West Creek Tesoro Initial Study

8/9/2019 West Creek Tesoro Initial Study

1/46

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA

Project Title/Master Case Number: West Creek/Tesoro Del Valle Annexation Master Case

10-048, Prezone 10-001, General Plan Amendment 10-001, Annexation 10-001, Sphere of Influence

Amendment 10-001

Lead Agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300

Santa Clarita, CA 91355

Contact person and phone number: James Chow

Associate Planner

(661) 255-4330

Project location: The project area generally known as West Creek, West

Hills, Copperstone, and Tesoro Del Valle, is generally

located east of the Lockheed Industrial Park, west of SanFrancisquito Creek, and north of the North Valencia 2

Specific Plan area, along the northerly boundary of the

City of Santa Clarita, in the unincorporated area of theCounty of Los Angeles.

The proposed project area can also be located on pages4460 and 4279 of the 2010 Thomas Guide Los

Angeles County Street Guide. The proposed project

area is also shown on Figure 1, as provided below.

Applicants name and address: City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division

23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300

Santa Clarita, CA 91355

General Plan designation: RE (Residential Estate); RL (Residential Low);

RS (Residential Suburban); CN (CommercialNeighborhood); CC (Community Commercial);

BP (Business Park)

Zoning: Existing County of Los Angeles zoning for the project

area includes:

OS (Open Space);

A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, 2-acre minimum lot size);RPD (Residential Planned Development)

R-3 (Multi-Family Residential)

C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial)


2/46

Initial StudyMaster Case 10-048ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,

GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 2 of 46

2

Description of project and setting:

This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) fora Sphere of Influence Amendment, General Plan Amendment (GPA), Prezone (PRZ), andAnnexation (ANX) for the West Creek, West Hills, and Tesoro Del Valle communities. The City

of Santa Clarita proposes the annexation of approximately 2,831 acres of land along the northern

boundary of the City of Santa Clarita, north of the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area. Pursuant

to Section 56758 of the Government Code, this area must be consistent with the Citys adoptedSphere of Influence. Therefore a Sphere of Influence Amendment (SOIA) is also proposed as a

part of this project for approximately 2,111 acres of land that is not within the Citys Sphere of

Influence.

Setting:

The proposed project consists of approximately 2,831 acres of partially developed land containingapproximately 1,930 developed residences, a 74,000 square-foot commercial center, two

elementary schools, a junior high school, and a public park. The partially built project area also

includes two undeveloped commercial center sites, approximately 2,090 residences that have been

approved but not yet built, and open space areas. The project area is generally located north ofthe North Valencia 2 Specific Plan community, west of the San Francisquito Canyon and

Northpark communities, and east of the Lockheed Industrial Park and Pitchess Detention Center.

Major roadways through the subject annexation area include Copper Hill Drive, West Hills Drive,Copperstone Drive, Rio Norte Drive, Tesoro Del Valle Drive, Avenida Rancho Tesoro, and

Rancho Tesoro Drive.

The proposed annexation area can be summarized as having three distinct neighborhoods, which

include the West Creek/West Hills neighborhood, the Copperstone neighborhood, and the Tesoro

Del Valle neighborhood, as described below.

West Creek/West Hills Neighborhood

The West Creek/West Hills neighborhood is generally located west of Tesoro Del Valle Drive

and south of Copper Hill Drive and consists of approximately 966 acres of partially developedland. The West Creek/West Hills neighborhood was part of Tract Map No. 52455, which was the

subdivision that created the neighborhood. This neighborhood currently consists of 429

residential units, a 74,000 square-foot retail center, the West Creek Academy elementary school,Rio Norte Junior High School, and a public park. The neighborhood also includes two

undeveloped commercial center sites along Copper Hill Drive as well as 1,850 residences that

have been approved but not yet built.


3/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 3 of 46

3

Copperstone Neighborhood

The Copperstone neighborhood is generally located on the northeast corner of Copperhill and

Decoro Drive. The neighborhood consists of approximately 428 units in a 66-acre subdivision.This neighborhood was created by Tract Map No. 48202 and is fully built out with single-familyand multi-family residences.

Tesoro Del Valle Neighborhood

The Tesoro Del Valle neighborhood is generally located north of Copper Hill Drive and west ofSan Francisquito Canyon Road and consists of approximately 1,800 acres of partially developed

land. The subdivision was created under Tract Map 51644, which includes a phasing plan for

four phases of development. The first phase, known as Planning Area A, is generally located inthe southern portion of the subdivision, around the Tesoro Del Valle Drive and Avenida Rancho

Tesoro loop. Planning Area A consists of approximately 400 acres and is generally built out with

1,077 residences and Tesoro Del Valle Elementary School.

Planning Area A also consists of two private park sites that have not yet been built. These include

a future 29-acre park site located south of Rancho Tesoro Drive and a future 30-acre park site

located adjacent to the Edison easement and San Francisquito Creek. Planning Areas B, C, and Dare undeveloped areas of the Tesoro subdivision, and are primarily located in the northern portion

of the area. This area consists of approximately 1,400 acres of land that has been approved for

approximately 240 residential units that have not yet been built.

