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 Clarita

23920 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 San
Francisquito Creek, and north of the North Valencia 2
Specific Plan area, along the northerly boundary of the
City of Santa Clarita, in the unincorporated area of the
County of Los Angeles.

The proposed project area can also be located on pages

4460 and 4279 of the 2010 Thomas Guide – Los
Angeles County Street Guide. The proposed project
area is also shown on Figure 1, as provided below.

Applicant’s 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 (Commercial
Neighborhood); CC (Community Commercial);
BP (Business Park)

Zoning: Existing County of Los Angeles zoning for the project

area includes:
OS (Open Space);
A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, 2-acre minimum lot size);
RPD (Residential Planned Development)
R-3 (Multi-Family Residential)
C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial)
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 2 of 46

Description of project and setting:

This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for
a Sphere of Influence Amendment, General Plan Amendment (GPA), Prezone (PRZ), and
Annexation (ANX) for the West Creek, West Hills, and Tesoro Del Valle communities. The City
of Santa Clarita proposes 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 City’s adopted
Sphere 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 City’s Sphere of
Influence.

Setting:
The proposed project consists of approximately 2,831 acres of partially developed land containing
approximately 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 of
the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan community, west of the San Francisquito Canyon and
Northpark communities, and east of the Lockheed Industrial Park and Pitchess Detention Center.
Major roadways through the subject annexation area include Copper Hill Drive, West Hills Drive,
Copperstone Drive, Rio Norte Drive, Tesoro Del Valle Drive, Avenida Rancho Tesoro, and
Rancho Tesoro Drive.

The proposed annexation area can be summarized as having three distinct neighborhoods, which
include the West Creek/West Hills neighborhood, the Copperstone neighborhood, and the Tesoro
Del Valle neighborhood, as described below.

West Creek/West Hills Neighborhood

The West Creek/West Hills neighborhood is generally located west of Tesoro Del Valle Drive
and south of Copper Hill Drive and consists of approximately 966 acres of partially developed
land. The West Creek/West Hills neighborhood was part of Tract Map No. 52455, which was the
subdivision that created the neighborhood. This neighborhood currently consists of 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.

2
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 3 of 46

Copperstone Neighborhood
The Copperstone neighborhood is generally located on the northeast corner of Copperhill and
Decoro Drive. The neighborhood consists of approximately 428 units in a 66-acre subdivision.
This neighborhood was created by Tract Map No. 48202 and is fully built out with single-family
and multi-family residences.

Tesoro Del Valle Neighborhood

The Tesoro Del Valle neighborhood is generally located north of Copper Hill Drive and west of
San Francisquito Canyon Road and consists of approximately 1,800 acres of partially developed
land. The subdivision was created under Tract Map 51644, which includes a phasing plan for
four phases of development. The first phase, known as Planning Area A, is generally located in
the southern portion of the subdivision, around the Tesoro Del Valle Drive and Avenida Rancho
Tesoro loop. Planning Area A consists of approximately 400 acres and is generally built out with
1,077 residences 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 D
are undeveloped areas of the Tesoro subdivision, and are primarily located in the northern portion
of the area. This area consists of approximately 1,400 acres of land that has been approved for
approximately 240 residential units that have not yet been built.

Project:
The City of Santa Clarita proposes an annexation of approximately 2,831 acres of unincorporated
territory 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 existing
development on the project site. A Sphere of Influence Amendment consistent with the boundary
of the proposed annexation is also included as a part of this project.

Currently, the project area is included in the City of Santa Clarita’s General Plan planning area
and consists of City of Santa Clarita land use designations that include RE (Residential Estate),
RL (Residential Low), RS (Residential Suburban), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CC
(Community Commercial) and BP (Business Park). The land use designations for roughly half of
the project area would change with this project. The proposed General Plan Amendment involves
the amendment of several GPA Areas that are illustrated in Figure 5 – General Plan Amendment
Map and is summarized in Table 1.0 below.

3
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 4 of 46

Table 1.0
GPA Area
GPA Areas 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 91.3
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 (Residential
Planned Development), R-3 (Multi-Family Residential), and C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial).

