The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-03-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 12-110 NORTH SAUGUS ANNEX (2)Agenda Item: L, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: `/� ,h /� r•/!'( Item to be presented by: .teff Hogan DATE: March 26, 2013 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 12-110 FOR THE ANNEXATION (ANX 12-001), AND PREZONE (PP -7- 12-001), AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT (SOI 12-001) FOR THE NORTH SAUGUS ANNEXATION 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 12-001 (MASTER CASE 12-110) FOR THE NORTH SAUGUS 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 uninhabited North Saugus Annexation Area (Master Case 12-110). BACKGROUND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The City Council is required to approve requests to prezone property, 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 this project, the Planning Commission must review, and make a recommendation for the Prezone designation of the annexation area to the City Council. On September 18, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing where it voted unanimously to recommend approval of the prezone for the Ordinance passed to Adopted: - �3" Corp a g e proposed annexation. PROJECT SETTING The proposed project includes a request to annex approximately 827 acres of land in the unincorporated Los Angeles County to the City of Santa Clarita. The majority of the annexation area (approximately 691 acres) is located in the Angeles National Forest of which approximately 418 acres are privately held parcels with 273 acres owned by the Angeles National Forest and the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) for water and electrical transmission facilities. The remaining 136 acres are not located in the National Forest and are privately held. The privately held properties within the annexation area are in various states of development with portions remaining undeveloped, portions developed as movie ranches used for various filming uses, as well as one parcel developed with an animal training facility. The project site is served from Blue Cloud Road and an LADWP service road, both of which are graded private drives. This annexation area is immediately adjacent to the recently completed North Copperhill Annexation area. There are two movie ranches owned by the Veluzat family developed within the annexation area. The movie ranches consists of approximately 421 acres of existing temporary filming sets, natural areas used for filming operations, and accessory structures. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS Pursuant to the State of California Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, annexing cities are required to prezone land. The City proposes a prezone that would change the zoning designations of the annexation area in order to be consistent with the City's zoning ordinance. The prezone designations would be consistent with the Los Angeles County land use designation for the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan and would reflect the existing development and conditions within the proposed annexation area. The project is located within the City's existing General Plan planning area and consists of approximately 827 acres of unincorporated territory. Approximately 691 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 (OS). Approximately 136 acres are located in the City's SOI and this area will only require annexation to the City. This remaining portion of the annexation area is currently designated a Non -Urban 2 (NU2) and Non -Urban 3 (NU3) on the City's General Plan and is proposed to be prezoned Residential Estate (RE). Of the 827 acres, approximately 421 acres would include the Movie Ranch (MR) Overlay Zone designation as these privately owned parcels contain existing filming operations. The original proposed annexation comprised approximately 1,106 acres of land. During the Planning Commission process on the project, a request was received from a property owner to exclude their property from the proposed annexation. The annexation area was modified to exclude the four parcels totaling approximately 120 acres and thereby reducing the proposed annexation area to approximately 986 acres. After the Planning Commission made its recommendation, staff received a request from LAFCO to modify the proposed annexation area to create a more logical boundary and therefore, would be more inclined to recommend approval to the LAFCO Commission. In doing this, the annexation reviewed by the Planning Commission was further reduced by five parcels totaling approximately 159 acres. 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, "leapfrog" development outside of areas designated for urban use. Objective L U 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 827 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 Saugus community and provide a low-density buffer to the adjoining Angeles National Forest. The designation of the property as OS, OS (MR), RE (MR), 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. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study determined that there are no environmental impacts related to the proposed annexation and prezoning. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA beginning August 28, 2012, through September 18, 2012. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT Annexation of the North Saugus Annexation Area will include a residential property, as well as filming ranches. There are no existing publicly maintained roads within the annexation area. The annexation of this property is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact upon the City. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Exhibit A - Prezone Map Ordinance - Negative Declaration and Initial Study Boundary Map General Plan Map Public Hearing Notice RESOLUTION 13- 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 INMATE PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND ANNEX CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA FOR THE NORTH SAUGUS ANNEXATION (MASTER CASE NO. 12-110) 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 of approximately 691 acres and an Annexation of approximately 827 acres of unincorporated County territory; 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; WHEREAS, the project consists of Annexation No. 12-001 and Sphere of Influence Amendment 12-001 (Master Case No. 12-110), which includes the North Saugus Annexation Area; 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 a 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 26th day of March, 2013. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2 S STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Armine Chaparyan, Interim 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 26th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK q- ORDINANCE NO. 13 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PREZONE 12-001 (MASTER CASE 12-110) FOR THE NORTH SAUGUS ANNEXATION, 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 July 23, 2012, the City of Santa Clarita (the "Applicant') initiated an application (Master Case 12-110) for the Prezone (PRZ 12-001), Annexation (ANX 12-001), and Sphere of Influence Amendment (SOI 12-001) for the purposes of annexing the area known as the North Saugus Annexation to the City of Santa Clarita; b. The project site is generally located north of Copperhill Drive and northeast of Haskell Canyon Road, predominantly within the Angeles National Forest adjacent to the North Copperhill Annexation Area; c. The project site consists of approximately 827 acres of land soon to be contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Santa Clarita on the southern boundary of the project area, as shown on Exhibit A; d. The project area is partially built out with one residential unit, in addition to the filming ranches and their accessory uses and both permanent and temporary structures. No new development is proposed with this proposal; e. The land uses surrounding the project consist of the Angeles National Forest to the north and east and large lot single-family homes, a mobilehome park and transmission corridors to the south, and the City -owned open space to the west; f. Currently, the project area is zoned a mixture of A-2 (Heavy Agriculture, and W (Watershed) by the County of Los Angeles; g. Prezone 12-001 would designate the project area with City of Santa Clarita zoning designations including approximately 365 acres of Open Space (OS), 326 acres of Open Space with a Movie Ranch zoning overlay (OS -MR), 41 acres of Residential Estate (RE), and 95 acres of Residential Estate with a Movie Ranch overlay zone (RE -MR) as shown in Exhibit A. The proposed Prezone designations reflect the existing development and/or the approved development in the area; h. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on September 18, 2012. 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; i. At the public hearing noted above, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita unanimously adopted Resolution P12-09 recommending that the City Council adopt Prezone 12-001, for the purpose of prezoning the North Saugus Annexation Area 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 March 26, 2011 This public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; k. At the March 26, 2013 meeting, the City Council considered the staff report, recivied public testimony, and closed the public hearing, and 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 (OS), Residential Estate (RE), including the Movie Ranch (MR) zoning overlay pertaining to the North Saugus Annexation Area, b. That the Prezone has been reviewed for consistency with the City's General Plan, and C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65091 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed. SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the testimony and other evidenced received, the City Council finds as follows: a. 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 advertised on August 28, 2012, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from August 28, 2012, through September 18, 2012; �o 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 City Council is made is the Master Case 12-110 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 4. FINDINGS FOR PREZONE. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: a. Prezone 12-001 pertaining to the North Saugus 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 a second reading, this Ordinance approving Prezone 12-001 pertaining to the North Saugus Annexation as described herein and shown on attached Exhibit "A." 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. 3 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of April, 2013. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 1Z STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Armind Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 13- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of March, 2013. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 9th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS I►[11*. *611121WO dWi i:1a6XI I 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 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ X ] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: Master Case 12-110 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Annexation and Sphere of Influence Amendment 12-001; Prezone 12-001 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 approximately 1,106.59 acres of land located adjacent to the North Copperhill Annexation area adjacent to the Saugus Community in the City of Santa Clarita. The project includes an Annexation and Sphere of Influence Amendment (ANX and SOI 12-001) and Prezone (PZ 12-001) to annex approximately 417 acres of privately held parcels within the Angeles National Forest, approximately 388 acres of publicly owned property in the National Forest and approximately 296 acres of private land outside the National Forest. The prezoning of the property in the annexation area would include approximately 296 acres of Residential Estate (RE) zoning designation of which approximately 94 acres would include the Movie Ranch (MR) Overlay Zone and approximately 806 acres of land with the Open Space (OS) zoning designation of which the MR overlay would be placed on approximately 326 acres. 