Project:

The City of Santa Clarita proposes an annexation of approximately 2,831 acres of unincorporatedterritory generally located north of the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area, along the northerly

boundary of Santa Clarita. As a part of the annexation, the City proposes a General Plan

Amendment and prezone that would designate the project area with City of Santa Clarita zoning

and General Plan designations consistent with Los Angeles County land use planning and existingdevelopment on the project site. A Sphere of Influence Amendment consistent with the boundary

of the proposed annexation is also included as a part of this project.

Currently, the project area is included in the City of Santa Claritas General Plan planning area

and consists of City of Santa Clarita land use designations that include RE (Residential Estate),

RL (Residential Low), RS (Residential Suburban), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CC(Community Commercial) and BP (Business Park). The land use designations for roughly half of

the project area would change with this project. The proposed General Plan Amendment involves

the amendment of several GPA Areas that are illustrated in Figure 5 General Plan AmendmentMap and is summarized in Table 1.0 below.


4/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 4 of 46

4

Table 1.0

GPA Areas

GPA Area

Acreages

BP to RS 239.5

CC to OS 12.6

CN to RMH 15.9

RE to CN 22.6

RE to OS 85.9

RE to RH 8.9

RE to RM 52.0

RE to RMH 10.3

RE to RS 569.1

RL to CN 22.1

RL to OS 93.8

RL to RMH 39.1

RL to RS 24.7RS to OS 91.3

RS to RM 66.5

RS to RMH 16.1

In addition, under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles, the project area consists of the

following zoning designations: A-2 (Heavy Agriculture), OS (Open Space), RPD (ResidentialPlanned Development), R-3 (Multi-Family Residential), and C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial).

The proposed prezone would change the existing zoning to correspond with the City of SantaClarita zoning and designate the project area so that the proposed prezone designations are

consistent with County land use planning, approved County entitlements, and existingdevelopment. The proposed prezone designations for the annexation area include CN, RE, RS,RM (Residential Moderate), RMH (Residential Medium High), RH (Residential High) and OS

(Open Space). More specifically, the proposed prezone area is shown in Figure 3 and

summarized in Table 2.0 below.

Table 2.0

PREZONE

Prezone Area

Acreages

CN 44.7

OS 283.7

RE 1351.7

RH 8.9

RM 118.5

RMH 81.4

RS 942.4

The built portions as well as the entitled portions of the project area were developed under the LosAngeles County land use planning policies and the development of the project area was reviewed

under Environmental Impact Reports prepared for the West Creek and Tesoro Del Valle projects.


5/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 5 of 46

5

All mitigation measures under the previous County certified EIRs would be accepted by the Cityupon annexation with no changes. Appendix A to this Initial Study contains the Mitigation

Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MMRP) for Tracts 52455 and 51644.

As mentioned above, the annexation area also includes two undeveloped commercial center sites,

approximately 2,090 residences that have been approved but not yet built, and two future park

sites. No new development is proposed as a part of this project.

The proposed prezone designations reflect the existing development and/or the approved

development in the area. The densities for each of the proposed prezone designations can be

summarized as shown in Table 3.0 below.

Table 3.0Prezone

designation Density

OS 1 unit per 40 acres

RE 1 unit per 2 acres

RS 5 units per acre

RM 11 units per acre

RMH 20 units per acre

RH 28 units per acre

CN 0.375 : 1 Floor Area Ratio

GPA 10-001 and PRZ 10-001 propose to designate the project area so that City of Santa Claritaresidential, commercial, and open space land use and zoning designations are consistent with Los

Angeles County land use planning, approved County entitlements, and existing development.The developed portions of the project area were built under the Los Angeles County developmentstandards and the development of the project area was reviewed under a separate environmental

document. The undeveloped portions of the project area were reviewed under the County of Los

Angeles development standards and would comply with these standards, unless otherwise

modified by the City. There is no new development proposed with this application to annex thearea to the City of Santa Clarita, amend the Citys Sphere of Influence, prezone the project area

and amend the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Any future development in the area, that was

not already approved by the County of Los Angeles, would be analyzed under a separateenvironmental review.

The last component of the project is a Sphere of Influence Amendment. The existing City ofSanta Clarita Sphere of Influence currently extends north of the City limits, to Copper Hill Drive.

The proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment would amend this boundary and extend the area

north to the northern boundary of the project site, consistent with the boundary of the proposed

annexation. Approximately 1,856 acres of land within the proposed annexation area would beincluded in this SOIA. An additional 255 acres not within the proposed annexation area would

also be included in the SOIA.


6/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 6 of 46

6

Surrounding land uses: Located to the north of the proposed project site is the

Angeles National Forest. Located to the east is the SanFrancisquito Canyon community. To the south of the

project site is the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area,located within the City of Santa Clarita. To the west ofthe proposed project are the Lockheed Industrial Park

and the Pitchess Detention Center.

