HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - SECOND READING OF AN ORD ESTABLISHING SENIOR MH PA (2)Agenda Item: 7
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 41
DATE: January 9, 2018
SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING
SECTION 17.38.075 OF CHAPTER 17.38 TO TITLE 17 OF THE
SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A SENIOR
MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PRESENTER: Erin Lay
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council to adopt an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 17.38.075 OF
CHAPTER 17.38 TO TITLE 17 OF THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A SENIOR MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE."
BACKGROUND
On December 12, 2017, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of an
ordinance adding Section 17.38.075 of Chapter 17.38 to Title 17 of the Santa Clarita Municipal
Code establishing a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone. The City Council included a
requirement that 90% of the mobilehome spaces covered under the Overlay Zone be senior
spaces.
Additionally, the City Council gave direction to modify Section E of Exhibit B to the Ordinance
to read:
E. Notification of New Leases and Biennial (Verification of Occupancy.
The City will conduct a biennial verification of the occupancy of each senior
mobilehome park to confirm its status as a senior mobilehome park. Each senior
mobilehome park shall maintain occupancy consistent with the requirements of
Subsection (D) herein. The park owner shall provide notice to the City when a
new lease is signed and shall certify that the lease complies with the requirements
of Subsection (D) herein. Each senior mobilehome park shall have procedures in
O
Page 1
Packet Pg. 30
place to document the percentage of occupied spaces that have at least one
senior. The park owner shall provide an affidavit demonstrating compliance with
this documentation requirement upon request by the City.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance - 90% - with Exhibits
O
Page 2
Packet Pg. 31
7.a
90% Senior Occupancy Ordinance Revised per Planning Commission Recommendation
ORDINANCE NO. 18 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 17.38.075 OF CHAPTER 17.38 TO
TITLE 17 OF THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING
A SENIOR MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
A. The City of Santa Clarita (City) is home to 15 mobilehome parks;
B. Canyon Palms Mobilehome Park, Greenbrier Mobile Estates Mobilehome Park, and Sierra
Park Mobilehome Park have long operated as senior mobilehome parks, and are advertised
as senior communities in advertisements. These three mobilehome parks are listed as
"Seniors Only" on the City's website. The 2013' General Plan Housing Element recognizes
that of the 2,009 mobilehome park spaces in the City, 463 are reserved for seniors;
C. On March 1, 2017, staff initiated Master Case 17-039 to establish a Senior Mobilehome
Park Overlay Zone (Overlay Zone);
D. City staff conducted research on the senior mobilehome parks to determine the percentage
of spaces occupied by at least one occupant fifty-five (55) years of age or older;
E. City staff sent surveys to the occupants of Sierra Park Mobilehome Park, and residents
of 44 of the 70 occupied spaces responded that at least one occupant was 55 years of age
or older. Staff was contacted by a former Park Manager who is a current resident at Sierra
Park Mobilehome Park and who had personal knowledge of the ages of the occupants at
the park. The former Park Manager attested that an additional 13 spaces had at least one
occupant 55 years of age or older. This, in addition to the survey responses, resulted in a
confirmation that 57 of the 70 of occupied spaces (81%) had at least one occupant who was
55 years of age or older;
F. City staff sent surveys to the occupants of Greenbrier Mobile Estates Mobilehome Park,
and residents of 276 of the 318 occupied spaces (87%) responded that at least one occupant
was 55 years of age or older;
G. The City received a letter from the owner of Canyon Palms Mobilehome Park verifying that
the Park Manager had reviewed the leases and verified that 43 of 48 of the occupied spaces
(89%) had at least one occupant who was 55 years of age or older. The owner also attached
a rent roll showing this information;
Packet Pg. 32
7.a
H. The senior mobilehome parks in the City provide an important source of affordable senior
housing;
I. The City's General Plan includes policies and goals to provide and retain senior housing
options. The City analyzed the high risk of losing its senior housing stock in the 2013
Housing Element. The City is committed through the Housing Element policies to preserve
the City's existing affordable housing stock and to maintain housing for special needs
groups, such as senior citizens;
J. Senior residents of the senior mobilehome parks have expressed concerns that the City's
senior mobilehome parks will convert to all -age mobilehome parks;
K. This Ordinance is necessary to mitigate the unregulated effects of conversion of senior
housing to all -age housing, the potential shrinking inventory of existing quality affordable
housing for seniors, and the increased environmental effects of non -senior housing. No
feasible alternative is available to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid these specific adverse
impacts as well or better with a less burdensome effect than the adoption of the proposed
Ordinance;
L. Health & Safety Code section 18300 specifically authorizes a city to establish "types of uses
and locations, including ... senior mobilehome parks ... within the city ..." California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code section 51.5 et seq.) expressly allows private parties to
establish housing for senior citizens, and the Federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. section