The proposed prezone would change the existing zoning to correspond with the City of Santa
Clarita zoning and designate the project area so that the proposed prezone designations are
consistent with County land use planning, approved County entitlements, and existing
development. The proposed prezone designations for the annexation area include CN, RE, RS,
RM (Residential Moderate), RMH (Residential Medium High), RH (Residential High) and OS
(Open Space). More specifically, the proposed prezone area is shown in Figure 3 and
summarized in Table 2.0 below.

Table 2.0
Prezone Area
PREZONE 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 Los
Angeles County land use planning policies and the development of the project area was reviewed
under Environmental Impact Reports prepared for the West Creek and Tesoro Del Valle projects.

4
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 5 of 46

All mitigation measures under the previous County certified EIRs would be accepted by the City
upon 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 3.0
Prezone
designation Density
OS 1 unit per 40 acres
RE 1 unit per 2 acres
RS 5 units per acre
RM 11 units per acre
RMH 20 units per acre
RH 28 units per acre
CN 0.375 : 1 Floor Area Ratio

GPA 10-001 and PRZ 10-001 propose to designate the project area so that City of Santa Clarita
residential, commercial, and open space land use and zoning designations are consistent with Los
Angeles County land use planning, approved County entitlements, and existing development.
The developed portions of the project area were built under the Los Angeles County development
standards and the development of the project area was reviewed under a separate environmental
document. The undeveloped portions of the project area were reviewed under the County of Los
Angeles development standards and would comply with these standards, unless otherwise
modified by the City. There is no new development proposed with this application to annex the
area to the City of Santa Clarita, amend the City’s Sphere of Influence, prezone the project area
and amend the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Any future development in the area, that was
not already approved by the County of Los Angeles, would be analyzed under a separate
environmental review.

The last component of the project is a Sphere of Influence Amendment. The existing City of
Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence currently extends north of the City limits, to Copper Hill Drive.
The proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment would amend this boundary and extend the area
north to the northern boundary of the project site, consistent with the boundary of the proposed
annexation. Approximately 1,856 acres of land within the proposed annexation area would be
included in this SOIA. An additional 255 acres not within the proposed annexation area would
also be included in the SOIA.

5
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 6 of 46
Surrounding land uses:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Located to the north of the proposed project site is the
Angeles National Forest. Located to the east is the San
Francisquito Canyon community. To the south of the
project site is the North Valencia 2 Specific Plan area,
located within the City of Santa Clarita. To the west of
the proposed project are the Lockheed Industrial Park
and the Pitchess Detention Center.
Local Agency Formation Commission
Los Angeles County
700 N. Central Avenue
Glendale, CA 91203
6
Figure 1 – Project Location/Vicinity Map – West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
Figure 2 – Existing Zoning Map – West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
Initial StudyFigure 3 – Pre-Zone Map – West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 9 of 46

9
 Figure
Initial Study 4 – Existing General Plan Map – West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 10 of 46

10
Figure 5 –General Plan Amendment Map – West Creek / Tesoro del Valle Area
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 11 of 46

11
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 12 of 46

A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or a "Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Measures Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.

[] Aesthetics [] Agriculture Resources [] Air Quality

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

[] Hazards & Hazardous [] Hydrology / Water [] Land Use / Planning

Materials Quality

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

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

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

B. DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

[] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

[] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

[] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

12
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 13 of 46

[] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.

_______________________________________________________ _____________________
James Chow, Associate Planner Date

_______________________________________________________ _____________________
Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner Date

13
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 14 of 46

C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:

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

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [] [] [x] []

not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or [] [] [x] []

quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [] [] [x] []

would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

e) Other ________________________ [] [] [] [x]

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural

resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [] [] [] [x]

Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [] [] [x] []

a Williamson Act contract?

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment [] [] [] [x]

which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

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

14
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 15 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [] [] [x] []

applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [] [] [x] []

substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of [] [] [x] []

any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [] [] [x] []

concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [] [] [x] []

number of people?

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

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the

project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or [] [] [x] []

through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?

