreements for the Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria and Rancho Deluxe movie ranches; C. On August 18, 2011, the City of Santa Clarita (the "Applicant") initiated an application (Master Case 11-116) for the Prezone (PRZ 11-002), Annexation (ANX 11-003), and Sphere of Influence Amendment (SOI 11-003) for the purposes of annexing the 686.16 -acre, South Sand Canyon annexation area to the City of Santa Clarita; d. The project site is generally located south of Placerita Canyon Road, and west and south of Sand Canyon Road, just south of the existing Sand Canyon Community, predominantly within the Angeles National Forest; e. The project site consists of 686.16 acres of land contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Santa Clarita on the southern boundary of the project area, as shown on Exhibit "A"; f. The project area is partially built out with approximately 13 residential units, in addition to the filming ranches and their accessory uses and both permanent and temporary structures. No new development is proposed with this proposal; g. The land uses surrounding the project consist of the existing Sand Canyon Community to the north, the Angeles National Forest to the east and south, and the City -owned open space known as the East Walker Ranch to the west; h. Currently, the project area is zoned a mixture of A-1 (Light Agricultural), A-2 (Heavy Agriculture), RPD (Residential Planned Development), and CPD (Commercial Planned Development) by the County of Los Angeles; Prezone 11-002 would designate the project area with City of Santa Clarita zoning designations including approximately 630.3 acres of Open Space - Agriculture (OS -A) and 55.86 acres of Residential Estate (RE), as shown in Exhibit "A". The proposed Prezone designations reflect the existing development and/or the approved development in the area; j. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on September 20, 2011. This public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At the hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff presentation, the staff report, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and public testimony on the proposal; and k. At the public hearing noted above, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita unanimously adopted Resolution P 11-21 recommending that the City Council adopt Prezone 08-001, for the purpose of prezoning approximately 686.16 acres and adopting the Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on October 25, 2011. This public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. in. At the October 25, 2011 meeting, the City Council considered the staff report, took public testimony, and closed the public hearing. n. All notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65091 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 subject site from Los Angeles County zoning designations to Open Space — Agriculture (OS -A) pertaining to the South Sand Canyon Annexation Area. b. That the Prezone has been reviewed for consistency with the City's General Plan. C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65091 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed. SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the testimony and other evidenced received, the City Council finds as follows: 2 a. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on August 30, 2011, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from August 30, 2011, through September 20, 2011; C. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the, environment. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita; d. The documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is made is the Master Case 11-116 project file located within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and e. The Planning Commission, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds that the Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR PREZONE. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: a. Prezone 11-002 pertaining to the South Sand Canyon Annexation, as shown in the attached Exhibit "A", is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code, the General Plan and development policies of the City in that the proposed Prezoning designations are consistent with existing land uses in the area and would not result in a substantive change to the existing zoning of the project site, as the area and the adjacent developed area is developed in compliance with the proposed zones' development standards. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby introduces and passes to second reading, this Ordinance approving Prezone 11-002 pertaining to the South Sand Canyon Annexation as described herein and shown on attached Exhibit "A". 3 \9 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 12th day of November, 2011. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR �� 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 11- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of October, 2011. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of November, 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 5 4 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 November 12, 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 15 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: Master Case 11-116 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Annexation and Sphere of Influence Amendment 11-003; Pre -zone 11-002 APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Valencia, CA 91355 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The City of Santa Clarita is proposing to annex 686.16 acres of land generally located south of Sand Canyon Road and Placerita Canyon Road, south of the Sand Canyon Community in the City of Santa Clarita. The project includes an Annexation and Sphere of Influence Amendment (ANX 11-003) and Pre -Zone (PRZ 11-002) to annex 630.3 acres of privately held parcels within the Angeles National Forest and 55.86 acres of private land just outside the National Forest, just south and east of the existing Sand Canyon Community. The Pre -Zoning of the property in the annexation area would include 55.86 acres of land with the Residential Estate (RE) zoning designation, and 630.3 acres of land with the Open Space —Agriculture (OS -A) zoning designation. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section.15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Planning and Building Services 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 CE.QA. Mitigation measures for this project [X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached Lisa M. Webber, AICP PLANNING MANA/. Prepared by: Approved by: Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner (Name/Title) Jeff Hogan, AICP, Senior Planner (Name/Title) Public Review P rlod From August 30, 2011 To September 20, 2011 Public Notice iven On August 30, 2011. [X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: SACD\CURREN1U201\11-116\11-116 Draft ND.doc LM INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Project Title/Master Case Number: South Sand Canyon Annexation Annexation and Sphere of Influence 11-003; Pre -Zone 11-002 Lead Agency name and address: Contact person and phone number: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Patrick Leclair Associate Planner (661) 255-4330 Project location: The project area generally known as the South Sand Canyon Annexation is generally located south of the existing Sand Canyon Community in the City of Santa Claiita, south of Placerita Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. The East Walker Ranch (owned by the City of Santa Clarita) serves as the western boundary of the project area with the eastern boundary of the project area being roughly Sand Canyon Road as it turns south toward Little Tujunga Canyon Road. The project area is located in the unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles. The proposed project area can also be located on pages 4642 2011 Thomas Guide - Los Angeles County Street Guide. The proposed project area is also shown on Exhibit A, as provided below. Applicant's name and address: City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 General Plan designation: Residential Estate (RE) and Open Space — National Forest (OS -NF) Master Case 11-116 Page 2 of 35 Zoning: Description of project and setting: Existing County of Los Angeles zoning for the project area includes: A -I-1 (Light Agriculture, 1 -acre minimum. lot size); A-1-2 (Light Agriculture, 2 -acre minimum lot size); A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, 2 -acre minimum lot size); A-2-5 (Heavy Agriculture, 5 -acre minimum lot size); RPD -1 -IU (Residential Planned Development, 1 unit per acre); and CPD (Commercial Planned Development) This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Sphere of Influence Amendment, Pre -zone (PRZ); and Annexation (ANX) for the South Sand Canyon Annexation Area (Master Case 11-116). The City of Santa Clarita proposes to pre -zone and annex approximately 686.16 acres along the southern boundary of the City adjacent to the Sand Canyon Community. Pursuant to Section 56758 of the Government Code, this area must be consistent with the City's adopted Sphere of Influence. Therefore a Sphere of Influence Amendment (SOI) is also proposed as a part of this project for approximately 630.3 acres of land that is not within the City's Sphere of Influence. Setting: The proposed project consists of approximately 686.16 acres of land in the Unincorporated Los Angeles County. The majority of the annexation area (630.3 acres) is located in the Angeles National Forest, held in private ownership.. The properties within this portion of the annexation area are in various states of development with portions remaining undeveloped, portions developed as movie ranches used for various filming uses in filming sets and natural areas, as well as portions developed with single-family residences. The remaining approximately 55.86 acres of the annexation area is located just south and east of the Sand Canyon Community and north of Sand Canyon Road, and remains in an undeveloped condition. Major roadways run along the project site including Placerita Canyon Road as it terminates at Sand Canyon Road, and Sand Canyon Road as it turns east along the southern City boundary and then turns south again, towards Little Tajunga Canyon Road. Approximately 13 single-family residences are developed within the annexation area. In addition, two movie ranches are developed within the annexation area known as the Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria movie ranch and the Rancho Deluxe movie ranch. The Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria consists of approximately 400 acres of existing temporary filming sets, natural areas used for filming operations, and accessory single-family residences. Rancho Deluxe consists of approximately 140 acres of filming operations as well as accessory single-family residences. Tentative Parcel Map 065342 is currently pending in the County of Los Angeles. The subdivision includes a request for the creation of four (4) single-family residential lots. The final decision on the subdivision would be subject to the approving body in place at the time approval is sought for the project. 2 1� Master Case 11-116 Page 3 of 35 Project: The proposed project area consists of a total of approximately 686.16 acres of unincorporated territory. This annexation area was originally included as a part of the Vista Canyon/Fair Oaks/West Sand Canyon Annexation that was approved by the City Council in early 2011. However, the annexation area was subsequently removed from that project to be considered as a separate annexation as the South Sand Canyon Annexation. At this time, the project proposed would include the annexation of 686.16 acres to the City. 630.3 acres are located outside the City of Santa Clarita's Sphere of Influence (SOI) and will require an amendment to the City's SOT, in addition to. annexation to. the City of Santa Clarita. This portion of the annexation area is currently designated as Open Space — National Forest (OS -NF) in the City's General Plan and is proposed to be pre -zoned Open Space — Agriculture. 55.86 acres are located in the City's SOI and will only require annexation to the City. This portion of the annexation area is currently designated a Residential Estate (RE) in the City's General Plan and is proposed be pre -zoned Residential Estate (RE). No amendment to the General Plan is proposed for this annexation. The City is currently processing a Unified Development Code Amendment for the creation of a Movie Ranch Overlay (MOZ) that would establish regulations for filming operations, as well as for expansion of filming operations within the MOZ. The MOZ is proposed under separate permit (Master Case 11-117) to be placed on the 540 acres of existing filming operations. A separate environmental document has been prepared for the MOZ and will be evaluated separately from this process. Surrounding land uses: Located to the north of the proposed project site is the existing Sand Canyon Community of the City of Santa Clarita, as well as portions of the property proposed for annexation as a part of the Vista Canyon/Fair Oaks Ranch/West Sand Canyon Annexation previously approved by the City Council. Angeles National Forest is located to the east and south of the annexation area. To the West of the proposed project is a portion of the previously approved Vista Canyon/Fair Oaks Ranch/West Sand Canyon Annexation, as well as other property in the Angeles National Forest. Other public agencies whose Local Agency Formation Commission approval is required: Los Angeles County 700 N. Central Avenue Glendale, CA 91203 3 ,(� Exhibit A — Project Location/Vicinity Map — South Sand Canyon Annexation Area Exhibit B — Pre -zone Map — South Sand Canyon Annexation Area 5 tl X Uj Z Z Z .0 cL Lu a3 di IWO Z < N VI LU Q OL 0 LA 00r) 5 Exhibit C —General Plan Map - South Sand Canyon Annexation Area 6 Master Case 11-116 Page 7 of 35 A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Measures Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ J Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology /Soils [ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water [ ] Land Use / Planning Materials [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] [ ] Public Services [ ] [ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] B. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: Quality Noise [ ] Population / Housing Recreation [ ] Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ J I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed., . 2.,�2> Master Case 11-116 Page 8 of 35 [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to thai earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the propWd project, nothing further is required. , Associate Planner ,'Senior Planner 5/30 Date X/3a/r( Date 8 -Z-! Master Case 11-.116 Page 9 of 35 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] [] [] [x] [] [] I [x] I [] [] [x] e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [ ] [ ] [] [x] a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? d) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 9 Master Case 11-116 Page 10 of 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [xJ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] [ J [ ] [x] substantially to, an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? f) Other IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [X] Master Case 11-116 Page 11 of 35 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? I Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] I I [X] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally' [ ] [ ] [] [x] protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? g) Other H. [ ] [ ] [X] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ J [ ] [x] significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? I Master Case 11-116 Page 12 of 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] outside of formal cemeteries? e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] liquefaction? iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] loss of topsoil, either on or off site? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Master Case 11-116 Page 13 of 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] j ] j ] [x] features? g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] yards or more? h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [ ] ' [ ] [ ] [x] 10% natural grade? i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ J [ ] [ ] [x] unique geologic or physical feature? j) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS- Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] emissions of greenhouse gasses? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [) [ ] [x] environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Master Case 11-116 Page 14 of 35 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? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact . Mitigation [] [] [] [x] d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ] hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ] or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [ ] an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ] loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ] health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? 14 [x] [x] Master Case I 1-116 Page 15 of 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation j) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste [ ] discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [ ] interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place, within a 100 -year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1'5 [x] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [] [] [x] I I [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] Master Case 11-116 Page 16 of 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with , Impact Mitigation i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course [ ] and direction of surface water and/or groundwater? i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] 1) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the [ ] following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and project [ ] post -construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, [ ] vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant 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) Storm water discharges that would significantly [ ] impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.) vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage [ ] systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for [ ] the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? [] I [X] [] [] [X] [ ] [ ] [X] [] [] [X] Master Case 11-116 Page 17 of 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [ ] [ ] [] [x] community (including a low-income or minority community)? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or . [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] inefficient manner? XII. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 17 Master Case 11-116 Page 18 of 35 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? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] I I [x] 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: [x] a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] either directly (for example, by proposing new homes :and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: 18 Master Case 11-116 Page 19 of 35 a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools.? iv) Parks? 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? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] [] I [x] [] [] I [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] I [x] [] ' I I [x] b) Include recreational facilities or require the [ ] construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have ,an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in [ ] relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [x] [x] 19 35 Master Case 11-116 Page 20 of 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including [ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature [ ] (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ .] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] 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? [] [] [x] [J [J [x] [J I [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [] I [x] 20 2 Jt�o Master Case 11-116 Page 21 of 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local "statutes, and [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] regulations related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten, to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 21 71 Master Case 11-116 Page 22 of 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation XIX. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `DE MINIMUS' FINDING a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [ ] [ ] [] [x] individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for it's continued viability." 22 Master Case 11-116 Page 23 of 35 D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS: Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts I. AESTHETICS a -d) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is located within Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, •which is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susana Mountains to the southwest, and the mountains of the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests to the north. The surrounding natural mountains and ridgelines, some of which extend into the City, provide a visual backdrop for much of -the City. Other scenic resources within or visible from the City include the Santa Clara River corridor, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons and natural drainages in portions of the City. The proposed project is for annexation to the City of Santa Clarita. The project does not propose any construction, nor will annexation to the City encourage any construction -related activity. The annexation area is predominantly in the Angeles National Forest, or immediately adjacent. Portions of the property have been developed with movie ranches, while other portions have been developed with single-family residential homes. All of the development is situated with the open space of the Angeles National Forest as a backdrop. The pre -zoning of the project site to Open Space — Agriculture (OS -A) and Residential Estate (RE) will not induce any growth and will not change the character of the annexation area. Tentative Parcel Map 065342 is pending in the County for the creation of four (4) single- family residential lots. However, the proposed annexation will not impact the aesthetics or the development pending in the County. Additional development within the annexation area as a result of the proposed annexation is speculative at this time and can not be evaluated. Therefore, no impact related to aesthetics is anticipated with the proposed annexation, sphere of influence amendment and pre -zone of the annexation area. II. AGRICULTURAL a -c) No Impact: The proposed project is for annexation to the City RESOURCES of Santa Clarita and will not impact any farmland as a result. Portions of the annexation area are located within zones in the County that are designated as light and heavy agricultural zones (A-1 and A-2). The proposed project includes pre -zoning the project area Open Space — Agriculture (OS -A) upon annexation to the City. The majority of the property within the annexation area has been either been developed for single-family residential uses, or is used for Master Case 11-116 Page 24 of 35 filming operations. Therefore, minimal agricultural uses exist in the annexation area. However, zoning of the properties with the OS -A zone, allows for agricultural uses, and would not preclude future agricultural uses following annexation to the City. Further, there is no prime farmland or land under a Williamson Act contract within the annexation area. Therefore, no impact related to agricultural resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed annexation, sphere of influence amendment or pre -zone of the annexation area. III. AIR QUALITY a -e) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and 'identifies region -wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for stationary -source polluters; facilitation of new transportation technologies, such as low -emission vehicles; and capital improvements, such as park-and-ride facilities and public transit improvements. The most recently adopted plan is the 2007 AQMP, adopted on June 1, 2007. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). This plan is designed to implement the California Clean Air Act an in turn implement the Federal Clean Air Act administered by the EPA. The AQMP accommodates population growth and transportation projections based on the predictions made by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Thus, projects that are consistent with employment and population forecasts are consistent with the AQMD. The proposed project is for the annexation to the City of Santa Clarita and does not propose any development activity that would conflict with any air quality plan or any standard that would contribute to an existing air quality violation. No new development is proposed as a part of the proposed annexation. One Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 24 Master Case 11-116 Page 25 of 35 , 065342) is proposed in the County of Los Angeles at this time. However, environmental analysis associated with this project is being conducted separately as a part of that project review. Any mitigation measures associated with that project (if required) would be adopted by the City upon annexation. The proposal to amend the City's SOI, annex land to the City, and prezone land consistent with the City's General Plan would therefore have a no impact with regard to the obstruction of the implementation of the SCAQMD's air quality plan or directly violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The proposed project would not directly result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). No impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant are anticipated as a part of the proposed project. Threrefore, no significant. impact related to air quality is anticipated as a part of the proposed annexation, SOI, and pre -zone at this time. IV. BIOLOGICAL a -g) No Impact: The proposed annexation, SOI, and Pre -zone will RESOURCES not have an impact on biological resources in and of itself. The project area has natural areas that are used for temporary filming operations from time to time. Natural areas include native oak trees in addition to undisturbed land in the Angeles National Forest. However, the proposed annexation will not encourage any development activities that would have an impact on any sensitive species, riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, or interfere with any native or migratory animal species, or native plant species. Any subsequent development in the annexation area, other than Tentative Parcel Map 065342 currently pending in Los Angeles County under separate review, is speculative at this time and can not be analyzed. All future development activities will require additional review in compliance with CEQA. Further, upon annexation, the project area would. be required to comply with all City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code and City requirements. The proposed zoning and General Plan designations would be consistent with all County land use planning policies and the current uses and development in the project area. The proposal would not conflict with any L.A. County or City of Santa Clarita policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Upon annexation, any oak trees in would be protected by the City of Santa Clarita Oak 25 Master Case 11-116 Page 26 of 35 26 41. Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines. No new development is proposed with the SOI, annexation, and pre- zone application. The proposal would not affect a County -designated Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map. Therefore, there would be no impact related to biological resources as a result of the proposed annexation, SOI, and pre -zone. V. CULTURAL a -d) No Impact: The proposed project would not directly cause a RESOURCES substantial adverse change in the significance of any known cultural or archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the Government Code. However, future development of still - undeveloped areas within the annexation area would be evaluated separately as future development is speculative at this time. The proposal would not directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The proposed project is not anticipated to have an impact related to cultural resources. VI. GEOLOGY AND a -i) No Imnact: Southern California has numerous active and SOILS potentially active faults that could affect the City. As stated in the City's General Plan, the City is susceptible to geologic hazards in the event of a major earthquake (magnitude 8.3) along the San Andreas Fault. This could result in ground failure and liquefaction. The proposed project does not include any new development proposals. The project area has been developed with a range of residential and filming uses. The development was reviewed and approved by Los Angeles County. Any new development that has not already been entitled upon annexation would be subject to the review of the City and all applicable development code requirements. Therefore, no impacts related to substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is anticipated on- or off-site as a result of the project. No impacts related to geologic units or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse are anticipated to occur as a result of this proposal and. would not have an impact related to expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. No new development is proposed with this project. No change in topography or ground surface relief features or earth movement (cut 26 41. Master Case 11-116 Page 27 of 35 and/or fill) of 10,000 .cubic yards or more or grading on aslope greater than 10% natural grade would occur with approval of this project. The proposed project is not anticipated to have an impact related to Geology and Soils. VII. GREENHOUSE a -b) No Impact: "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role GAS EMISSIONS in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere. The principal greenhouse gases. (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one- fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California's reputation as a "national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship." Most notably AB 32 mandates that by 2020, California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. The proposed annexation, SOI, and prezone do not propose any new development. The developed portions of the project area were built under the Los Angeles County development standards. Any future development in the area that has not already been approved upon annexation, would require additional review under a separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The proposal to prezone the project site for the purposes of annexation would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, and would therefore, not have a significant impact on the environment. The 27 �}3 Master Case 11-116 Page 28 of 35 proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to have an impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. VIII. HAZARDS AND a -i) No Impact: The proposed project would not store, use, or HAZARDOUS generate hazardous materials, and would not utilize any acutely MATERIALS hazardous materials. No new development is proposed with this annexation, SOI, and pre -zone associated with the South Sand Canyon annexation area. The City of Santa Clarita zoning and General Plan designations would be consistent with the existing development and uses in the project area. The application would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation). No new development is proposed as part'of this project. The proposed project does not propose any new development and the project would not store, use, or generate substantial amounts of hazardous materials, and would not utilize any acutely hazardous materials. No impact related to a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment would occur with the proposed project. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The pre -zone would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No new development is proposed with this project. The proposal would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project does not propose any development and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 28 44 Master Case 11-116 Page 29 of 3 5 adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Therefore, no impact related to hazards or hazardous materials is anticipated with the proposed project. IX. HYDROLOGY a4) No Impact: The proposed project would not violate any water AND WATER quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No new QUALITY development is proposed. The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). The proposed City of Santa Clarita zoning and General Plan designations would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because no new development is proposed as a part of this application for annexation. No new development is proposed, therefore, this project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality in the project area because the proposed zoning and General Plan designations would be consistent with the existing development and land use planning in the project area. No new development is proposed with this application. The application would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map and the proposed project would not place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would,impede or redirect flood flows. 29 Master Case 11-116 Page 30 of 35 The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, inundation'by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow in the project area. No new development is associated with this pre -zone application. No changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and/or groundwater would occur. No modification of a wash, channel creek or river is proposed. No impact would result from the proposed annexation, SOI amendment, or pre -zone. The proposed project would result not result in any impact to Stormwater Management. The project consists of no new development, however prior to annexation, the property owners would have to elect to pay an annual City of Santa Clarita Stormwater Drainage Fee, The City's stormwater program provides street catch -basin cleaning a minimum of once a year, thereby reducing trash, debris, and potential neighborhood flooding. The proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact related to hydrology and water quality. X. LAND USE AND a -c) No Impact: The proposed project includes that annexation, SOI, _PLANNING and pre -zone for the South Sand Canyon annexation area to the City of Santa Clarita. The project area is established with residential uses and filming operations in the County of Los Angeles, predominantly located in the Angeles National Forest. The proposed annexation would include all privately held parcels in the Angeles National Forest located south of the existing City boundary. The development pattern in this community is substantially consistent with the development within the adjacent Sand Canyon Community, consisting of rural residential development with open spaces with native oak trees and other native species of plant and animals. The annexation of these privately held parcels would serve as the southernmost limits of this portion of the City and would not divide any community. Further, the proposed development would be annexed consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would be further pre -zoned to be consistent with the existing development in the area, as well as the General Plan designation of the project area. The property will not be removed from the Angeles National Forest, and the provisions of the National forest would not be removed from the properties within the annexation area as a result of the annexation to the City. The project is located within an area of the .City and County that is considered to be in a Significant 30 Master Case 11-116 Page 31 of 35 31 Ecological Area (SEA). The proposed annexation will not affect this designation and will further not impact any sensitive species within the annexation area. The proposed annexation will change the jurisdictional boundary from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita. Since, both agencies have identified this area as being in an SEA, the SEA designation would be reserved regardless of jurisdictional boundary. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to have an impact related to the land use and planning within the project area. XI. MINERAL AND a -c) No Impact: Gold mining and oil production historically have ENERGY been the principal mineral extraction activities in and around the RESOURCES Santa Clarita Valley. Other minerals found in the planning area include construction aggregate, titanium, and tuff. The proposed project includes annexation to the City of Santa Clarita and would not change any of the land uses within the project area in and of itself. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. The proposed SOI Amendment, Annexation, and Pre -zone and uses in the project area would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan and would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. Therefore, no impact related to mineral and energy resources is anticipated with this.project. XII. NOISE a -f) The proposed project proposes no new development and therefore there would be no exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels. or ambient noises in excess of standards established in the City's General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Furthermore, because no new development is proposed with the annexation, there would be no exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or a private airstrip, therefore, the pre -zoning and annexation of the project site would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 31 Master Case 11-116 Page 32 of 35 32 88 Therefore, no impact related to noise is anticipated with the proposed annexation. XIII. POPULATION a -c) No Impact: The proposed project includes the annexation, SOI, AND HOUSING and pre -zone for the South Sand Canyon Annexation area. No new development is proposed with the 686.16 -acre South Sand Canyon Annexation. The project area is rural in nature, but is locates south of the Sand Canyon Community and the associated infrastructure. The proposed land use designations and zoning classifications would be consistent with the existing development and uses in the project area and would not displace existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing). Therefore, no impact related to population and housing is anticipated with the proposed project. XIV. PUBLIC a. i -iv) No Impact: The proposed project would not create any SERVICES significant adverse impacts to public services. School district and many government services will remain unaffected. The annexation area will experience an increase in police patrols and decrease in non- emergency response time due to the City's increased police service levels under its contract with the L.A. County Sheriff's Department, however, fire services would remain unaffected since the annexation area is currently being covered by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. under the City's participated in the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District. Upon annexation, the responsibilities for road maintenance, streetlight patrols would transfer to the City. The annexation would result in a negotiated tax transfer between the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles which would be used to partially fund public services. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an impact related to public services. XV. RECREATION a -b) No Impact: No new development is proposed with the proposed project that would cause direct increase in usage of existing parks and recreational facilities. However, payment of lower parks and, recreation program fees by residents within the project area once they are annexed to the City of Santa Clarita may increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other City recreational facilities that may cause a minor impact on these facilities. Given the size of the annexation area and the . minimal number of existing residential units, any increase is anticipated to be negligible and will not impact recreations facilities in the City. 32 88 Master Case 11-116 Page 33 of 35 33 The proposed project does not include new development of residential units that would require park development fees or implementation of new recreational facilities. However, there is a four -unit parcel map (TPM 065342) is currently proposed in the County. The developer would be required to pay the applicable parkland mitigation fees (Quimby Fees) to the applicable jurisdiction at the time that building permits are proposed. No active recreational facilities are located within the annexation area, however the annexation area is located immediately adjacent to the East Walker Ranch; a passive open space area purchased by the City for the preservation of open space within the City of Santa Clarita and throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. The proposed project is anticipated to have no impact related to recreation. XVI. a -h) No Impact: The project area has been developed with TRANSPORTATION / residential, open' space, and filming uses, and has been previously TRAFFIC considered by CEQA as applicable in the Los Angeles County. The pre -zone and annexation would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). No new development is proposed, therefore, the prezone and annexation would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to transportation and traffic. XVII. UTILITIES a -g) No Impact: The project would not exceed wastewater treatment AND SERVICE requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control SYSTEMS Board, as much of the site is already developed. No additional new development is proposed with this SOI amendment, annexation, and pre -zone. The inhabited portions of the annexation area are currently within the water district of Santa Clarita Water for water provision. Given that no new development is proposed with this annexation, there would be no impact related to water. The project would not require or result in the construction of new 33 Master Case 11-116 Page 34 of 35 34 SO water . or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Further, the project would not require, or result in, the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities The proposed project, would not directly result in a significant impact related to solid waste disposal needs. The project area would be subject to City franchise agreements for both business and residential. No impacts related service by a landfill since no development is proposed with this project. The proposed project is not anticipated to have any impacts related to utilities and service systems. XVIII. MANDATORY The project includes a request for a annexation, SOI, and pre -zone FINDINGS OF and does not propose any new development that has not already been SIGNIFICANCE reviewed and approved under the County. The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Upon annexation, any future development would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of the City's Municipal Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact related to degradation of the quality of the environment or habitat of fish and wildlife species. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the Mandatory findings of significance. XIX. DEPARTMENT The project includes a request for a annexation, SOI, and pre -zone for OF FISH AND GAME the purpose of annexation and does not . propose any new `DE MINIMUS' development that has not already been reviewed and approved under FINDING the County. The project would not have an adverse affect either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources because the project does not include new development. Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, 'and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." No further environmental review is necessary. No impact related to Department of Fish and Game `De Minimus' 34 SO Master Case 11-116 Page 35 of 35 finding is anticipated. S:\CD\CURRENT\!2010\10-048 (WEST CREEK TESORO ANNEK)\ENVIRONMENTAL\INITIAL STUDY AND MEG DEC\AUGUST 3.2010 COMINITIAL STUDY WEST CREEK TESORO.DOC 35 y RESOLUTION II- A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND ANNEX CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA FOR THE SOUTH SANTA CLARITA ANNEXATION (MASTER CASE NO. 11-116) WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for a Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation of approximately 8.3 acres of unincorporated County territory; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited, and a map of the boundaries is set forth in Exhibit "A", attached and by this reference incorporated; and WHEREAS, the project consists of Annexation No. 11-003 and Sphere of Influence Amendment 11-003 (Master Case No. 11-116), which includes the South Sand Canyon Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation are to create a logical extension of City boundaries, to respond to the property owners' request for local representation and to promote the efficient provision of municipal services in the affected territory; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has considered all evidence, oral and documentary, and is advised of the foregoing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, does hereby determine and find as follows: SECTION 1. This Resolution of Application is hereby adopted by the City Council, and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles -County is hereby requested to initiate proceedings for the annexation of that territory shown in Exhibit "A", incorporated by this reference, according to the terms and conditions stated above, if any, with notice and hearing by the Local Agency Formation Commission, and in the manner provided by the Cortese -Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to file the application with LAFCO to annex the subject site to the City of Santa Clarita on behalf of the City Council. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita to forward a certified copy of this Resolution with applicable fees and other information as required by Section 56383 of the Government Code to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October, 2011. ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE: MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 25th day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 64 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 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 October 25, 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 ORDINANCE NO. 11 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MASTER CASE 11-117, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 11-002, TO AMEND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCLUDE A MOVIE RANCH OVERLAY ZONE (MOZ) AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "B" AND ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT 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. The City of Santa Clarita periodically prepares updates to . the Unified Development Code; b. On July 12, 2011, the City Council approved two Pre -Annexation Agreements for the Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria and Rancho Deluxe movie ranches. In exchange for the movie ranch property owners supporting the City's efforts to annex the 686.16 acres associated with the South Sand Canyon Annexation, one of the deal points requires the City to propose an amendment to the UDC for the creation of the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone; On August 18, 2011, the City of Santa Clarita (the "Applicant") initiated an application (Master Case 11-117, UDC 11-002) to amend the UDC to include Section 17.16.115 Movie Ranch Overlay Zone (MOZ) (the "Project") to create an overlay zone that would provide provisions for the existing filming operations within the MOZ, as well as to include provisions for the expansion of filming uses and structures within the MOZ. The proposed amendments are attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A". The proposed MOZ map is attached as Exhibit "B"; d. Filming has been an integral part of the Santa Clarita Valley, including its history as the home to William S. Hart, now owned and operated by the Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation Division; Filming ranches and studios are located throughout the City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clarita Valley as a whole, each of which could qualify for designation under the MOZ; f. The Project was duly noticed in accordance with the public hearing noticing requirements of the Unified Development Code, and a 1/8th-page advertisement was placed in The Signal Newspaper on October 4, 2011; s�0 g. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on September 20, 2011. This public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At the hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff presentation, the staff report, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and public testimony on the proposal; h. At the public hearing noted above, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita unanimously adopted Resolution PII-22 recommending that the City Council adopt Unified Development Code Amendment 11-002 for the creation of the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone and adopting the Negative Declaration prepared for the project; The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on October 25, 2011. This public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. j. At the October 25, 2011 meeting, the City Council considered the staff report, took public testimony, and closed the public hearing. k. All notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65091 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received 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. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on August 30, 2011, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from August 30, 2011, through September 20, 2011; C. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita; d. The documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is made is the Master Case 11-117 project file located within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and e. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds that the Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 3. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT FINDINGS. 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. That the proposed zoning code amendment is consistent with the objectives of this development code, the General Plan, and development policies of the City and forward a recommendation of approval: Unified Development Code Amendment 11-002 is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code, development policies of the City, and the General Plan including Objective LU1.2 of Goal 1 of the Land Use Element which seeks to, "Maintain the distinctive community character of villages and neighborhoods throughout the planning area by establishing uses, densities, and design guidelines appropriate to the particular needs and goals of each area". The creation of the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone (MOZ) will create provisions for the existing filming operations within the MOZ and will further include provisions for the expansion of filming uses and structures if desired in the future. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby introduces and passes to second reading, this Ordinance approving Unified Development Code Amendment 11-002 pertaining to the creation. of Section 17.16.115 - Movie Ranch Overlay Zone as shown in the attached Exhibit "A" and the proposed Movie Ranch Overlay Zone Map attached as Exhibit "B". SECTION 5. 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 12th day of November, 2011. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK �i� STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 11- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of October, 2011. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of November, 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE 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 November 12, 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 Exhibit "A" Section 17.16.115 MOZ — Movie Ranch Overlay Zone. A. Purpose. In an effort to support the continuation of filmmaking and film production, the movie ranch (MOZ) overlay zone designates certain areas within the City whereby filming and related facilities are permitted by right. The designation is intended as a modifier to an underlying zone and would permit location filming and full service motion picture and television filming, including studios and other facilities for production of feature films, television series, commercials, telethons, videos, webisodes, other film/video formats not yet conceived and all related facilities. The movie ranch overlay zone is applied to areas appropriate for motion picture and television filming, including sound stages, studios and related media support facilities consisting of a minimum of fifty (50) contiguous acres. Where applied, the movie ranch overlay (MOZ) zone is intended to allow for ongoing and/or location filming on-site, permitted by right, subject to Film Office review. B. Permitted Uses. All uses shall be subject to the requirements of the base zone, with the exception of film production activities which shall be subject to the requirements of this section. The following uses shall be permitted where the symbol "P" appears; subject to a conditional use permit where the symbol "C" appears; and prohibited where the symbol "X" appears. Movie and Film Production Uses 1. Movie Ranch P Full service motion picture and television studios including facilities for production of feature films, television series, commercials, telethons, videos, webisodes, other film/video formats not yet conceived, and all related facilities for motion picture and television studios. Filmmaking activities may take place both indoors or outdoors within the Movie Ranch. 2. Sound Stages and other related film making P structures 3. Office space and limited commercial retail P sales, incidental to the primary movie ranch use 4. Temporary film sets P 5. Incidental temporary community activities P Page 1 of 4 and social events 6. Parking lots P 7. Accessory retail sales during filming P operations 8. Wireless communications facilities as C provided in Section 17.17.040(N) P = Permitted, C = Conditional Use Permit C. Incidental Uses. Parking areas and temporary structures constructed as part of a production set shall be permitted by right, provided that the structures comply with applicable building, fire and other life safety regulations and do not interfere with required building setbacks. 1. Permanent Sound Stage Structures. Up to two (2) new sound stages at a combined maximum square footage of 40,000 square feet shall be permitted by right. All permanent structures shall be subject to Development Review process and must be set back a minimum of 100 feet from off-site residential uses. All permanent structures must comply with applicable building, fire and other life safety regulations. Any sound stage structures proposed outside of these parameters will require a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Permanent Office Structures. Up to a maximum of 10,000 square footage of office space shall be permitted by right. All permanent structures shall be subject to Development Review process and must be set back a minimum of 100 feet from off- site residential uses. All permanent structures must comply with applicable building, fire and other life safety regulations. Any office structures proposed outside of these parameters will require a Conditional Use Permit. 3. Special Events. Special events shall be permitted by right between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, subject to review of the site, parking and traffic plan. Events outside of these parameters will require a Temporary Use Permit which may be approved at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. 4. Commercial Uses. Incidental commercial uses to filming operations and the surrounding uses shall be permitted consistent with the requirements of the Community Commercial zone where two highways identified in the City's General Plan intersect, provided that the commercial use does not exceed three (3) acres in size and are not within one (1) mile of another commercial use. D. Property Development Standards. The following regulations shall apply to the site of a movie ranch in addition to the regulations of the underlying zone. Additional regulations Page 2 of 4 may be specified as conditions of approval through the conditional use permit and/or development review process. 1. Minimum Lot Size. 50 contiguous acres 2. Film Office Review. Filming activities are permitted by right in the movie ranch overlay as described below, subject to review of Film Office and via the Movie Ranch Filming Permit process. The Film Office will coordinate review of each filming activity with Los Angeles County Fire Department, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and other agencies as necessary. 3. Setbacks from Residential Uses for Primary Film Activity. Minimum of 500 feet between primary film activity and off-site residential uses shall be maintained. Primary filming activities include filming, location of generators, base camp, catering and other more intrusive activities. Filming activities outside of these parameters may be subject to neighborhood notification of adjacent property owners at the discretion of the Film Office. 4. Setbacks from Residential Uses for Secondary Film Activity. Minimum of 100 feet between secondary film activity and off-site residential uses shall be maintained. Secondary filming activities include parking and other non -intrusive activities. Filming activities outside of these parameters may be subject to neighborhood notification of adjacent property owners at the discretion of the Film Office. 5. Hours of Filming. Filming indoors within sound stages and/or filming more than 500 feet from off-site residential uses is permitted by right 24 hours a day. Filming less than 500 feet from off-site residential uses is permitted by right between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Filming outside of these parameters may be subject to neighborhood notification of adjacent property owners at the discretion of the Film Office. 6. Height Limit. No permanent structure within the MOZ overlay zone shall exceed a height of 56 feet without approval of a conditional use permit. Temporary structures, such as film sets, shall be exempt from this height limitation. 7. Lighting. All permanent and temporary light sources shall be shielded from streets or adjoining properties. Temporary lighting incidental to film activity is permitted by right between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Lighting outside of these parameters may be may be approved at the discretion of the Film Office. 8. Noise. Filming with special effects and/or excessive noise incidental to film activity is permitted by right between hours of 7:00 a.m, and 10:00 p.m. Special effects and/or excessive noise, as determined by the Film Office, outside of these parameters may be approved at the discretion of the Film Office. 9, Fencing. Permanent privacy fencing shall be exempt from height limitations, subject to architectural review and provided that the structures comply with applicable building, fire Page 3 of 4 (01+ and other life safety regulations and may require screening with landscaping where visible from the public right-of-way. 10. Helicopters. Helicopter landings incidental to film activity are permitted by right between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. provided that the helicopter activity complies with applicable FAA, fire and other life safety regulations. Helicopter landings outside of these parameters may be may be approved at the discretion of the Film Office. E. Pre -Existing Uses. A movie ranch use legally established as of the effective date of this code under the provisions of either the City of Santa Clarita or the County of Los Angeles, shall be deemed to be a pre-existing legal use and may be continued in perpetuity or as otherwise specified in this Section. F. Expiration. Once a movie ranch use has been discontinued for a continuous period of three hundred sixty-five (365) calendar days or more, the use shall not be re-established unless the Director of Community Development is notified in writing of the intent to resume and has provided a schedule to resume movie ranch operations. Page 4 of 4 a o , to t_ �< 1�� "4��'♦ yv. � � �'_♦_�` � "�.,�,. ���� ir 23 NNO W 0 ca J >. C m , �� y ♦ `, Y �,� M f] Q .O W m° m° ! !♦�'�,�\♦ �y+ \!\ •♦`y`��i ` `y y ♦4 ��y �R', i c Z C d ♦♦\�♦.tb "s��'+p`0v 'y !'y `` *y, `'�, 4'i ,v'� "�.�'! y`°4,�` d` m y! ♦ ``i` e, \�. �4,��y`' `' % ,`'4`!, `ley 75 O ,� ci U N rn � "l.�e',!',,! , sy °.a X1,,4 ,`e �4,yt ♦ y y `,� v'`'••. ?^ °o ti 3�b`�y`� . � `< Isl- � c � � a U ,,y 'i, `♦, ! `!, v'^,`y"y� y�,1. ` : ,. t� '�. � i`�,. '♦y♦ "tl y m ,�, j®{ y`Ly`�!', Y♦'\yfF,�'♦,\`!•,l�yt`'`t� 'ly ```!�'e�.y`E °"!, ! 'y �`, ,, ,`!,` ,ly 1y4. `♦•'�``y� <�y ♦y„w ��s '� e♦'++,�'4♦ ��``4yy.... `y ,``, �\! �' ♦ ` � i� . y`4 ! "`•! !.♦. `t`♦° ♦ ``�« `!, `kms '.y "♦,� ! ` y'e, \ `k !.� .. ` ' I _ } y♦"'y "ro"�.``1.,�+`!. •<`,` ♦ �`i,\ ``'., `!,y `4, � y ''"jy'4� `5� y'` �.4`!, `t `,'!r`y `v'+k y,�y,,♦`!.,• `,, y IV I t i UL NOA ' 1. n � ♦ � d I � �` e�y`h 4 �^ ti `r CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: Master Case 11-117 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Unified Development Code Amendment 11-002 APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Valencia, CA 91355 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The City of Santa Clarita is preparing Unified Development Code Amendment 11-002 including an amendment to Chapter 17 of the City's Unified Development Code, to create the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone (MOZ). The MOZ creates an overlay zone to regulate filming operations, and expansions of filming operations in the City. The MOZ is proposed to be located on the Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria and Rancho Deluxe movie ranches south of Sand Canyon Road and Placerita Canyon Road. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Planning and Building Services 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 Lisa M. Webber, AICP PLANNING MANA4a Prepared by: Approved by: Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner (Name/Title) Jeff Hogan, AICP, Senior Planner (Name/Title) Public Review Ie 1od Frol�.I August 30, 2011 To September 20, 2011 Public Notice G1 en On August 30, 2011 [X] Legal Advertisement [] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: SAMCURREN"I11201\l1-117\11-117 Draft ND.doc INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Project Title/Master Case Number: Master Case 11-117 Unified Development Code Amendment (UDC 11-002) Lead Agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact person and phone number: Patrick Leclair Associate Planner (661) 255-4330 Project location: Citywide Applicant's name and address: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 General Plan designation: N/A Zoning: N/A Description of project and setting: The City of Santa Clarita is preparing Unified Development Code Amendment 11-002 consisting of an amendment to create the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone (MOZ). The MOZ would create an overlay zone to allow for filming operations to exist in the City, as well as establish regulations for the expansion of filming — related uses for properties within the MOZ. Filming operations will not be prohibited outside of the MOZ, however, different permitting requirements will be in place for properties outside the MOZ. While various filming . operations exist within the City of Santa Clarita, as well as throughout the Santa Clarita Valley, the MOZ is proposed to be located on properties with existing filming operations known as Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria and Rancho Deluxe. These movie ranches are currently located outside the City, but are proposed for annexation as a part of the South Sand Canyon Annexation (Master Case 11-116). The environmental documentation for the Annexation, i► Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 2 of 29 Pre -zone, and Sphere of Influence Amendment for the South Sand Canyon Annexation will be processed separately as a part of Master Case 11-116. The scope of this Initial Study will solely address -the proposed amendments to create the MOZ in the City's Unified Development Code. The proposed MOZ language is attached as Exhibit "A". The proposed map of the MOZ is attached as Exhibit `B" Surrounding land uses: N/A Other public agencies whose N/A approval is required: A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at laact nna imnact that is a "Pntentinlly Sionificant Imnact" or a "Less than SiLynificant with Mitigation" as indicated by the checklist on the followingaes. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology / Soils [ ] Greenhouse Gas [ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water Emissions Materials Quality [ ] Land Use / Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population / Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation Mandatory Findings of Transportation / Traffic _ Utilities / Service Systems �]Sigznificance u B. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions, in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 1 Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 4 of 29 [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECL!�TION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the prop 4 project, nothing further is required. Patrick Le[clair, Associate Planner Date M3O 11 Ho , ICP, Senior Planner Date �+, Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 5 of 29 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [] [ ] [ ] . [X] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? e)Other [] [] [] [] II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? "A Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 6 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [ ] [ ] [ J ' [X] a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning . of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? [] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] e) Involve other changes in the existing environment [ ] [ ] [] [XJ 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 [ ] [ J [ ] [XJ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] [ ] [ J [X] substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable 'net increase of [ ] [ ] [ J [XJ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] concentrations? Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 7 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [] [] [ ] [X] number of people? f) Other IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 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? [] [] H [X] [) H H [X] [] [J H [X] [] [] H [XJ [] [] H [Xl Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 8 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ] [ ] [ J IN 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? h) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [) [ ] [ J [X] significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ J [ J [X] significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 115064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] outside of formal cemeteries? e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial [ ] [ ] [ ] [XJ adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 9 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as [ ] [ ] [ ] [X) 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] liquefaction? iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] loss of topsoil, either on or off site? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- [ ] [ ] IH ] [X] 1-13 of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [ ] [ ] [ ) _ [X) 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 [ ] [) [ ] [X] features? g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] yards or more? Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 10 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [ ] [ ] [ ] .1X1 10% natural grade? i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] unique geologic or physical feature? , j)Other [] [] [] [] VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS- Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on [ ] [ ] [ ] IN the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] emissions of greenhouse gasses? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? E.: Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page I 1 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? j)Other [] [] [] I IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 12 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ J [ J [ J [XJ 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 of contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and/or groundwater? i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [J [� [J [XJ [J LJ [J [XJ [J LJ [J [XJ [J LJ [J [XJ [J [J [J [XJ [J [J [J [XJ LJ [J [J [XJ [) [J H [XJ [] [J [J [XJ EN Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 13 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 1) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and [ ] project post -construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for .materials [ ] storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in [ J 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) Storm water discharges that would significantly [ ) impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.) vi Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage [ ] systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the proposed project include provisions [ ] for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? [J [J [XJ - [J [J [XJ [J [) [XJ 91 Master Case 11-117 UDC I1-002 Page 14 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with . Impact Mitigation X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] community (including a low-income or minority community)? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? . b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] inefficient manner? �5\ Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 15 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation XII. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project -located within an airport land use plan [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 16 of 29 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 of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks?. XV. RECREATION - Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] I [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] 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? [] [] [X] [] [] [X] E'i�' Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 17 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy [ ] establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the. circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management [ ] program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads, or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including [ ] either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise. decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [x] 7 [J [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] [] [J [X] [] [J [] [X] Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 18 of 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant. Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or .result in the construction of new. storm [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, ,and local statutes and [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] regulations related to solid waste? Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 19 of 29 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ] [ ] [ ] [XJ 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 [ J [ ] [ ] [X] will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `DE MINIMUS' FINDING a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for it's continued viability." Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 20 of 29 D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS: Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts I. AESTHETICS a. -d.) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is located within Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susana Mountains to the southwest, and the mountains of the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests to the north. The surrounding natural mountains and ridgelines, some of which extend into the City, provide a visual backdrop for much of the City. Other scenic resources within or visible from the City include the Santa Clara River corridor, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons and natural drainages in portions of the City. The proposed amendments to the City's Unified Development Code create an overlay zone for movie ranches and studios in the City of Santa Clarita, the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone (MOZ). The MOZ will provide regulations for filming operations, as well as expansion of filming activities and structures for properties within the MOZ. The MOZ will not permit for the construction of any filming uses or structures in, and of, itself. While uses and structures may have lesser permitting requirements in the MOZ, they will still require review in accordance with CEQA at the time that they are requested. The properties proposed for the MOZ at this time have been, and are currently being used for, filming operations. The Sable/Rancho Maria and Rancho Deluxe have existing filming sets and operations on properties within the Angeles National Forest. At this time it is difficult to predict the future development of the filming operations within the proposed MOZ and any aesthetic impacts can therefore, not be addressed at this time. Should any future development be proposed within the MOZ, further analysis must be conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, no impact to aesthetics is anticipated with the proposed amendments. 1I. AGRICULTURE a. -e.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC will not RESOURCES affect any farmland identified by the California Resources Agency, farmland designated under a Williamson Act Contract, and will not convert any farmland to non-agricultural use. The properties proposed for the MOZ at this time are proposed to be located within a City zoning designation of Open Space — Agriculture and are located within the . Angeles National Forest. However, no existing Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 21 of 29 agricultural or forestlands used for timberland production by the Government Code Section 51104(g) will be impacted with the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments are regulatory in nature and address the creation of the MOZ in the City. Therefore, the amendments are not anticipated to have an impact on agricultural, farmland, or forest resources. III. AIR QUALITY a. -e.) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifies region -wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for stationary -source polluters; facilitation of new transportation technologies, such as low -emission vehicles; and capital improvements, such as park-and-ride facilities and public transit improvements. The most recently adopted plan is the 2007 AQMP, adopted on June 1, 2007. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). This plan is designed to implement the California Clean Air Act an in turn implement the Federal Clean Air Act administered by the EPA. The AQMP accommodates population growth and transportation projections based on the predictions made by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Thus, projects that are consistent with employment and population forecasts are consistent with the AQMD. The proposed amendments to the UDC will not alter any of the aforementioned measures directly in that the proposed amendments will address the creation of the Movie Ranch Overlay (MOZ) zone for the location of filming operations in the City. The property proposed for the MOZ at this time consists of the existing filming ranches known as Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria and .the Rancho Deluxe. No development is proposed for these movie ranches at this time. Therefore, potential impacts as a result of any future filming Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 22 of 29 uses or future structures for filming uses are speculative and would be subject to the applicable air quality regulations under CEQA in place at the time that future analysis is required to be conducted. Therefore, no impact is anticipated to air quality as a result of the proposed amendments to the UDC. IV. BIOLOGICAL a. -g.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC, in and of RESOURCES themselves do not include the modification of any habitat and would not otherwise affect any candidate, sensitive or special status species identified by the Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed MOZ is located on property that is currently used for filming operations, however no new construction or use is proposed at this time. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments will not have any adverse affect on, any riparian habitat, wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other biological resources. The amendments will not alter any wildlife corridor or migratory fish corridor and will not affect any regulation or code protecting such resources. Future development of the properties proposed for the MOZ at this time is speculative at this time and would be subject to analysis under CEQA at the time that development is proposed. Oak trees exist on the movie ranches proposed for the MOZ at this time. ,However, given that no construction is proposed with these amendments, no impact to oak trees is anticipated at this time. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments are not anticipated to have an impact to biological resources. V. CULTURAL a. -d.