3601 et seq.) expressly allows for "housing for older persons;" and
M. The Housing for Older Persons Act amendments to the federal Fair Housing Act (41 U.S.C.
section 3607(b)) and the provisions of the implementing regulations set forth in the Code of
Federal Regulations (24 C.F.R. section 100.304(b)(4)) and the Appendix thereto (64 Fed.
Reg. 16331) provide that a senior housing facility or community includes a municipally
zoned area, and that an area zoned by a unit of local government as "senior housing"
satisfies the intent requirement of the senior housing exemption from the provisions of the
Fair Housing Act prohibiting discrimination based on familial status. The City intends that
this Ordinance be consistent with, comply with, and implement the federal Fair Housing
Act, as amended by the Housing for Older Persons Act, and the California statutes providing
senior housing exemptions from statutes prohibiting discrimination in housing based on age
and familial status.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS., Based
upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
A. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Overlay Zone were prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Exhibit A);
B. The Initial Study was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies
and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The Negative
Declaration was posted and advertised on October 17, 2017, in accordance with CEQA.
The public review period was open from October 17, 2017, through November 17, 2017;
Packet Pg. 33
7.a
C. There is no substantial evidence the Overlay Zone will have a significant effect on the
environment. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City
of Santa Clarita;
D. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which
the decision of the City Council is made is the Master Case 17-039 file, located within the
Community Development Department, specifically in the custody of the Director of
Community Development;
E. The necessary Native American Tribal Consultation, required by Assembly Bill 52 as part of
the CEQA process, concluded on June 13, 2017, prior to the release of the Initial Study for
public comment; and
F. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds the Negative
Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.
SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF OVERLAY ZONE. Based on
the above findings of facts, recitals, and the entire record, including, without limitation, oral and
written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals
from City staff to the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council,
the City Council finds as follows:
A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
The Proposal is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed Overlay Zone
promotes the maintenance and retention of senior housing. The City's General Plan
includes policies and goals to provide and retain senior housing options. The City analyzed
the high risk of losing its senior housing stock in the 2013 Housing Element. (See Table H-
3.21 "Risk Status of Affordable Senior Housing Projects.") The City is committed through
the Housing Element policies to preserve the City's existing affordable housing stock and to
maintain housing for special needs groups such as senior citizens.
B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone, and complies with all other
applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code (UDC).
The Overlay Zone applies to three mobilehome parks. Under the Fair Housing Act, the City
is authorized to establish senior mobilehome parks.
C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public
convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or
injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which
the property is located.
Nothing contained in the Overlay Zone would endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute
a hazard to the public because the Overlay Zone is authorized by the Fair Housing Act and
would preserve the existing senior housing at the three mobilehome parks.
D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical
suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
Packet Pg. 34
7.a
The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the
proposed use;
2. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient width and are
improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would
generate;
3. Public protection service (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.) are readily
available;
4. The provision of utilities (e.g. potable water, schools, solid waste collection and
disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is
adequate to serve the site.
The Overlay Zone does not change the physical nature of the senior mobilehome parks.
SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR OVERLAY ZONE. Based on the above
findings of facts, recitals, and the entire record, including, without limitation, oral and written
testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from
City staff to the City Council, and upon studies and 'investigations made by the City Council, the
City Council finds as follows for the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone (Zoning Amendment)
in accordance with UDC section 17.28.120.H:
A. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning map as it pertains to the area
under consideration; and
It is in the public interest that the City maintains adequate senior housing. Senior citizens
have approached the City with information that some senior mobilehome parks are
converting to all -age parks. The threat of conversion warrants the creation of the Senior
Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone.
B. That the particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone
classification within such area:
1. The placement of the proposed Overlay Zone at such location will be in the interest of
public health, safety, and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoningpractice,
Three mobilehome parks currently operate as senior mobilehome parks and have a senior
occupancy of at least 80%. As such, they are properly designated as senior mobilehome
parks under the Overlay Zone.
2. That the proposed zone change is consistent with the adopted General Plan for the area.
The General Plan includes policies and goals to provide and retain senior housing options.
The maintenance of the City's current senior housing is consistent with those policies and
goals.