15
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 16 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [] [] [x] []

habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally [] [] [x] []

protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any [] [] [x] []

native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances [] [] [] [x]

protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [] [] [x] []

Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the [] [] [] [x]
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?

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

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [] [] [x] []

significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15064.5?

16
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 17 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [] [] [x] []

significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
'15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [] [] [x] []

paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred [] [] [x] []

outside of formal cemeteries?

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

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial [] [] [x] []

adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on [] [] [] [x]

the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

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

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including [] [] [] [x]

liquefaction?

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

b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [] [] [x] []

loss of topsoil, either on or off site?

17
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 18 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, [] [] [x] []

or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- [] [] [x] []

1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [] [] [] [x]

use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of wastewater?

f) Change in topography or ground surface relief [] [] [x] []

features?

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

yards or more?

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

10% natural grade?

i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [] [] [x] []

unique geologic or physical feature?

j) Other __________________________ [] [] [] [x]

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS- Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the [] [] [X] []
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the [] [] [X] []
emissions of greenhouse gasses?

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:

18
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 19 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [] [] [x] []

environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [] [] [x] []

environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving explosion or the release
of hazardous materials into the environment (including,
but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or
radiation)?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [] [] [x] []

acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [] [] [] [x]

hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?

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

or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [] [] [] [x]

would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [] [] [] [x]

an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

19
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 20 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [] [] [x] []

loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [] [] [x] []

health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil pipelines)?

j) Other ___________________________ [] [] [] [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?

20
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 21 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

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?

f) 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?

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] []

l) 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?

21
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 22 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

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?

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the

project:

a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [] [] [x] []

community (including a low-income or minority
community)?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or [] [] [x] []

regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [] [] [x] []

plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?

XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the

project:

22
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 23 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [] [] [] [x]

resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally [] [] [] [x]

important mineral resource recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?

d) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] [x] []

inefficient manner?

XII. NOISE - Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels [] [] [x] []

in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [] [] [x] []

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise [] [] [x] []

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [] [] [x] []

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?

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

or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?

23
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 24 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [] [] [] [x]

would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [] [] [x] []

either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, [] [] [] [x]

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

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [] [] [] [x]

the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project

result in:

a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with

the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:

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

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

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

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

24
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 25 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

XV. RECREATION - Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and [] [] [x] []

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 [] [] [x] []

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 [] [] [x] []

relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level [] [] [x] []

of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including [] [] [] [x]

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 [] [] [] [x]

(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

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

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

25
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 26 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [] [] [x] []

supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?

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

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the

project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [] [] [x] []

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [] [] [x] []

wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm [] [] [x] []

water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [] [] [x] []

project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [] [] [x] []

treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [] [] [x] []

capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and [] [] [x] []

regulations related to solid waste?

26
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 27 of 46

Potentially Less Than Less Than No

Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [] [] [] [x]

quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [] [] [] [x]

limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects which [] [] [] [x]

will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?

XIX. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ‘DE MINIMUS’ FINDING

a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [] [] [] [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.”

27
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 28 of 46

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

Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts

I. AESTHETICS Impacts related to aesthetics that were not addressed in previously

certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The proposed project consists
of the annexation, prezone, General Plan Amendment and Sphere of
Influence Amendment for the West Creek, West Hills, and Tesoro
Del Valle areas which consists of approximately 2,831 acres of land
under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The annexation area is
partially developed with approximately 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 include
but 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 be
subject to the architectural design guidelines and conditions of
approval previously established under the County of Los Angeles.
Where applicable, new construction may be subject to the City’s
architectural design guidelines. The annexation area is surrounded
by and includes several ridgelines. However, no new development is
proposed on any of these ridgelines and any future development near
these ridgelines would be subject to the City of Santa Clarita
Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance. Therefore no significant impacts
on a scenic vista are anticipated as a result of the project.

The proposed land use designations would not substantially damage

scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary
ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state 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 previously
approved, have not yet been built. The eventual construction of these
residences will change the existing aesthetic environment. A
previous environmental review has been conducted on these unbuilt
residences. Impacts related to scenic resources are anticipated to be
less than significant.