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] CityCouncil [ ] 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 Jeff W. Hogan, AICP PLANNING MANAGER Prepared Fred Follstad. AICP, Associate Planner (Name/Title) Approved by: Jason Smisko, Senior Planner (Si nature) V (Name/Title) Public Review Period From August 28, 2012 To September 18, 2012 Public Notice Given On Aueust 28, 2012 [X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: 14 INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Project Title/Master Case Number: North Saugus Annexation Master Case 12-110 Annexation] 2-00 1, Sphere of Influence 12-001; Prezone 12-001 Lead Agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact person and phone number: Fred Follstad, AICP Associate Planner (661)255-4330 Project location: The project area generally known as the North Saugus Annexation is generally located north of the existing Saugus Community in the City of Santa Clarita, north of Copperhill Drive and northeast of Haskell Canyon Road. The proposed annexation is immediately adjacent to the pending North Copperhill Annexation area. 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 4461 2012 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: Non -Urban 2 (NU2), Non -Urban 3, (NU3) and Open Space — National Forest (OS -NF) Zoning: Existing County of Los Angeles zoning for the project area includes: A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, 1 -acre minimum lot size); A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, 2 -acre minimum lot size); W (Watershed) Ir Master Case 12-110 Page 2 of 34 Description of project and setting: This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Sphere of Influence Amendment, Prezone (PZ), and Annexation (ANX) for the North Saugus Annexation Area (Master Case 12-110). The City of Santa Clarita proposes to pre -zone and annex approximately 1, 106.59 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 806 acres of land that is not within the City's Sphere of Influence. No Construction is proposed with this project. Setting: The proposed project consists of approximately 1, 106.59 acres of land in the unincorporated Los Angeles County. The majority of the annexation area (approximately 806 acres) is located in the Angeles National Forest of which approximately 417 acres are private held parcels. The remaining 388 acres are owned by the Angeles National Forest and the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) for their water and electrical transmission facilities. The remaining 296 acres are not located in the National Forest and are privately held. 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 a parcel that is developed with single-family residence. The project site is served from Blue Cloud Road and a LADWP service road, both of which are graded private drives. There is one single-family residence in the project area along with an animal training facility and numerous outbuildings and outdoor storage areas. hi addition, there are two movie ranches, which are owned by the Veluzat family, developed within the annexation area The movie ranches consists of approximately 421 acres of existing temporary filming sets, natural areas used for filming operations, and accessory structures. Project: This annexation area is immediately adjacent to North Copperhill Annexation area. On August 18, 2012, LAFCO conducted a hearing on this annexation and voted to move forward to a September 12, 2011 protest hearing. At the protest meeting, the LAFCO Board approved the annexation and, as of the date this report was written, is currently in the process of recording the North Copperhill Annexation area. Once this annexation records, the project site would be coterminous with the City Boundary. The project is located within the City's existing General Plan planning area and consists of approximately 1,106.59 acres of unincorporated territory. Approximately 806 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 K Ib Master Case 12-110 Page 3 of 34 General Plan and is proposed to be prezoned Open Space re (OS). Approximately 296 acres are located in the City's SOI and will only require annexation to the City. The portion of the annexation area is currently designated a Non -Urban 2 (NU2) and Non -Urban 3 (NU3) on the City's General Plan and is proposed be prezoned Residential Estate (RE). Of the 1,106.59 acres, approximately 433 acres would include the Movie Ranch (MR) Overlay Zone designation as these privately owned parcels contain existing filming operations. Surrounding land uses: Located to the north of the proposed annexation is National Forest, as well as portions of the property to the east and west. To the west of the project is dedicated open space owned by the City of Santa Clarita. South of the annexation area is additional open space, vacant lands, large lot single-family residences, equestrian uses and a mobilehome park. East of the annexation area is vacant land, equestrian uses and large lot single-family residences. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles 80 South Lake Avenue Suite 870 Pasadena, California 91101 3 I+ r •... , •'®moi ,. _r -o►,_ t I Exhibit C -General Plan Map - North Saugus Annexation Area 6 2-U The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Measures Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water Materials Quality [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Air Quality [ ] Geology /Soils [ ] Land Use / Planning [ ] Population / Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation/Traffic [ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance B. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 7 21 Master Case 1 I-116 Page 8 of 34 [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. AICP, Associate Planner 8 E$-C('-iL Date V\U-\Z Date Master Case 11-1 16 Page 9 of 34 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? [ ] 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? e) Other H. 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 0 23 Master Case 11-116 Page 10 of 34 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 [ ] applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is 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? c) 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? 