Other public agencies whose

approval is required:Local Agency Formation CommissionLos Angeles County

700 N. Central Avenue

Glendale, CA 91203


7/46

Figure 1 Project Location/Vicinity Map West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area


8/46

Figure 2 Existing Zoning Map West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area


9/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 9 of 46

9

Figure 3 Pre-Zone Map West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area


10/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 10 of 46

10

Figure 4 Existing General Plan Map West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area


11/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 11 of 46

11

Figure 5 General Plan Amendment Map West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area


12/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 12 of 46

12

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 SignificantImpact Unless Mitigation Measures Incorporated as indicated by the checklist on the

following pages.

[ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality

[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology /Soils

[ ] Hazards & HazardousMaterials

[ ] Hydrology / WaterQuality

[ ] Land Use / Planning

[ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population / Housing

[ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation/Traffic

[ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance

B. DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on theenvironment, 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 oneeffect 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.


13/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 13 of 46

13

[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on theenvironment, 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 NEGATIVEDECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the

proposed project, nothing further is required.

_______________________________________________________

James Chow, Associate Planner

_____________________

Date

_______________________________________________________Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner _____________________Date


14/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 14 of 46

14

C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

PotentiallySignificant

Impact

Less ThanSignificant

with

Mitigation


Impact

NoImpact

I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but

not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rockoutcroppings, and historic buildings within a state

scenic highway?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character orquality of the site and its surroundings?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare thatwould adversely affect day or nighttime views in the

area?

[ ] [ ] [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

Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), asshown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland

Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California

Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ora Williamson Act contract?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment

which, due to their location or nature, could result in

conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

d) Other __________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]


15/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 15 of 46

15


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

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?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air qualityviolation?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of

any criteria pollutant for which the project region isnon-attainment under an applicable federal or state

ambient air quality standard (including releasing

emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial

number of people?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

f) Other __________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

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 inlocal or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by

the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]


16/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 16 of 46

16


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

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 theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish

and Wildlife Service?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

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?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of anynative resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or

with established native resident or migratory wildlife

corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurserysites?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree

preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HabitatConservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation

Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat

conservation plan?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or

Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the

City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

g) Other _________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]


17/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 17 of 46

17


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to

'15064.5?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique geologicfeature?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interredoutside of formal cemeteries? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

e) Other _____________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

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:

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

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 basedon other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to

Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, includingliquefaction?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the

loss of topsoil, either on or off site?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]


18/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 18 of 46

18


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

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, lateralspreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

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?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

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?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

f) Change in topography or ground surface relief

features?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic

yards or more?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than

10% natural grade?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

i) The destruction, covering or modification of any

unique geologic or physical feature?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

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 theenvironment? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the

emissions of greenhouse gasses?

[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:


19/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 19 of 46

19


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through the routine transport, use, or

disposal of hazardous materials?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through reasonably foreseeable upset andaccident conditions involving explosion or the release

of hazardous materials into the environment (including,

but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, orradiation)?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or

acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastewithin one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed

school?

[ ] [ ] [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?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

e) For a project located within an airport land use planor, 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 orworking in the project area?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people

residing or working in the project area?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with

an adopted emergency response plan or emergency

evacuation plan?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]


20/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 20 of 46

20


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

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 orwhere residences are intermixed with wildlands?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potentialhealth hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas

lines, oil pipelines)?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

j) Other ___________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or

interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such

that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or alowering 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)?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the

site or area, including through the alteration of thecourse of a stream or river, in a manner which would

result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

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 therate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which

would result in flooding on- or off-site?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]


21/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 21 of 46

21


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would

exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater

drainage systems or provide substantial additionalsources of polluted runoff?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as

mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or FloodInsurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation

map?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

h) Place, within a 100-year flood hazard area, structureswhich would impede or redirect flood flows?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving flooding, including

flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course

and direction of surface water and/or groundwater?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

l) Impact Stormwater Management in any of thefollowing ways:

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

i) Potential impact of project construction and project

post-construction activity on storm water runoff?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage,

vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipmentmaintenance (including washing), waste handling,

hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas

or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]


22/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 22 of 46

22


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the

flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases

in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

v) Storm water discharges that would significantly

impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial

uses of receiving waters or areas that provide waterquality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage

systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for

the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials bothduring construction and after project occupancy?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the

project:

a) Disrupt or physically divide an established

community (including a low-income or minoritycommunity)?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, orregulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the

project (including, but not limited to the general plan,

specific plan, local coastal program, or zoningordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or

mitigating an environmental effect?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation

plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or

policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the

project:


23/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 23 of 46

23


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

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?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally

important mineral resource recovery site delineated ona local general plan, specific plan or other land use

plan?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

d) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and

inefficient manner?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

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 generalplan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other

agencies?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noiselevels in the project vicinity above levels existing

without the project?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels

existing without the project?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan

or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within twomiles of a public airport or public use airport, would the

project expose people residing or working in the project

area to excessive noise levels?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]