The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing

visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The
Tesoro Del Valle area is mostly built out, with the exception of 240

28
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 29 of 46

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. Impacts
related to the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings
including new sources of light or glare that may affect day time or
night time views are anticipated to be less than significant.

II. AGRICULTURAL Impacts related to agricultural resources that were not addressed in
RESOURCES previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. There are currently no
agricultural operations being conducted on the proposed project area,
and the City of Santa Clarita’s General Plan does not identify any
important farmlands or any lands for farmland use. In addition, the
site is not within an area of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, Unique Farmland, Grazing Land, or Farmland of Local
Importance as identified by the California Department of
Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection on the Los
Angeles County Important Farmland 2002 map (California
Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection,
2004). Therefore, the project will not have an impact that could
result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

Furthermore, the majority of the project area has been developed with
the exception of 2,090 residences, two commercial center sites, two
park sites, watershed areas, and hillside areas and ridgelines.
Although Planning Areas B, C, and D are zoned for agricultural use
(A-2-2), this area has been approved for residential uses. The
proposed designations would be consistent with the types of uses and
development currently on the project site or previously approved for
the site.

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

Tesoro Del Valle) under the County of Los Angeles is zoned A-2, an
agricultural zoning designation for heavy agriculture, as shown in
Figure 2. However, the approved use for this area is for
approximately 239 residences and does not consist of agriculture use.
Furthermore, the City’s General Plan does not identify any
agricultural land use designations for the project site and there is no
Williamson Act contract land for this area. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or
Williamson Act contracts, and would have a less than significant
impact.

29
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 30 of 46

III. AIR QUALITY Impacts related to air quality that were not addressed in previously
certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The project site is located
within the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The
proposal is to amend the SOI and annex 2,831 acres to the City of
Santa Clarita and designate the project area with applicable zoning
and General Plan designations consistent with existing development
that would activate upon annexation of the project area. No new
development is proposed with this application. However, there are
approximately 2,090 residences, two commercial centers and two
parks that have yet to be built within the annexation area. The
proposal to amend the City’s SOI, annex land to the City, and amend
the City’s General Plan and prezone land consistent with County-
approved land use planning would therefore have a less than
significant impact with regard to the obstruction of the
implementation of the SCAQMD’s air quality plan or directly violate
any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.

The proposed project would not directly result in a cumulatively

considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Impacts related
to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
are considered less than significant.

The project area has primarily been developed with uses consistent
with the surrounding uses in and outside of the unincorporated
County territory and City of Santa Clarita limits. No new
development is proposed with this annexation, prezone and General
Plan Amendment. There is however vacant land within the proposed
annexation area that may be developed as part of previously
approved and entitled projects including approximately 1,850
residences and two commercial center sites in the West Creek/West
Hills neighborhood, 240 residences and two park sites in the Tesoro
Del Valle neighborhoods. The project as proposed is not anticipated
to significantly expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations or directly create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people.

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

environmental review is necessary.
IV. BIOLOGICAL Impacts related to biological resources that were not addressed in

30
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 31 of 46

RESOURCES previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. No new development is
proposed with the project. The proposal would not have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. No significant impact on wildlife resource is anticipated to
occur.

The project entails the annexation of 2,831 acres of land into the City
of Santa Clarita and proposes no new development. However, 2,090
residences, two commercial centers, and two parks have yet to be
developed in the project area. The proposed project would not have a
direct adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service and would not interfere substantially or have
significant impacts with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites. Therefore, any impacts would be considered less than
significant.

No new development is proposed, therefore the project would not

have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No significant
impact related to federally protected wetlands is anticipated.

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

all City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code and City
requirements. The proposed zoning and General Plan designations
would be consistent with all County land use planning policies and
the current uses and development in the project area. The proposal
would not conflict with any L.A. County or City of Santa Clarita
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance. Upon annexation, any oak trees in
would be protected by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance
and Preservation and Protection Guidelines.

The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an

adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community

31
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 32 of 46

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

conservation plan.