Packet Pg. 35
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby adopts Municipal Code Section 17.038.075 (Exhibit
B), and amends the City's Zoning Map to include the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone
(Exhibit Q.
SECTION 6. The specific provisions contained in this Ordinance will supersede any
previous agreements, ordinances, or resolutions, whether oral or written, regarding the matters
contained herein, and this Ordinance will prevail over City practices and procedures, and over State
laws to the extent permitted.
SECTION 7. If any portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid, that portion shall be
stricken and severed, and the remaining portions shall be unaffected and remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its
passage and adoption.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _ day of .2018.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
DATE:
7.a
Packet Pg. 36
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance 18- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of
the City Council on the day of 2018. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2018, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance 18- and was
published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806).
CITY CLERK
7.a
Packet Pg. 37
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ J Final
MASTER CASE NO: Master Case 17-039 —
PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Unified Development Code Update 17-001, and Initial Study 17-008
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Valencia, CA 91355
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The project area consists of three existing mobilehome parks
within the City of Santa Clarita. Canyon Palms, 18323 Soledad Canyon Road Greenbrier Mobile
Estates, 21301 Soledad Canyon Road, and Sierra Park, 19204 Soledad Canyon Road.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City is considering the adoption of a Senior Mobilehome Park
Overlay Zone which will include Greenbrier Estates, Canyon Palms, and Sierra Park mobilehome
parks and will permanently prohibit their conversion from senior parks to all -age parks. This
adoption and implementation of the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone will not involve any
construction or any type of development.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the
requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of
Santa Clarita
[ ] City Council [X ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment,
and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
Jason Crawford, AICP �V� --
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
Prepared by: _� Mike Ascione. Assistant Planner II
(Signature) (Name/Title)
Approved by: Ben Jarvis, AICP. Associate Planner
(Siglrul rc) (Name/Title)
Public Review Period From October 17 2017 To November 7. 2017
Public Notice Given On October 17.201
[XJ Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
SACD\IPLANMINO DIVISIONICURREN711201 M 17-039 ( 17. 01 Mo Ile Nome Over lay)USYDraft ND.doc
7.a
Packet Pg. 38
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title and Master Case Number:
Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone
2017 Code Amendment
Master Case 17-039
Unified Development Code Update 17-001
Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Mike Ascione, Assistant Planner 11
City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department
(661)255-4330
Project Location:
The project area consists of three existing
mobilehome parks within the City of Santa Clarita,
Los Angeles Coun ly, CA. All three parks are located
on Sol dad Canyon Road --13323 Soledad Carryon
Road (northwest corer of Solamirnt Road), 21301
Soledad Csnyor: Road (north side of Soledad Canyon
Road, west of Golden Valley Road), and 18204
Soledad Canyon Road (south side of Soledad Canyon
Road, east of Solamint Road and west of Ironstone
Drive). See the "Project Setting/Existing Conditions„
section for additional details, as well as Exhibit I:
Mobilehome Park Locations.
Applicant/Owner Name and Address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
General Plan Designation: Urban Residential 5 ([JR5)
Mixed Use Corridor (MX -C)
Zoning Designation(s): Urban Residential 5 ([JR5)
Soledad Corridor Plan Urban Center (SC -UC)
7.a
Packet Pg. 39
Proiect Settin¢IExistinQ Conditions:
This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed
Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone would encompass the three separate mobilehome parks
located within the City of Santa Clarita, as listed below:
Canyon Palms Mobilehome Park
18323 Soledad Canyon Road (northwest corner of Solamint Road)
Santa Clarita, CA 91387
Assessor Parcel Number's (APN's) 2844-003-088, 2844-003-012, 2844-003-013
45 Mobilehome Spaces
Zoning: SC -UC
Initially developed in 1960
Greenbrier Mobile Estates
21301 Soledad Canyon Road (north side of Soledad Canyon Road, west of Golden Valley
Road)
Santa Clarita, CA 91351
APN's 2849-021-018,2849-021-019, 2849-024-034
318 Mobilehome Spaces
Zoning: URS
Initially developed in 1977
Sierra Park Mobilehome Park
18204 Soledad Canyon Road (south side of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Solamint Road
and west of Ironstone Drive)
Santa Clarita, CA 91387
APN's 2844-001-070, 2844-001-071
72 Mobilehome Spaces
Zoning: SC -UC
Initially developed in 1955
The parks were initially developed prior to the incorporation of the City of Santa Clarita (City). All
three are registered as mobilehome parks with the State of California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) and remain primarily under HCD's jurisdiction. All three
mobilehome parks are fully developed, occupied, and are situated in urbanized areas along Soledad
Canyon Road, which connects the parks to the local and regional roadway network. The parks are
generally flat and reflect characteristics typical of residential communities.