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the Unified RESOURCES Development Code will not have any impact on cultural resources in the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed amendments will not alter any unique geological feature, paleontological resource, any human remains or affect any historical or archeological resource. The proposed amendments will establish an overlay zone for the location of filming operations on properties within the City. While no construction is proposed with these amendments, the potential impact of any future construction is too speculative to evaluate at this time. This UDC amendment would be required to comply with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan to protect the historical and culturally significant resources, which contribute to community identity and a sense of history, and further comply with CEQA. Therefore, no impact to archeological, historical or cultural resource would be caused by the proposed UDC amendments. Master Case 11-117 UDC I1-002 Page 23 of 29 VI. GEOLOGY AND a. -i.) No Impact — Southern California has numerous active and SOILS potentially active faults that could affect the City.' As stated in the City's General Plan, the City is susceptible to geologic hazards in the event of a major earthquake (magnitude 8.3) along the San Andreas Fault. This could result in ground failure and liquefaction. However, the proposed amendments to the UDC would not change the requirements of future development to follow all state and City building codes/regulations. The proposed amendments would address the creation of an overlay zone to regulate filming operations in the City. Although no construction is proposed at this time, any future construction would be required to address the geologic and/or soils conditions on their project site prior to the issuance of any building permits on the project site. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments are not anticipated to have any impact related to geology and soils. VII. GREENHOUSE a. -b.) No Impact — "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their GAS EMISSIONS role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one- fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has .adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California's reputation as a "national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship." Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 24 of 29 am Most notably AB 32 mandates that by 2020, California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code address the establishment of an overlay zone that would create the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone (MOZ) to regulate filming operations within the MOZ in the, City. The proposed -amendments would not result in major alterations to any air quality plan as it relates to any greenhouse emissions. However, the location of filming operations within the existing movie ranches in the City will reduce the need for additional filming operations to be established elsewhere in the City. Further, consolidating filming operations on existing movie ranches will further reduce vehicle trips by providing a full range of filming services in the MOZ, reducing trips to staff, actors, and filming support services. Therefore, the proposed amendments are not anticipated to have any impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. VIII. HAZARDS AND a. -i.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC would not HAZARDOUS directly expose people to health hazards or hazardous materials, MATERIALS interfere with any emergency response plans, or any land use within 2 miles of an airport, airfield, or otherwise impact any airport land use plan. The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code address the establishment of an overlay zone that would regulate filming operations in the MOZ in the City. Therefore, the proposed amendments are not anticipated to have any impact to hazards or hazardous materials. IX. HYDROLOGY a. -l.) No Impact — The proposed project would not impact water AND WATER quality standards, nor affect groundwater supplies. The proposed QUALITY amendments to the Unified Development Code address the establishment of an overlay zone that would regulate filming operations within the MOZ in the City. The amendments will not result in direct impacts on hydrology and water quality since no construction is approved with the proposed amendments. Further, the proposed amendments are not anticipated to impact any 100 -year flood hazard area, tsunami, drainage pattern, or runoff of Stormwater Management systems. Any construction related activity within the proposed overlay zone would comply with the zoning codes in place at the time that revisions are requested, including any additional CEQA review. Given that no construction is proposed at this time, future construction related to filming operations is speculative at this time and can not be addressed at this time. All future construction am Master Case I 1-117 UDC 11-002 Page 25 of 29 Kum will be subject to further CEQA review as applicable. Therefore, the proposed amendments are not anticipated to have an impact to hydrology and water quality. X. LAND USE AND a.) No Impact — No established community would be disrupted or PLANNING physically divided due to the proposed amendments, and therefore, no impact is anticipated. b.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code address the establishment of an overlay zone that would regulate filming operations in the MOZ in the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed amendment to the UDC is consistent with the City's General Plan in that it encourages the creation of economic centers in the City that would provide services to its residents. Therefore, no impact related to land use and planning is anticipated with the proposed amendments to the UDC. c.) No Impact — The proposed amendments do not affect current City standards regarding habitat conservation plans, natural community preservation plans, and/ or the policies of agencies with jurisdiction over resources and resource areas within the City since no development is proposed at this time. All future development would be subject to the standards and regulations in place at the time development is proposed. Therefore, the project would have no impact on conservation plans. XI. MINERAL AND a. -c.) No Impact — Gold mining and oil production historically have ENERGY been the principal mineral extraction activities in and around the RESOURCES Santa Clarita Valley. Other minerals found in the planning area include construction aggregate,. titanium, and tuff. Mineral resources and extraction areas are permitted within the Mineral Oil and Conservation Overlay Zone (MOCA). The property proposed for the MOZ is not located in the MOZ and therefore, the proposed amendments will not impact the extraction of oil or minerals as a result. The proposed UDC amendment is not expected to affect mineral resources in the City. Therefore, no impact related to mineral and energy resources is anticipated. XII. NOISE a. -d.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC will not expose persons to the generation of a. significant increase in noise levels, groundborne vibration, or increase ambient noise The ro osed amendments to the Unified Development Code address the Kum Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 26 of 29 establishment of an overlay zone that would regulate filming operations and development within the MOZ in the City. Filming operations currently exist on the properties proposed for the MOZ at this time. The UDC amendment, in fact, does not propose any development at this time and therefore, there would not be an impact to noise levels in the city. The proposed amendments do not remove any noise -related regulations and would not foreseeably lead to a change in the generation of noise at this time. Therefore, a no impact is anticipated with relation to noise. e. -f.) No Impact — There are no airports, airfields, or airport land use plans within the City. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments would cause no impacts related to airport noise. XIII. POPULATION a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC are not AND HOUSING anticipated to induce substantial population growth in the Santa Clarita Valley, either directly or indirectly, nor would any of the proposed provisions cause displacement of existing homes or people. The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code address the establishment of an overlay zone that would regulate filming operations and future filming development within the MOZ in the City. The property affected by the proposed amendments would only affect future commercial land uses on previously developed movie ranches in the City.' The proposed project is a regulatory adjustment and does not include any development activity at this time. The proposed UDC amendments would not alter the City's population projections consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact to population and housing. XIV. PUBLIC a)i. No Impact — The proposed amendments will not directly increase SERVICES the need for fire protection services. However, any future development would be subject to any applicable development fees, which are established to compensate for growth. Since, the proposed UDC amendments are not anticipated to have a direct impact on fire protection services, and future development would remain subject to development fees, the amendments would have no impact to fire services. a)ii. No Impact — The proposed amendments are not anticipated to directly increase the need for police services. However, any future development would be subject to development fees, which are established to compensate for growth. Since, the proposed UDC Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 27 of 29 amendments would have no direct impact on police services, and future development would remain subject to development fees, the amendments would have no impact to police services. a)iii. No Impact — The proposed project is not anticipated to directly increase the population of the City of Santa Clarita. However, any future residential development would be subject to school development fees, which are established to compensate for growth. Since, the proposed UDC amendments would have no direct impact on school services, and future development would be subject to school development fees, the amendments would have no impact to school services. a)iv. No Impact — The proposed project is not anticipated to directly increase number of persons using public parks. However, any future residential development would be subject to park impact fees, which are established to compensate for residential growth. Since, the proposed UDC amendments would have no direct impact on parks, and future development would remain subject to park impact fees, the amendments would have no impact to parks. XIV. RECREATION a. -b.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC will not have any impact on recreational amenities within the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed project is a regulatory adjustment and does not include any development activities at this time. Any subsequent approvals would be required to comply with the City's General Plan and would be subject to the City's park impact fees. Therefore, no impact to recreation is anticipated with the proposed UDC amendments. XV. a. -g.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC are TRANSPORTATION / regulatory in nature and are not anticipated to have. direct TRAFFIC developmental impacts that alter traffic load or capacity on street systems. The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code address the establishment of an overlay zone that would regulate filming operations in the MOZ in the City. Any subsequent development would be regulated by the City's UDC, General Plan, and transportation policies and would be subject to additional CEQA review to determine project related impacts. However, at this time, since no new development is being proposed, and no impact to traffic is anticipated as a result of the proposed UDC amendments. Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 28 of 29 XVI. UTILITIES AND a. -g.