The proposed application would not change any state or federally

designation on the project area. No new development is proposed
with the SOI, annexation, prezone and General Plan Amendment
application. The proposal would not affect a County-designated
Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area
(SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation
Map.

Impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant.

No further environmental review is necessary.
V. CULTURAL Impacts related to cultural resources that were not addressed in
RESOURCES previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project
would not directly cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of any known cultural or archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the Government Code. However,
future development of still-undeveloped areas within the West Creek,
West Hills, and Tesoro Del Valle neighborhoods may have a less
than significant impact on an archeological resource pursuant to
15064.5. The proposal would not directly or indirectly destroy or
impact a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature.

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

Local and Tribal Intergovernmental Consultation Law, including
consultation with local Native American tribes identified by the
California Native American Heritage Commission. The proposed
project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact related to
cultural resources.
VI. GEOLOGY AND Impacts related to geology and soils that were not addressed in
SOILS previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project
consists of an annexation of the West Creek, West Hills, and Tesoro
Del Valle areas into the City of Santa Clarita. No new development
is proposed with the prezone and General Plan Amendment
application. However, development may occur in the near future as
part of the completed construction of the West Creek project and the
final 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.

32
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 33 of 46

The proposed project does not include any new development

proposals. The project area has been developed with a range of
residential and commercial uses. The development was reviewed and
approved by Los Angeles County. Review of impacts from
earthquake-related causes on development of the site was included in
a separate environmental analysis.

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

would not directly result in soil erosion. It is anticipated however
that in the foreseeable future, development would occur as part of the
completed construction of the West Creek project 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, no
significant impacts related to substantial wind or water soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil is anticipated on or off site as a result of the
project.

No impacts related to geologic units or soil that is unstable, or that

would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse are anticipated to occur as a result of this
proposal and would not have an impact related to expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997),
creating substantial risks to life or property.

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

topography or ground surface relief features or earth movement (cut
and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more or grading on a slope
greater than 10% natural grade would occur with approval of this
project.

The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related

to Geology and Soils. No further environmental review is necessary.
VII. GREENHOUSE “Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat
GAS EMISSIONS near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are
implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global
warming.” These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the
temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. The principal greenhouse
gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous
oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e).

33
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 34 of 46

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, prezone, General Plan Amendment, and

Sphere of Influence Amendment does not propose any new
development. The developed portions of the project area were built
under the Los Angeles County development standards and the
development of the project area was reviewed under a separate
environmental document. The undeveloped portions of the project
area were reviewed under the County of Los Angeles development
standards and would comply with these standards, unless otherwise
modified by the City. Any future development in the area, that was
not already approved by the County of Los Angeles, would be
analyzed under a separate environmental review. The proposal to
prezone the project site and adopt a General Plan Amendment for the
purposes of annexation would not generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment. The proposed project would not conflict
with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses

Therefore, the proposed amendments are anticipated to have a less

than significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions.
VIII. HAZARDS AND Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that were not
HAZARDOUS addressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the
MATERIALS proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The

34
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 35 of 46

proposed project would not store, use, or generate hazardous

materials, and would not utilize any acutely hazardous materials. No
new development is proposed with this prezone and General Plan
Amendment application. The City of Santa Clarita zoning and
General Plan designations would be consistent with the existing
development and uses in the project area. The application would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous
materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil,
pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation). No new development is
proposed as part of this project.

The proposed project does not propose any new development and the
project would not store, use, or generate substantial amounts of
hazardous materials, and would not utilize any acutely hazardous
materials. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

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

materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment would occur with the prezone and General
Plan Amendment application.

The project area is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The
prezone and General Plan Amendment would not result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The
prezone and General Plan Amendment would not result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working 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

35
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 36 of 46

wildlands.

The prezone and General Plan Amendment would not expose people
to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g. electrical
transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines).

Impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials are not anticipated

to be significant. No further environmental review is necessary.
IX. HYDROLOGY Impacts related to hydrology and water quality that were not
AND WATER addressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the
QUALITY proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The
proposed annexation, prezone and General Plan Amendment would
not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.