10 z4 Master Case 11-116 Page 1 I of 34 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees? 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ] (] [ ] [x] Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? g) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? 11 J 9 Master Case I 1-116 Page 12 of 34 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ 1 [ j [ I [xI significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? e) Other VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, either on or off site? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 12 [I [I [I [xj [I [I [I [x] [I [I [I [xl [I [I [I [xj [I [I [I [x] [I [I [I [xj [I [I [I [x] [I [I [I [x] [I [I [I [x] [I [I [I [xj Zio Master Case 11-116 Page 13 of 34 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] I I [x] i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ] [ ] unique geologic or physical feature? j) Other [ ] [ ] VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS- Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the [ ] [ ] environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the [ ] [ ] emissions of greenhouse gasses? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 13 [x] [x] Master Case 11-116 Page 14 of 34 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [] [] [] [x] environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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)? 14 i 0; Master Case 11-116 Page 15 of 34 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place, within a 100 -year flood hazard area, structures [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] which would impede or redirect flood flows? 15 Z°► Master Case 11-116 Page 16 of 34 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] and direction of surface water and/or groundwater? i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 1) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and project [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] post -construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? v) Storm water discharges that would significantly [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? 16 Master Case 11-116 Page 17 of 34 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 [ ] community (including a low-income or minority community)? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or [ J regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ] plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ] resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally [ ] important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable' resources in a wasteful and [ ] inefficient manner? XII. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels [ ] in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 17 Master Case 11-116 Page 18 of 34 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [] [] [] [x] groundborne vibration or groundbome 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? D For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: lu Master Case I 1-116 Page 19 of 34 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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? 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)? 19 [ l [ ] [x] [l I [x] [ l [ ] [x] [ l [ ] [x] [l I [x] [x] [x] 93 Master Case I 1-116 Page 20 of 34 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level [ ] of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including [ ] either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature [ ] (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] D 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? 20 [x] [x] Master Case 11-116 Page 21 of 34 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [ ] j ] [ ] [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 Master Case 11-116 Page 22 of 34 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 34 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 a single- family residential home. 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 (OS) and Residential Estate (RE) will not induce any growth and will not change the character of the annexation area. The existing movie ranch parcels would have the Movie Ranch (MR) Overlay placed on the site to recognize the existing filming operations. Development, if any, 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. Il. 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-] and A-2). The proposed project includes pre -zoning the project area Open Space (OS) and Residential Estate (RE) upon annexation to the City. The majority of the property within the annexation area has been either been developed for a single-family residential use, used for filming operations, utility corridors or open space. Therefore, minimal agricultural uses exist in the annexation area. However, 23 Master Case I I-116 Page 24 of 34 zoning of the properties with the RE 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 tum 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. The proposal to amend the City's SOI, annex land to the City, and prezone land consistent with the Ci 's General Plan would therefore have a no i fact with regard to 24 Master Case 11-116 Page 25 of 34 25 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 Prezone will not RESOURCES 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 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 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. . No new development is proposed with the SOI, annexation, and pre- zone application. The proposal would not affect an City -designated Significant Ecological Area (SEA). Therefore, there would be no impact related to biological resources as a result of the proposed annexation, SOI, and prezone. V. CULTURAL a d) No Impact: The proposed project would not directly cause a RESOURCES substantial adverse chane in the significance of an known cultural 25 Master Case 11-116 Page 26 of 34 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 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. 