The City of Santa Clarita has jurisdiction over activities in mobilehome parks in two areas:
Santa Clarita Municipal Code, Chapter 6.02 — Manufactured Home Park Space Rent
Adjustment Procedures. Chapter 6.02 was originally adopted in 1990 and controls the timing
and manner in which space rent adjustments may be imposed, and provides a process by
which residents may appeal a proposed space rent adjustment.
7.a
Packet Pg. 40
• Santa Clarita Municipal Cade, Chapter 6.04 — Manufactured Horne Parks- Change in Use.
Chapter 6.04 was adopted in 1990 and prescribes a process which a mobilehome park owner
must undertake in order to close the mobilehome park.
In 2014 the residents of Sierra Park Mobilehome Park expressed concerns to City staff and to the
City Council regarding their belief that the owners of their mobilehome park intended to convert
the park from a senior mobilehome park to an all -age mobilehome park in the future. A senior
mobilehome park is defined as a mobilchome park in which at least &0°/o of the occupied spaces
have at least one resident who is 55 years of age or over. The residents were concerned that
changinrg the mobilehome park to all -age would negatively impact the supply of affordable senior
housing in the City. At the time the concerns were expressed, the three mobilehome parks listed
above restricted their residency primarily to seniors and identified themselves as senior -only
mobilehome parks in their signage and literature.
In January 2016, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarity adopted Ordinance No. 16-01. This
Urgency Ordinance put in place a 45 -day Moratorium prohibiting the owners of any of these
three Mobilehome parks from taking any action which would convert the park from a senior park
to an all -age park. The Moratorium was put in plwe to permit staff time to study the issue of
senior housing in the City and determine if a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone (Overlay
Zone) was appropriate. Additional time was needed to complete these studies. In March 2015,
the City Council extended the Moratorium for 10 months and 15 days, and in January 2016, the
City Council extended the Moratorium for an additional 12 months.
Prolect Deserintion
The City is considering the adoption of a Senior Mobilchome Park Overlay Zone which would
include Greenbrier Estates, Canyon Purlins, and Sierra Park mobilchome parks and would
pormaunently prohibit their conversion from senior parks to all -age parks. This adoption and
implementation ofthe Senior Mobilehome Park OverlayZone would not involve aro' evnstructior. or
any We of development, as all three involved mobilehome. perks are fully built out.
Creation of the Senior Mobilehome Pari Overlay Zone
The City has determined there is a shortage of affordable senior housing, and that senior mobilehome
parks reprosent one of the few affordable housing options left for seniors that permit exclusive
residence in a detached dwelling. In addition, the conversion of existing senior mobilehome parks to
all -age parks will unduly burden seniors within the community. Given City Council direction to
preserve the atfordablo housing options available to seniors, it is necessary to implement the Senior
Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone, The Overlay Zone would prolvbit the park owners in the three
parks regulated from taking any action which would reduce the number of senior spaces, as defined
above, to lees flair 80% of the total occupied spaces in the park.
Other public seeneies whose approvalis required:Not Applicable
7.a
Packet Pg. 41
kroject Location
Exhibit I: Mobilehome Park Locations
7.a
Packet Pg. 42
a�
c
0
N
ca
N
O
lieL
a
m
E
0
m
0
L
0
CO
A. DWI U rAL FACTO POTENTj,Ai Lw AFFECTRit
Are onvfronniontal thotors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentia Ily Significant Impner or a "Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation" as indicated by the checklistoa the
Following pages.
[ ]
Aesthetics
[ ] Agricultural and Forestry
[ ] Air Q„ality,
Resources
[ ]
Biological Resources
[ ] Culttrd Resources
[ ] Geology/Soils
[ ]
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous
[ ] Hydrology & water
Materials
Quaih,
L l
band Use & Planning[
] Mineral Resources
[ ] Noise
[ ]
Population and Housing
[ ] Public Services
[ ] Recreation
[ l
Traffic & Transportation
[ ] Utilities & Service Systems
[ ] Mandatory Findings of
B. DETERAMAIM
Signilficance
On the basis ofthis initial evaluation;
[X] I find f>tat tha proposed project COULD NOT have a sigaifleant affect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared,
[ ] 1 find that although rite proposal project could have a aignif icant oflect on the mvironrnent, there will not be a
Significant effect in this case becausa the Mitigation measures described on un attachod sheet have [,eon added
to the project. A MlITGATED NEGATIVE D13CLA17ATION will be prepund.
I ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a sigalficant impact on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I rind that the proposed project MAY have a 9 ignific>aat eaffec (s) on ttse envlronmont, but at lonst one cfi'cct 1)
hags been mitigated adequately in an Carl ler doctuncnt pumunot to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the carlior anaalysi9 as described on attached sheets, if the of oct is a
"potentlaliy significant Impact" or "potentially significant unless miligatod," An L'WIRONA NTAL
il4+iPACT REPORT, but It must analyze only the effects ileal retnaial to be nddrossed,
[ ] l rind that alth011gh the proposed project could have a significant erred onihcenvironmcnt, there WILL NOTho n slgailficaaat cii�ert inthis case lJeCiialsa all pole ntially sigaifleant effects (a) haves boats analyzed adequately
in an carfler E R pursuant to applicable standarcb, and (b) have boon avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
canter MR, including. revisions or mitigation measure9 that are imposed upont the proposed project
Muco Asciona, Mssistent Planner Il
BanJnrviti. AKnnc(n c Planner
poll
Date
5
7.a
Packet Pg. 43
U. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determiaiag 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 am an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determiningwhether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Form" and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,
Including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided In Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or El []
Funaland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g)).?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversation of
forest land to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment E3 j] T
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
2
7.a
Packet Pg. 44
IASS Than
Potentially
significant
Less Than
Significant
With
significant
No
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
impsot
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
rI
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
E]
❑
❑
not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
e) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
El
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
U. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determiaiag 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 am an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determiningwhether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Form" and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,
Including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided In Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or El []
Funaland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g)).?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversation of
forest land to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment E3 j] T
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
2
7.a
Packet Pg. 44
7.a
Packet Pg. 45
Lias Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
❑
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
❑
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
❑ ❑ f
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
❑ ❑
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
❑ ❑ ❑
number of people?
N. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
u) Have a sabstantlsl adverse effect, either directly or
❑ ❑ ❑
through habitat modifications, on any species identifed
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Gamo or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
❑ ❑ ❑
habitat or Other sensitive natural community identifiod
in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Came or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse efrect on federally protected
[] ❑ ❑
wetlands as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water
Rat (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc,) through direct removal, filling.
hydrological. interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
❑
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
7.a
Packet Pg. 45
8
7.a
Packet Pg. 46
Leas Than
Potentially Significant Tess Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
o) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
❑ ❑ ❑
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with ilia provisions of au adopted Habitat
❑ ❑ ❑ to
Conservation Phin, Natural Conmaunity Conservation
Plan, or other approved lucsal, regional, or slate babitat
conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as
❑ ❑ ❑
identified on the City of Santa Clarity ESA Delineation
Map?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
❑ ❑ ❑
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
❑ ❑ ❑
of an archaeological resoucee. pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique
❑ ❑ ❑
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
❑ ❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
❑ ❑ ❑
adverse efibots, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Ruphire Offt known earthquake fault, as dollnrated
❑ ❑ ❑
on [he most recent Alquist-Prlolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for tho arca
or trued OR ocher aubstart:tial avidonoo of a known
fault? Refer to Divigon of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑ ❑ ❑
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑ ❑ ❑
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the
❑ ❑ ❑ 10
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
❑ ❑ ❑
that would become unstable as a result ofthe project,
8
7.a
Packet Pg. 46
9
7.a
Packet Pg. 47
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Then
Significant With significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Import
and potentially result in on- or off -Site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) He located on expLinsive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-
❑ ❑ ❑
B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Havc soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
❑ ❑ ❑
of septic tanks or altornative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of wastewater?
1) Result in a change in topography or ground surface
❑ ❑ ❑
relief features?
g) Result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
❑ ❑
cubic yards or more?
b) Involve development and/or grading on a natural slope
❑ ❑ ❑
greater than 109'o natural grade?
J) Result the destruction, covdiring, or modification of
❑ ❑ ❑
y unique geologic or physical feature?