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the City's Unified SERVICE SYSTEMS Development Code do not include any new development at this time. The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code address the establishment of an overlay zone that would regulate filming operations and future development of filming operations in the City. Therefore, the project would not result in the construction of new water facilities, expansion of existing facilities, affect drainage patterns, water treatment services, and furthermore, no impacts to landfill capacity would occur. Any subsequent development would be required to comply with the City's General Plan and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and all applicable utility purveyors. Compliance with these requirements would ensure all federal, state and local statutes and imposed regulations are met. Therefore, no impact to utilities or service systems is anticipated as a result of the approval of the proposed amendments. XVII. MANDATORY a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC will not FINDINGS OF have a significant impact on the environment that would lead to a SIGNIFICANCE substantial reduction in habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or reduce or restrict the number of rare, threatened or endangered species. The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code address the establishment of an overlay zone to regulate filming operations and future development of filming uses in the MOZ in the City. As such, .the proposed amendments do not remove any established City regulations that protect any plant and animal species. The proposal would not contribute to any cumulative impacts and would not cause environmental effects that would adversely affect humans. XVIII. DEPARTMENT a.) Nom — The legislative intent of the Department of Fish and OF FISH AND GAME Game `De Minimus' Finding is "to extend the current user -based `DE MINIMUS' funding system by allocating the transactional costs of wildlife FINDING protection and management to those who would. consume those resources through urbanization and development..." (AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, effective January 1, 1991, Section 1(c)). However, the proposed UDC amendments would not entitle any new development; and any future development proposal seeking discretionary approval would remain subject to CEQA and the CDFG Code. Since, the proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources, the project's impacts on fish and wildlife are de minimus. so Master Case 11-117 UDC 11-002 Page 29 of 29 S:\CD\CURRENIV2010\I0-096\10-096 Initial Study.doc Exhibit "A" Section 17.16.115 MOZ — Movie Ranch Overlay Zone. A. Purpose. In an effort to support the continuation of filmmaking and film production, the movie ranch (MR) overlay zone designates certain areas within the City whereby filming and related facilities are permitted by right. The designation is intended as a modifier to an underlying zone and would permit location filming and full service motion picture and television filming, including studios, and other facilities for production of feature films, television series, commercials, telethons, videos, webisodes, rotler film/video formats not yet conceived and all related facilities. The movie ranch overlay zone is applied to areas appropriate for motion picture and television filming, ,iiicludug sound stages, studios and related media support facilities consisting of a minimum of°fifty *(50) contiguous acres. Where applied, the movie ranch overlay (MR) zone is intended,-toallow for ongoing and/or location filming on-site, permitted by right subject to Film Office review. B. Permitted Uses. All uses shall be subject to; the requirements of the base zone, with the exception of film production activities which'shall be.s` bJect to the requirements of this section. The following uses shall be permitted wheretlle symbol "P" appears; subject to a conditional use permit where the symbol "C" appears; and prohibited where the symbol "X" appears. Movie and Film Production Uses.. 1. Movie Ranch P Full service motion picture and television studios including facilities for production of feature films, television series, commercials, telethons, videos, webisodes, other film/video formats not yet conceived, and all related facilities for motion picture and television studios. Filmmaking activities may take place both indoors or outdoors within the Movie Ranch. 2 Sound -Stages and other related film making P structures ... q, 3. Office space and limited commercial retail P sales, incidental to the primary movie ranch use 4. Temporary film sets P 5. Incidental temporary community activities P and social events Page 1 of 3 6. Parking lots 7. Accessory retail sales during filming operations 8. Wireless communications facilities as provided in Section 17.17.040(1) P = Permitted, C = Conditional Use Permit C. Incidental Uses. Parking areas and temporary production set shall be permitted by right, prov applicable building, fire and other life safety rf required building setbacks. 1. Permanent Sound Stage Structures. Up t maximum square footage of 40,000 sAuarf permanent structures shall be subject to Devc back a minimum of 100 feet from off -sit ri!t must comply with applicable;:building, fire sound stage structures proposed outside of tb Use Permit. P P C constructed as part of a e structures comply with fid:. do not interfere with two (2) sound stages at a combined feet shall be permitted byw right. All >pment Review process and must be set idenfal uses: All permanent structures iONI.other life safety regulations: Any ;e parameters will require a Conditional 2. Permanent Office:; Structures. U,�:to a maximui of.10,000 square footage of office space shall be permitted by right _ A11 permanent structures shall be subject to Development Review process and must be set back a minimum of 100 feet from off- site residential uses. All= ;permanent structures must comply with applicable building, fire and other life safety;r`egulations. Any office structures proposed outside of these parameters will re_quire, a' Corid tional:-:Use` Permit. Special Events. Special events shall be permitted by right between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10':0 0p.m Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, subject to review of the site, parking and traffic plan. Events outside of these parameters will require a Temporary Use Permit which may be approved at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. 4. Comm' ercialUses: Incidental commercial uses to filming operations and the surrounding; ;;uses shall be permitted consistent with the requirements of the Community` -Commercial zone where two highways identified in' the City's General Plan intersect, provided that the commercial use does not exceed three (3) acres in size and are not within one (1) mile of another commercial use: D. Property Development Standards. The following regulations shall apply to the site of a movie ranch in addition to the regulations of the underlying zone. 'Additional regulations may be specified as conditions of approval through the conditional use permit and/or development review process. Page 2of3 1. Minimum Lot Size. 50 contiguous acres 2. Film Office Review. Filming activities are permitted by right in the movie ranch overlay as described below, subject to review of Film Office and via the Movie Ranch Filming Permit process. The Film Office will coordinate review of each filming activity with Los Angeles County Fire Department, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and other agencies as necessary. 3. Setbacks from Residential Uses for Primary Film Activity-" Minimum of 500 feet between primary film activity and off-site residential uses shall be maintained. Primary filming activities include filming, location of generators, base., camp, catering and other more intrusive activities. Filming activities outside of :these parameters may be subject to neighborhood notification of adjacent property owners at they discretion of the Film Office. 4 Setbacks from Residential Uses for Sccordar) between secondary film activity and off s -C Secondary filming activities include parking di activities outside of these parameters may be adjacent property owners at the discretion, of the sound•.;stages and/or filming more than 500 'd by right ,24 hours a day. Filming less than nitted by right between the hours of 7:00 a.m. parameters may be subject to neighborhood he discretion of the Film Office. uses is e of tl owners Film Activity. Mmimum;;gof 100 feet residential uses shall be : maintained. other "'non -intrusive activities. Filming Aect to neighborhood notification of t structure within the MR overlay zone shall exceed a height of a conditional use permit. Temporary structures, such as in this height limitation. Lighting. All permanent and temporary light sources shall be- shielded from streets or adjoining properties ;;Temporary lighting incidental to film activity is permitted by right betweenthe hours 47 00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Lighting outside of these parameters may be may lieannroved at`the discretion of the Film Office. 8. Noise. Filming, with special effects and/or excessive noise incidental to film activity is permitted by right between hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Special effects and/or excessive noise, as determined by the Film Office, outside of these parameters may be approved at the discretion of the Film Office. 9. Fencing. Permanent privacy fencing shall be exempt from height limitations, subject to architectural review and provided that the structures comply with applicable building, fire and other life safety regulations and may require screening with landscaping where visible from the public right-of-way. Page 3 of 3 VI 10. Helicopters. Helicopter landings incidental to film activity are permitted by right between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. provided that the helicopter activity complies with applicable FAA, fire and other life safety regulations. Helicopter landings outside of these parameters may be may be approved at the discretion of the Film Office. E. Pre -Existing Uses. A movie ranch use legally established as of the effective date of this code under the provisions of either the City of Santa Clarita or the County of Los Angeles, shall be deemed to be a pre-existing legal use ;and may be continued in perpetuity or as otherwise specified in this Section. F. Expiration. Once a movie ranch use has been discontinued for a continuous period of three hundred sixty-five (365) calendar days or more, ,:the use shall not be re=established unless the Director of Community Developmentks notified in... riting of the intent to resume and hasprovided a schedule to resume movie ranch operations Page 4 of 3 NO NI t jam' z ,.�• Z > W y `� tom` Y'{{ �y{°la��• z O= m o vi d yiiM �w�4uhrri� � y 4\ �'t i ��; CY � tr ,-., t..�.rr�,rne..r�.�.4.r�•4��rs4�rsurr.4u�.r•rr{_.4�44.rrri�;0 d` N s IN NZNL/Lj✓r..,,_,_.'_•.py�.NO/.NV�:ONYg :. _ - �` �l ppp l�:i rr1�r.M S. `, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO o,oEo If OECEMaEP , ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Master Case 11-116; South Sand Canyon Annexation APPLICATION: Annexation 11 -003, Sphere of Influence Amendment 11-003, and Prezone 11-002 PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Santa Clarita is proposing to annex 686.16 acres of land generally located south of Sand Canyon Road and Placerita Canyon Road, south of the Sand Canyon Community in the City of Santa Clarita. The project includes an Annexation and Sphere of Influence Amendment (ANX 11-003) and Prezone (PRZ 11-002) to annex 630.3 acres of privately held parcels within the Angeles National Forest and 55.86 acres of private land just outside the National Forest, just south and east of the existing Sand Canyon Community. The Prezoning of the property in the annexation area would include 55.86 acres of land with the Residential Estate (RE) zoning designation, and 630.3 acres of land with the Open Space — Agriculture (OS -A) zoning designation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On September 20, 2011, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Prezone for Master Case 11-116 including the South Sand Canyon Annexation area. A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and was posted for public review from August 30, 2011 to September 20, 2011. A copy of the draft Negative Declaration and all supporting documents will be located at the Permit Center Counter located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA. 91355. The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: October 25, 2011 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, or during the public hearing. For further information regarding this proposal contact the City of Santa Clarita, Department of Community Development, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; Telephone: (661) 255-4330, Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner. Dated: September 29, 2011 Sarah Gorman, City Clerk Publish Date: October 4, 2011 S:\CD\CURENf\!2011\11-116 (South Sand Canyon)\CC Notice of Public Hearing.doc / 02 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Master Case 11-117; Movie Ranch Overlay Zone APPLICATION: Unified Development Code Amendment 11-002 PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Santa Clarita is preparing Unified Development Code Amendment 11-002 including an amendment to Chapter 17 of the City's Unified Development Code, to create the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone (MOZ). The MOZ creates an overlay zone to regulate filming operations, and expansions of filming operations in the City. The MOZ is proposed to be located on the Sable Ranch/Rancho Maria and Rancho Deluxe movie ranches south of Sand Canyon Road and Placerita Canyon Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On September 20, 2011, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Unified Development Code Amendment for Master Case 11-116 including the Movie Ranch Overlay Zone. A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and was posted for public review from August 30, 2011 to September 20, 2011. A copy of the draft Negative Declaration and all supporting documents will be located at the Permit Center Counter located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: October 25, 2011 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, or during the public hearing. For further information regarding this proposal contact the City of Santa Clarita, Department of Community Development, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; Telephone: (661) 255-4330, Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner. Dated: September 29, 2011 Sarah Gorman, City Clerk Publish Date: October 4, 2011 SACD\CURENT\!201 1\1 1-117 (Movie Ranch Overlay Zone)\11-117 CC Notice of Public Hearing.doc 103