24/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 24 of 46

24


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

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?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,

either directly (for example, by proposing new homes

and businesses) or indirectly (for example, throughextension of roads or other infrastructure)?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,

necessitating the construction of replacement housingelsewhere (especially affordable housing)?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitatingthe construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project

result in:

a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with

the provision of new or physically altered governmentalfacilities, need for new or physically altered

governmental facilities, the construction of which could

cause significant environmental impacts, in order tomaintain acceptable service ratios, response times or

other performance objectives for any of the public

services:

i) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

ii) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

iii) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

iv) Parks? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]


25/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 25 of 46

25


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

XV. RECREATION - Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood andregional parks or other recreational facilities such that

substantial physical deterioration of the facility would

occur or be accelerated?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

b) Include recreational facilities or require the

construction or expansion of recreational facilitieswhich might have an adverse physical effect on the

environment?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

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 thestreet 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] [ ]

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level

of service standard established by the county

congestion management agency for designated roads orhighways?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, includingeither an increase in traffic levels or a change in

location that results in substantial safety risks?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature

(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or

incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]


26/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 26 of 46

26


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs

supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,

bicycle racks)?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the

project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

b) Require or result in the construction of new water orwastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm

water drainage facilities or expansion of existingfacilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve theproject from existing entitlements and resources, or are

new or expanded entitlements needed?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater

treatment provider which serves or may serve the

project that it has adequate capacity to serve theprojects projected demand in addition to the providers

existing commitments?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted

capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste

disposal needs?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and

regulations related to solid waste?

[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]


27/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 27 of 46

27


Impact


withMitigation


Impact

NoImpact

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade thequality 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 importantexamples of the major periods of California history or

prehistory?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

b) Does the project have impacts that are individuallylimited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively

considerable" means that the incremental effects of a

project are considerable when viewed in connectionwith the effects of past projects, the effects of other

current projects, and the effects of probable future

projects)?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

c) Does the project have environmental effects which

will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,

either directly or indirectly?

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]

XIX. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DE MINIMUS FINDING

a) Will the project have an adverse effect either

individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife

resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose ofthis question as all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,

amphibians, and related ecological communities,

including the habitat upon which the wildlife dependsfor its continued viability.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]


28/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 28 of 46

28

D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:

Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts

I. AESTHETICS Impacts related to aesthetics that were not addressed in previouslycertified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are

considered to be less than significant. The proposed project consists

of the annexation, prezone, General Plan Amendment and Sphere ofInfluence Amendment for the West Creek, West Hills, and Tesoro

Del Valle areas which consists of approximately 2,831 acres of land

under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The annexation area is partially developed with approximately 1,930 residences, a

commercial center, two elementary schools, a junior high school, and

public park. The project proposes no new development, however,uses that have already been approved but have yet to be built includebut are not limited to 2,090 residences, two commercial centers, and

two parks. Prior to development of additional uses within the

undeveloped areas, the design of any new development would besubject to the architectural design guidelines and conditions of

approval previously established under the County of Los Angeles.

Where applicable, new construction may be subject to the Citysarchitectural design guidelines. The annexation area is surrounded

by and includes several ridgelines. However, no new development is

proposed on any of these ridgelines and any future development near

these ridgelines would be subject to the City of Santa ClaritaRidgeline Preservation Ordinance. Therefore no significant impacts

on a scenic vista are anticipated as a result of the project.

The proposed land use designations would not substantially damage

scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary

ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within astate scenic highway. Although ridgelines are located within the

annexation area, no new development would occur as a part of this

project. Approximately 2,090 residences that have been previouslyapproved, have not yet been built. The eventual construction of these

residences will change the existing aesthetic environment. A

previous environmental review has been conducted on these unbuilt

residences. Impacts related to scenic resources are anticipated to beless than significant.

The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existingvisual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The

Tesoro Del Valle area is mostly built out, with the exception of 240


29/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 29 of 46

29

residences and two park sites. The West Creek/West Hills area is partially built out with the exception of 1,850 residences and two

commercial centers, all of which was analyzed as part of the

environmental review conducted for the West Creek Project. Impactsrelated to the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings

including new sources of light or glare that may affect day time or

night time views are anticipated to be less than significant.

II. AGRICULTURAL

RESOURCES

Impacts related to agricultural resources that were not addressed inpreviously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project

are considered to be less than significant. There are currently no

agricultural operations being conducted on the proposed project area,and the City of Santa Claritas General Plan does not identify any

important farmlands or any lands for farmland use. In addition, the

site is not within an area of Prime Farmland, Farmland of StatewideImportance, Unique Farmland, Grazing Land, or Farmland of LocalImportance as identified by the California Department of

Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection on the Los

Angeles County Important Farmland 2002 map (CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection,

2004). Therefore, the project will not have an impact that could

result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

Furthermore, the majority of the project area has been developed with

the exception of 2,090 residences, two commercial center sites, two

park sites, watershed areas, and hillside areas and ridgelines.Although Planning Areas B, C, and D are zoned for agricultural use

(A-2-2), this area has been approved for residential uses. The

proposed designations would be consistent with the types of uses anddevelopment currently on the project site or previously approved for

the site.