No new development is proposed. The project would not

substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted).

The proposed City of Santa Clarita zoning and General Plan

designations would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site
because no new development is proposed as a part of this application
for annexation.

No new development is proposed, therefore, this project would not

create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. No further
environmental review is necessary.

The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality

in the project area because the proposed zoning and General Plan

36
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 37 of 46

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.

No new development is proposed. The project would not create

inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow in the project area.

No new development is associated with this prezone and General

Plan Amendment application. No changes in the rate of flow,
currents, or the course and direction of surface water and/or
groundwater would occur.

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

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

The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to

Stormwater Management. The project consists of no new
development, however prior to annexation, the property owners
would have to elect to pay an annual City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Drainage Fee. The City’s stormwater program provides
street catch-basin cleaning a minimum of once a year, thereby
reducing trash, debris, and potential neighborhood flooding.

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

this project, the proposed annexation would not create any impacts to
Stomwater Management of any of the following ways:

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

construction activity on storm water runoff
ii) No potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle
or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage,
delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas

37
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 38 of 46

iii) No significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow

velocity or volume of storm water runoff
iv) No significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion
of the project site or surrounding areas
v) No storm water discharges that would significantly impair or
contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving
waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian
corridors, wetlands, etc.)
vi) The proposal would not cause harm to the biological integrity of
drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies
vii) Provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials
both during construction and after project occupancy is not
necessary.

The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related

to hydrology and water quality. No further environmental review is
necessary.
X. LAND USE AND Impacts related to land use and planning that were not addressed in
PLANNING previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. The project does not
propose any new development with this annexation, Sphere of
Influence Amendment, prezone and General Plan Amendment. The
proposed open space, commercial and residential zoning designations
would be consistent with the existing development and County land
use planning in the project area, as well as the development
surrounding the project area. Furthermore, a portion of the project
area is located within the Castaic Area Community Standards District
(CSD), a planning area for zoning regulation purposes that was
established in 2004 by the County of Los Angeles. More
specifically, the majority of the Tesoro neighborhood falls within the
CSD. This portion of the project site is exempt from the provisions
of the CSD since this residential subdivision was approved prior to
establishment of the CSD. Therefore, all zoning regulations currently
in place under these prior County approvals have already been
established for the project; therefore the project site is not subject to
the CSD. Impacts related to the disruption or physical division of an
established community (including low-income or minority
community) are not anticipated to occur since no new development
that has not already been approved would be constructed.

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

and Tesoro areas includes a request for a Sphere of Influence
Amendment, prezone, and General Plan Amendment to change the
existing County of Los Angeles zoning and jurisdictional authority.

38
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 39 of 46

The change to City zoning and land use would result in a less than
significant impact as it is consistent with existing County of Los
Angeles land use plan, policy, and regulations.

Currently the area consists of City General Plan land use designations
that include BP, CN, CC, RS, RL, and RE. The land use designations
for the majority of the annexation area would not change with this
project. However, the proposed General Plan Amendment involves
the amendment of several GPA Areas which can be summarized as
follows:
Table 1.0
GPA Area
GPA Areas 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 91.3
RS to RM 66.5
RS to RMH 16.1

The proposed General Plan designations would be consistent with the

existing approved or entitled development within the proposed
annexation area. The attached General Plan Amendment map
identifies each of the above-mentioned GPA Areas.

In addition, under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles, the

project area consists of the following zoning designations: A-2
(Heavy Agriculture), OS (Open Space), RPD (Residential Planned
Development), R-3 (Multi-Family Residential), and C-2
(Neighborhood Commercial). The proposed prezone would change
the existing zoning to correspond with the City of Santa Clarita
zoning and designate the project area so that proposed prezone
designations are consistent with County land use planning and
existing development. The proposed prezone for the annexation area
include CN, RE, RS, RM, RMH, RH and OS. The attached prezone

39
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 40 of 46

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

The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project, such as the
Army Corps of Engineers, or the California Department of Fish and
Game’s jurisdiction over San Francisquito Creek because the
proposal would not change the applicable state or federal
designations in the project area.