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 and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade would occur with approval of this project. The proposed project 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, Master Case 11-116 Page 27 of 34 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 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 prezone associated with the annexation area. The City of Santa Clarita zoning and General Plan designations would be consistent with the existing development and uses in the 27 41 Master Case 11-116 Page 28 of 34 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 prezone 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 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 a-1) 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 M 42, Master Case 11-116 Page 29 of 34 permits have been granted). The proposed City 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. 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 prezone. The proposed project would result not result in any impact to 29 LWJ Master Case I1-116 Page 30 of 34 30 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 prezone for the North Saugus annexation area to the City of Santa Clarita. The project area is established with a residential use, animal training facility and filming operations in the County of Los Angeles, predominantly located in the Angeles National Forest. The proposed annexation would include privately held parcels in the Angeles National Forest located north of the existing City boundary once the North Copperhill Annexation is recorded. The development pattern in this community is substantially consistent with the development within the area, consisting of rural residential development with open spaces. The annexation of these parcels would serve as the northernmost limits of this portion of the City and would not divide any community. Further, the proposed MR zoning overlay would be consistent with the existing approved filming operations. 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 proposed annexation will change the jurisdictional boundary from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita. 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 Prezone and uses in the ro'ect area would not result in the loss of availability of a locally I 30 Master Case 11-116 Page 31 of 34 31 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 groundbome vibration or groundbome 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. 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 prezone for the proposed annexation area. No new development is proposed with the annexation area. The project area is rural in nature. 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 Sheriffs Department, however, fire services would remain unaffected since the annexation area is currently being covered by the Los Angeles County Fire 31 Master Case 11-116 Page 32 of 34 32 - Ik% Department under the City's participation in the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District. Upon annexation, the responsibilities for road maintenance, streetlight patrols would transfer to the City for public street, if any. 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. The proposed project does not include new development of residential units that would require park development fees or implementation of new recreational facilities. No active recreational facilities are located within the annexation area, however the annexation area is located immediately adjacent to the Haskell Canyon Open Space, 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 prezone 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 32 - Ik% Master Case I1-116 Page 33 of 34 33 (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 prezone. Given that no new development is proposed with this annexation, there would be no impact related to water. The Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power are currently processing a request to expend electrical transmission capacity know as the Barren Ridge project. The US Forest Service is the lead agency on the combined EIR/EIS document. A portion of project would occur within the annexation area. The improvements would be an upgrade to and installation of new electrical transmission towers and the installation of a new switching station facility. The project would not require or result in the construction of new 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 prezone and FINDINGS OF 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 33 Master Case 11-116 Page 34 of 34 34 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 prezone 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' finding is antic i ated. 34 I 40 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Master Case 12-110; North Saugus Annexation APPLICATION: Annexation 12-001, Sphere of Influence Amendment 12-001, and Prezone 12-001 PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita PROJECT LOCATION: Approximately 824 acres which is located generally north of Copperhill Drive, east of Haskell Canyon Road and north of the North Copperhill Annexation area adjacent to the Saugus community, the majority of which is in the Angeles National Forest. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Santa Clarita is proposing to annex approximately 824 acres of land located adjacent to the North Copperhill Annexation area adjacent to the Saugus community in the City of Santa Clarita, The prezoning of the property in the annexation area would include approximately 136 acres of Residential Estate (RE) zoning designation (of which approximately 95 acres would include the Movie Ranch (MR) Overlay Zone) and approximately 688 acres of land with the Open Space (OS) zoning designation (of which approximately 326 acres would include the MR overlay). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On September 18, 2012, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Prezone for Master Case 12-110 which includes the North Saugus Annexation area. A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and was posted for public review from August 28, 2012 to September 18, 2012. 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: March 26, 2013 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, Fred Follstad, Associate Planner. Dated: March 4, 2013 Armin Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk Publish Date: March 5, 2013