The north portion of the project area (Planning Areas B, C, and D) of

Tesoro Del Valle) under the County of Los Angeles is zoned A-2, an

agricultural zoning designation for heavy agriculture, as shown inFigure 2. However, the approved use for this area is for

approximately 239 residences and does not consist of agriculture use.

Furthermore, the Citys General Plan does not identify any

agricultural land use designations for the project site and there is noWilliamson Act contract land for this area. Therefore, the proposed

project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or

Williamson Act contracts, and would have a less than significantimpact.


30/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 30 of 46

30

III. AIR QUALITY Impacts related to air quality that were not addressed in previouslycertified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are

considered to be less than significant. The project site is located

within the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Theproposal is to amend the SOI and annex 2,831 acres to the City of

Santa Clarita and designate the project area with applicable zoning

and General Plan designations consistent with existing developmentthat would activate upon annexation of the project area. No new

development is proposed with this application. However, there are

approximately 2,090 residences, two commercial centers and two

parks that have yet to be built within the annexation area. Theproposal to amend the Citys SOI, annex land to the City, and amend

the Citys General Plan and prezone land consistent with County-

approved land use planning would therefore have a less than

significant impact with regard to the obstruction of theimplementation of the SCAQMDs air quality plan or directly violate

any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing orprojected air quality violation.

The proposed project would not directly result in a cumulativelyconsiderable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the

project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state

ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that

exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Impacts relatedto a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant

are considered less than significant.

The project area has primarily been developed with uses consistent

with the surrounding uses in and outside of the unincorporated

County territory and City of Santa Clarita limits. No newdevelopment is proposed with this annexation, prezone and General

Plan Amendment. There is however vacant land within the proposed

annexation area that may be developed as part of previously

approved and entitled projects including approximately 1,850residences and two commercial center sites in the West Creek/West

Hills neighborhood, 240 residences and two park sites in the Tesoro

Del Valle neighborhoods. The project as proposed is not anticipatedto significantly expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations or directly create objectionable odors affecting a

substantial number of people.

No significant impacts related to air quality is anticipated. No further

environmental review is necessary.

IV. BIOLOGICAL Impacts related to biological resources that were not addressed in


31/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 31 of 46

31

RESOURCES previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed projectare considered to be less than significant. No new development is

proposed with the project. The proposal would not have a substantial

adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, onany 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 WildlifeService. No significant impact on wildlife resource is anticipated to

occur.

The project entails the annexation of 2,831 acres of land into the Cityof Santa Clarita and proposes no new development. However, 2,090

residences, two commercial centers, and two parks have yet to be

developed in the project area. The proposed project would not have a

direct adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive naturalcommunity identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations

or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish andWildlife Service and would not interfere substantially or have

significant impacts with the movement of any native resident or

migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residentor migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife

nursery sites. Therefore, any impacts would be considered less than

significant.

No new development is proposed, therefore the project would not

have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as

defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but notlimited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,

filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No significant

impact related to federally protected wetlands is anticipated.

Upon annexation, the project area would be required to comply with

all City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code and City

requirements. The proposed zoning and General Plan designationswould 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 Claritapolicies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree

preservation policy or ordinance. Upon annexation, any oak trees in

would be protected by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinanceand Preservation and Protection Guidelines.

The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of anadopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community


32/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 32 of 46

32

Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitatconservation plan.

The proposed application would not change any state or federallydesignation on the project area. No new development is proposed

with the SOI, annexation, prezone and General Plan Amendment

application. The proposal would not affect a County-designatedSignificant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area

(SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation

Map.

Impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant.

No further environmental review is necessary.

V. CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Impacts related to cultural resources that were not addressed in

previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed projectare considered to be less than significant. The proposed projectwould not directly cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of any known cultural or archaeological resource

pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the Government Code. However,future development of still-undeveloped areas within the West Creek,

West Hills, and Tesoro Del Valle neighborhoods may have a less

than significant impact on an archeological resource pursuant to15064.5. The proposal would not directly or indirectly destroy or

impact a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic

feature.

General Plan Amendment 10-001 is subject to requirements of SB18,

Local and Tribal Intergovernmental Consultation Law, including

consultation with local Native American tribes identified by theCalifornia Native American Heritage Commission. The proposed

project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact related to

cultural resources.

VI. GEOLOGY AND

SOILS

Impacts related to geology and soils that were not addressed in

previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed projectare considered to be less than significant. The proposed project

consists of an annexation of the West Creek, West Hills, and Tesoro

Del Valle areas into the City of Santa Clarita. No new developmentis proposed with the prezone and General Plan Amendment

application. However, development may occur in the near future as

part of the completed construction of the West Creek project and thefinal phases of the Tesoro subdivision. Because of the potential of

development in the near future, the project may have a less than

significant impact with regard to exposure of people or structures to

potential substantial adverse effects.