The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related

to land use and planning. No further environmental review is
necessary.
XI. MINERAL AND Impacts related to mineral and energy resources that were not
ENERGY addressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the
RESOURCES proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The
proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state. No further environmental review is necessary.

The proposed SOI Amendment, Annexation, Prezone and General

Plan Amendment and uses in the project area would not result in the
loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan and would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner. No further environmental review is necessary.

No impact related to mineral and energy resources is anticipated. No

further environmental review is necessary.
XII. NOISE Impacts related to noise that were not addressed in previously
certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. The proposed project proposes
no new development and therefore there would be no exposure of
persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the City’s General Plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies. Furthermore, because no new
development is proposed with the annexation, there would be no
exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.

The project would not create a substantial permanent increase in

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.

40
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 41 of 46

No new development is anticipated with this prezone and General

Plan Amendment application, therefore a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project would not occur.

The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore,
the prezone and General Plan Amendment would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and
would not expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels.

No impact related to noise is anticipated. No further environmental

review is necessary.
XIII. POPULATION Impacts related to population and housing that were not addressed in
AND HOUSING previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. No new development is
proposed with the prezone and General Plan Amendment. The
annexation area currently consists of approximately 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 replacement
housing elsewhere, as the proposal would be consistent with the
existing uses and County-approved development in the project area.

No impact related to population and housing is anticipated. No

further environmental review is necessary.
XIV. PUBLIC Impacts related to public services that were not addressed in
SERVICES previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would
not create any significant adverse impacts to public services. School

41
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 42 of 46

district and many government services will remain unaffected. A

temporary fire station is located along Copper Hill Drive, near
Camino Del Arte, as a permanent station is being built. As
mentioned in the Tesoro EIR MMRP, the developer is required to
pay a Fire mitigation fee for the expansion of fire protection
facilities.

The annexation area will experience an increase in police patrols and

decrease in non-emergency response time due to the City’s increased
police service levels under its contract with the L.A. County Sheriff’s
Department. Upon annexation, the responsibilities for road
maintenance, streetlight patrols and maintenance of 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 related

to public services. No further environmental review is necessary.
XV. RECREATION Impacts related to recreation that were not addressed in previously
certified 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 increase
in usage of existing parks and recreational facilities. However,
payment of lower parks and recreation program fees by residents
within the project site once they are annexed to the City of Santa
Clarita may increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other City recreational facilities that may cause a minor
impact on these facilities.

The proposed project does not include new development of

residential units that would require park development fees or
implementation of new recreational facilities. The proposed
annexation area does include 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, are
included in the annexation area. The park sites and their associated
impacts have been analyzed as part of the Tesoro EIR. It is not
anticipated that there would be any additional adverse physical
effects as a result of annexation these park sites. Upon annexation,
the responsibility for maintenance of parks would transfer to the City.
As the West Creek and Tesoro projects build out, city-level park
impact fees would be paid. Impacts related to the expansion or
upgrade of recreational facilities or parks is considered less than
significant.

42
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 43 of 46

The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related

to recreation. No further environmental review is necessary.
XVI. Impacts related to transportation/traffic that were not addressed in
TRANSPORTATION / previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project
TRAFFIC are considered to be less than significant. The project site has been
developed with residential, commercial and open space uses which
were analyzed under separate environmental documents. The
prezone and General Plan Amendment would not cause an increase
in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections.

No new development is proposed, therefore, the prezone and General

Plan Amendment would not exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

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

including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks.

No new development is proposed, therefore, the application would

not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment).

No new development is proposed with this application. The project

area is adjacent to existing infrastructure and City of Santa Clarita
incorporated land. The prezone and General Plan Amendment would
not result in inadequate emergency access.

No new development is proposed with the prezone and General Plan

Amendment, therefore, the proposal would not result in inadequate
parking capacity.

Upon annexation, the City may construct new bus stops and
improvements to existing bus stops. This may have a minor impact;
however, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

Upon annexation, the City may make improvements to sidewalks and

bike lanes. These improvements would reduce hazards and barriers
for pedestrians. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than

43
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 44 of 46

significant.