33/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 33 of 46

33

The proposed project does not include any new development

proposals. The project area has been developed with a range of

residential and commercial uses. The development was reviewed andapproved by Los Angeles County. Review of impacts from

earthquake-related causes on development of the site was included in

a separate environmental analysis.

No new development is proposed with this project so, the proposal

would not directly result in soil erosion. It is anticipated however

that in the foreseeable future, development would occur as part of thecompleted construction of the West Creek project and the final

phases of the Tesoro subdivision. Any new development that has not

already been entitled would be subject to the review of the City and

all applicable development code requirements. Therefore, nosignificant impacts related to substantial wind or water soil erosion or

the loss of topsoil is anticipated on or off site as a result of theproject.

No impacts related to geologic units or soil that is unstable, or thatwould 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, asdefined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997),

creating substantial risks to life or property.

No new development is proposed with this project. No change in

topography or ground surface relief features or earth movement (cut

and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more or grading on a slopegreater than 10% natural grade would occur with approval of this

project.

The proposed project would not result in a significant impact relatedto Geology and Soils. No further environmental review is necessary.

VII. GREENHOUSE

GAS EMISSIONS

Greenhouse gases (so called because of their role in trapping heat

near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are

implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as globalwarming. These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in thetemperature of the earths atmosphere. The principal greenhouse

gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous

oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e).


34/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 34 of 46

34

Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motorvehicles, 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 arethe second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-

fourth of total emissions.

California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed atleast 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-20-06and EO S-01-07.

AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one

of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation thatCalifornia has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to

maintain Californias reputation as a national and international

leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship.Most notably AB 32 mandates that by 2020, Californias GHG

emissions be reduced to 1990 levels.

The proposed annexation, prezone, General Plan Amendment, and

Sphere of Influence Amendment does not propose any new

development. The developed portions of the project area were builtunder the Los Angeles County development standards and the

development of the project area was reviewed under a separate

environmental document. The undeveloped portions of the projectarea were reviewed under the County of Los Angeles development

standards and would comply with these standards, unless otherwise

modified by the City. Any future development in the area, that was

not already approved by the County of Los Angeles, would beanalyzed under a separate environmental review. The proposal to

prezone the project site and adopt a General Plan Amendment for the

purposes of annexation would not generate greenhouse gasemissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant

impact on the environment. The proposed project would not conflict

with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposeof reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses

Therefore, the proposed amendments are anticipated to have a less

than significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions.

VIII. HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS

Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that were notaddressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the

proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The


35/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 35 of 46

35

proposed project would not store, use, or generate hazardousmaterials, and would not utilize any acutely hazardous materials. No

new development is proposed with this prezone and General Plan

Amendment application. The City of Santa Clarita zoning andGeneral 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 throughthe 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 andaccident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous

materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil,

pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation). No new development is

proposed as part of this project.

The proposed project does not propose any new development and the project would not store, use, or generate substantial amounts of

hazardous materials, and would not utilize any acutely hazardous

materials. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

No impact related to a site which is included on a list of hazardous

materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section

65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to thepublic or the environment would occur with the prezone and General

Plan Amendment application.

The project area is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it

within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The

prezone and General Plan Amendment would not result in a safetyhazard for people residing or working in the project area.

The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The

prezone and General Plan Amendment would not result in a safetyhazard for people residing or working in the project area.

No new development is proposed with this project. The proposalwould 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 areadjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with


36/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 36 of 46

36

wildlands.

The prezone and General Plan Amendment would not expose people

to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g. electricaltransmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines).

Impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials are not anticipatedto be significant. No further environmental review is necessary.

IX. HYDROLOGY

AND WATER

QUALITY

Impacts related to hydrology and water quality that were notaddressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the


proposed annexation, prezone and General Plan Amendment wouldnot violate any water quality standards or waste discharge

requirements.

No new development is proposed. The project would notsubstantially 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 thecourse 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 surfacerunoff 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 providesubstantial additional sources of polluted runoff. No further

environmental review is necessary.

The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality

in the project area because the proposed zoning and General Plan


37/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 37 of 46

37

designations would be consistent with the existing development andland use planning in the project area.

No new development is proposed with this application. Theapplication 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 theproposed 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 riskof loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a

result of the failure of a levee or dam.

No new development is proposed. The project would not createinundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow in the project area.

No new development is associated with this prezone and General

Plan Amendment application. No changes in the rate of flow,

currents, or the course and direction of surface water and/orgroundwater would occur.

No modification of a wash, channel creek or river is proposed. No

impact would result from the proposed annexation, SOI amendment,prezone, or General Plan Amendment.

The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact toStormwater 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 ClaritaStormwater Drainage Fee. The Citys stormwater program provides

street catch-basin cleaning a minimum of once a year, thereby

reducing trash, debris, and potential neighborhood flooding.

Furthermore, because no new development is proposed as a part of

this project, the proposed annexation would not create any impacts to

Stomwater Management of any of the following ways:

i) No potential impact of project construction and project post-

construction activity on storm water runoffii) No potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle

or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including

washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage,delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas


38/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 38 of 46

38

iii) No significant environmentally harmful increase in the flowvelocity or volume of storm water runoff

iv) No significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion

of the project site or surrounding areasv) No storm water discharges that would significantly impair or

contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving

waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. ripariancorridors, wetlands, etc.)

vi) The proposal would not cause harm to the biological integrity of

drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies

vii) Provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy is not

necessary.

The proposed project would not result in a significant impact relatedto hydrology and water quality. No further environmental review is

necessary.

X. LAND USE AND

PLANNING

Impacts related to land use and planning that were not addressed in

previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed projectare considered to be less than significant. The project does not

propose any new development with this annexation, Sphere of

Influence Amendment, prezone and General Plan Amendment. Theproposed open space, commercial and residential zoning designations

would be consistent with the existing development and County land

use planning in the project area, as well as the development

surrounding the project area. Furthermore, a portion of the projectarea is located within the Castaic Area Community Standards District

(CSD), a planning area for zoning regulation purposes that was

established in 2004 by the County of Los Angeles. Morespecifically, the majority of the Tesoro neighborhood falls within the

CSD. This portion of the project site is exempt from the provisions

of the CSD since this residential subdivision was approved prior toestablishment of the CSD. Therefore, all zoning regulations currently

in place under these prior County approvals have already been

established for the project; therefore the project site is not subject tothe CSD. Impacts related to the disruption or physical division of an

established community (including low-income or minority

community) are not anticipated to occur since no new development

that has not already been approved would be constructed.

The proposed annexation of the West Creek/West Hills, Copperstone

and Tesoro areas includes a request for a Sphere of InfluenceAmendment, prezone, and General Plan Amendment to change the

existing County of Los Angeles zoning and jurisdictional authority.


39/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 39 of 46

39

The change to City zoning and land use would result in a less thansignificant impact as it is consistent with existing County of Los

Angeles land use plan, policy, and regulations.

Currently the area consists of City General Plan land use designations

that include BP, CN, CC, RS, RL, and RE. The land use designations

for the majority of the annexation area would not change with this project. However, the proposed General Plan Amendment involves

the amendment of several GPA Areas which can be summarized as

follows:Table 1.0

GPA Areas

GPA Area

Acreages

BP to RS 239.5

CC to OS 12.6

CN to RMH 15.9

RE to CN 22.6

RE to OS 85.9

RE to RH 8.9

RE to RM 52.0

RE to RMH 10.3

RE to RS 569.1

RL to CN 22.1

RL to OS 93.8

RL to RMH 39.1

RL to RS 24.7

RS to OS 91.3RS to RM 66.5

RS to RMH 16.1

The proposed General Plan designations would be consistent with the

existing approved or entitled development within the proposed

annexation area. The attached General Plan Amendment mapidentifies each of the above-mentioned GPA Areas.

In addition, under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles, the project area consists of the following zoning designations: A-2

(Heavy Agriculture), OS (Open Space), RPD (Residential PlannedDevelopment), R-3 (Multi-Family Residential), and C-2

(Neighborhood Commercial). The proposed prezone would changethe existing zoning to correspond with the City of Santa Clarita

zoning and designate the project area so that proposed prezone

designations are consistent with County land use planning andexisting development. The proposed prezone for the annexation area

include CN, RE, RS, RM, RMH, RH and OS. The attached prezone


40/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 40 of 46

40

map identifies the proposed zoning for the annexation area. Uponannexation of the project area, the new zoning would be activated.

The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitatconservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or

policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project, such as the

Army Corps of Engineers, or the California Department of Fish andGames jurisdiction over San Francisquito Creek because the

proposal would not change the applicable state or federal

designations in the project area.

The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related

to land use and planning. No further environmental review is

necessary.

XI. MINERAL ANDENERGY

RESOURCES

Impacts related to mineral and energy resources that were notaddressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The

proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a

known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and theresidents of the state. No further environmental review is necessary.

The proposed SOI Amendment, Annexation, Prezone and GeneralPlan Amendment and uses in the project area would not result in the

loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery

site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use

plan and would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful andinefficient manner. No further environmental review is necessary.

No impact related to mineral and energy resources is anticipated. Nofurther environmental review is necessary.

XII. NOISE Impacts related to noise that were not addressed in previouslycertified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are

considered to be less than significant. The proposed project proposes

no new development and therefore there would be no exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards

established in the Citys General Plan or noise ordinance, or

applicable standards of other agencies. Furthermore, because no newdevelopment is proposed with the annexation, there would be no

exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne

vibration or groundborne noise levels.

The project would not create a substantial permanent increase in

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing

without the project.


41/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 41 of 46

41

No new development is anticipated with this prezone and General

Plan Amendment application, therefore a substantial temporary or

periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity abovelevels existing without the project would not occur.

The project area is not located within an airport land use plan orwithin two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore,

the prezone and General Plan Amendment would not expose people

residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and

would not expose people residing or working in the project area to

excessive noise levels.

No impact related to noise is anticipated. No further environmental

review is necessary.