The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related

to transportation and traffic. No further environmental review is
necessary.
XVII. UTILITIES Impacts related to utilities and service systems that were not
AND SERVICE addressed in previously certified EIRs that are attributable to the
SYSTEMS proposed project are considered to be less than significant. The
project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, as 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 new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, that have not already been considered, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects.

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

storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects
because no new development is proposed.

Impacts related to water supply that were not addressed in previously

certified EIRs that are attributable to the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. Water supply was previously
evaluated as part of the West Creek project and Tesoro EIRs and
mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for each project, and included in Appendix A.
The proposed General Plan Amendment, Prezone, and Sphere of
Influence Amendment do not include any new development, and
therefore, will not result in significant impacts to water supply. Prior
to the recordation of a final map for the remaining undeveloped
portions of the annexation area, the developer(s) will have to obtain a
will-serve letter from the area’s water service provider. Compliance
with this requirement and with the project’s mitigation measures will
not result in significant impacts.

The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater

treatment provider which serves the project that it does not have
adequate capacity to serve existing and projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments.

44
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 45 of 46

Under the West Creek and Tesoro EIRs, mitigation measures are
identified to reduce solid waste disposal. The project area is
currently served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project site’s construction-related solid waste
disposal needs. However, both EIRs identify significant cumulative
impacts on solid waste as a result of both projects, due to the fact that
landfill space is finite and that other disposal alternatives have not
been identified to adequately serve existing and future uses. The
proposed project, which consists of a Prezone, General Plan
Amendment and Sphere of Influence Amendment, would not directly
result in a significant impact related to solid waste disposal needs.
The project area would be subject to City franchise agreements for
both business and residential. Impacts related service by a landfill is
considered less than significant.

The project area currently complies with federal, state, and County
statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Businesses would also
become subject to City’s Standard Urban Storm water Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP) upon annexation.

The proposed project would not result in a significant impacts related

to utilities and service systems is anticipated. No further
environmental review is necessary.
XVIII. MANDATORY The project includes a request for a prezone, General Plan
FINDINGS OF Amendment and Sphere of Influence Amendment for the purpose of
SIGNIFICANCE annexation and does not propose any new development that has not
already been reviewed and approved under the County. The
proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory. Any future
development would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance
with all previously approved development and environmental
standards and design guidelines, including mitigation measures as
required by the County. Therefore, the project would not result in a
significant impact related to degradation of the quality of the
environment or habitat of fish and wildlife species.

The project does not propose new development and would not have
impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
Any new development that has not already been approved would go

45
Initial Study
Master Case 10-048
ANX 10-001, PRZ 10-001,
GPA 10-001, SOI 07-001
Page 46 of 46

through a design review process and would have to adhere to the

development standards and the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the
project would not result in a significant impact.

The proposed project would not include any new development. The
project consists of a prezone, General Plan Amendment and Sphere
of Influence Amendment for the purpose of annexation and would
not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly.

The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related

to the Mandatory findings of significance. No further environmental
review is necessary.
XIX. DEPARTMENT The project includes a request for a prezone, General Plan
OF FISH AND GAME Amendment and Sphere of Influence Amendment for the purpose of
‘DE MINIMUS’ annexation and does not propose any new development that has not
FINDING already been reviewed and approved under the County. The project
would not have an adverse effect either individually or cumulatively,
on fish and wildlife resources because the project does not include
new development and involves a General Plan Amendment and
prezone for the purpose of annexation. Wildlife shall be defined for
the purpose of this question as “all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability.”
No further environmental review is necessary.

No impact related to Department of Fish and Game ‘De Minimus’

finding is anticipated. No further environmental review is necessary.
\\CITYHALL2\DEPT\CD\CURRENT\!2010\10-048 (WEST CREEK TESORO ANNEX)\ENVIRONMENTAL\INITIAL STUDY AND NEG DEC\INITIAL STUDY.WEST
CREEK.TESORO.DOC

46