XIII. POPULATION

AND HOUSING

Impacts related to population and housing that were not addressed in

previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed projectare considered to be less than significant. No new development is

proposed with the prezone and General Plan Amendment. The

annexation area currently consists of approximately 1,930 residences,with another 2,090 residences approved but not yet built. The project

area contains and is surrounded by infrastructure that is adequate for

the existing and previously approved residential and commercial

development by Los Angeles County in the project area.

The proposed residential and commercial designations would be

consistent with the existing development and uses in the project area.The application would not displace existing housing, necessitating

the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially

affordable housing).

The proposed residential and commercial designations would not

displace people, necessitating the construction or replacementhousing elsewhere, as the proposal would be consistent with the

existing uses and County-approved development in the project area.

No impact related to population and housing is anticipated. Nofurther environmental review is necessary.

XIV. PUBLIC

SERVICES

Impacts related to public services that were not addressed in

previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project

are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would

not create any significant adverse impacts to public services. School


42/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 42 of 46

42

district and many government services will remain unaffected. Atemporary fire station is located along Copper Hill Drive, near

Camino Del Arte, as a permanent station is being built. As

mentioned in the Tesoro EIR MMRP, the developer is required to pay a Fire mitigation fee for the expansion of fire protection

facilities.

The annexation area will experience an increase in police patrols and

decrease in non-emergency response time due to the Citys increased

police service levels under its contract with the L.A. County Sheriffs

Department. Upon annexation, the responsibilities for roadmaintenance, streetlight patrols and maintenance of parks would

transfer to the City. The annexation would result in a negotiated tax

transfer between the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los

Angeles which would be used to partially fund public services.

The proposed project would not result in a significant impact relatedto public services. No further environmental review is necessary.

XV. RECREATION Impacts related to recreation that were not addressed in previouslycertified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are

considered to be less than significant. No new development is

proposed with the proposed project that would cause direct increasein usage of existing parks and recreational facilities. However,

payment of lower parks and recreation program fees by residents

within the project site once they are annexed to the City of Santa

Clarita may increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other City recreational facilities that may cause a minor

impact on these facilities.

The proposed project does not include new development of

residential units that would require park development fees or

implementation of new recreational facilities. The proposedannexation area does include a public park located adjacent to Rio

Norte Junior High School, which is in good condition. In addition,

two 30-acre park sites that have been approved but not yet built, areincluded in the annexation area. The park sites and their associated

impacts have been analyzed as part of the Tesoro EIR. It is not

anticipated that there would be any additional adverse physical

effects as a result of annexation these park sites. Upon annexation,the responsibility for maintenance of parks would transfer to the City.

As the West Creek and Tesoro projects build out, city-level park

impact fees would be paid. Impacts related to the expansion orupgrade of recreational facilities or parks is considered less than

significant.


43/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 43 of 46

43


to recreation. No further environmental review is necessary.

XVI.TRANSPORTATION /

TRAFFIC

Impacts related to transportation/traffic that were not addressed inpreviously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project

are considered to be less than significant. The project site has beendeveloped with residential, commercial and open space uses which

were analyzed under separate environmental documents. The

prezone and General Plan Amendment would not cause an increasein 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 onroads, or congestion at intersections.

No new development is proposed, therefore, the prezone and GeneralPlan Amendment would not exceed, either individually orcumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county

congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns,

including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location

that results in substantial safety risks.

No new development is proposed, therefore, the application would

not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp

curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farmequipment).

No new development is proposed with this application. The projectarea is adjacent to existing infrastructure and City of Santa Clarita

incorporated land. The prezone and General Plan Amendment would

not result in inadequate emergency access.

No new development is proposed with the prezone and General Plan

Amendment, therefore, the proposal would not result in inadequateparking capacity.

Upon annexation, the City may construct new bus stops and

improvements to existing bus stops. This may have a minor impact;however, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

Upon annexation, the City may make improvements to sidewalks and bike lanes. These improvements would reduce hazards and barriers

for pedestrians. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than


44/46


GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001Page 44 of 46

44

significant.


to transportation and traffic. No further environmental review isnecessary.

XVII. UTILITIES

AND SERVICE

SYSTEMS

Impacts related to utilities and service systems that were notaddressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the


project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of theapplicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, as the site is

already developed.

No new development is proposed with this SOI amendment,

annexation, prezone and General Plan Amendment. Therefore, this

application would not require or result in the construction of newwater or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existingfacilities, that have not already been considered, the construction of

which could cause significant environmental effects.

The project would not require or result in the construction of new

storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant environmental effectsbecause no new development is proposed.

Impacts related to water supply that were not addressed in previously

certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project areconsidered to be less than significant. Water supply was previously

evaluated as part of the West Creek project and Tesoro EIRs and

mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring andReporting Program for each project, and included in Appendix A.

The proposed General Plan Amendment, Prezone, and Sphere of

Influence Amendment do not include any new development, andtherefore, will not result i

West Creek Tesoro Initial Study

Documents

Transcript of West Creek Tesoro Initial Study