VII, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gnu emissions, either directly or
El® ❑
indirectly, that may have significant impact on the
environment??
b) Conflict with the adopted Climate Action flan or other
❑ ❑ ❑
applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
VIII• HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑ ❑
environment through reasonably foreseaable upsct and
accident conditions involving explosfoa or the release
of hamrdom materials into the environment (including,
but not limited to oil, p6sticides, chemicals, fuels, or
radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
❑ ❑ ❑
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
9
7.a
Packet Pg. 47
10
7.a
Packet Pg. 48
Legs Than
Potentially Significant Less Then
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
El El
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
❑ El 0 10
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,
11 El
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
El
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
E]
injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized area or
when residences are intermixed with wildlands?
I)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
E
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil pipelines)?
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
❑ 0 EJ
requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
El ❑ El
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
n
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?
10
7.a
Packet Pg. 48
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or atnourtt of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within it 100 year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
1) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
iWury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the flaihre of a levee or dam?
]) inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currenta, or the course and
directions of surface water and/or groundwater?
1) Minor modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river?
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community
(including a low-u►eorno nr minority community)?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general pion,
spacific plan, local coastal program, or ronin?;
ordinance) adopted for the nutpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental cfiw?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conscrvntion plan,
natural community conservation plan, amilor policies
by agencies with jurisdiudon over the project?
11
potentially
SlgoROM
Impact
El
13
Less Then
❑
Sipificent
Lose Ilan
With
Significant No
Mitlgation
Impact Impact
D
❑
❑
❑
❑
D
❑
❑
D
❑
❑
❑
El
❑
El
1:1
7.a
Packet Pg. 49
7.a
12
Packet Pg. 50
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Lass Thin
Signifwant
With
Significant No
Impact
Mitigation
Impact Impact
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
C]
El
0
® >
resource that would be of value to the region and the
ITS
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
E-]
0
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
ITS
a
c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful andEl
El
to
1:1 ® c
ineffiicisnt manner?
t
m
XIL NOISE - Would the project result in:
c
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
O
I-1
® O
excess of standards established in the local general plan
0
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
0
to
agencies?
Co
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
El
® El c
grotmdborne vibration or groundbome noise levels?
m
e) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
[�
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
0
without the project?
0
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
❑
m
® Co
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
rn
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
w
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?
a
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
El
would the project expose people residing or working in
m
the project area to excessive noise levels?
C
C
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the
ITS
project:
L
a Induce substantial population
p p growth in an area, either
�
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
C
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
c
to
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
t
b) Displaeesubstautial numbers of existing housing,El
El ® r
Necessitating the construction of replacement housing
Q
elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
12
Packet Pg. 50
13
7.a
Packet Pg. 51
Less non
Potentially Significant Less Than
signiflcant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
c) Displace substuntlal numbers of people, necessitating
❑ ❑ E
the construction of replacejteut housing elsewhere?
XXV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result In:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmentsi foe I]ldcs, need for now or physically
altered governmental faeilitlas, the construction of
which Could cause significant onvironmentnl imparas,
In order to maintain acceptable cervica ratios, response
t(ner, or othor perfonnance objectives for nriy oftlie
public services;
I) Fire protection?
❑ ❑ ❑
Ii) Police protection?
❑ ❑ ❑ ED
iii) Schools?
❑ ❑ ❑
iv) Parks?
❑ ❑ ❑
v) Other public facilities?
❑ ❑ ❑
XV. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
❑ ❑ ❑
parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) include recreational fnclllties or require the
❑ ❑
construction or expansion ofrecrantionatl facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XVL TRANSPORTATION/TRAMC — Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
❑ ❑ ® ❑
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performanco of the circulation system, taking into
account all anodes of h=portation including mass
transit and non-moiorixed travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
13
7.a
Packet Pg. 51
14
7.a
Packet Pg. 52
I= Then
Potentinlly Significant Lees Than
significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
b)
Conflict with an applicable congestion management
® El
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standard and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c)
Result in u change in air traffic patterns, including
0
either an increase in triflic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
El n11 0
(e.g., sharp carves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
E 13
f)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public trundt, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwiso decrease die performance or
safety of Stich farilitics?
XVII. UTIL)[TIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
(J 1:1 ❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction ofnew water or
was(ownter trcatmcnt facilities or axpunsion of existing
thoililies, the comfruciion of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c)
Require or result in the construction of new storm
Li E] El
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
E3
providor which serves or muy serve die project tint it
lens adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
lIL'. DErali in addition to the provider's oxisting
commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
El El
regulations related to solid waste?
14
7.a
Packet Pg. 52
b) Docs thn project have impncts Clint are hidividually ❑ ❑ ❑
limited, but cumulatively considerable? t^'Cumulntively
consi(Ierable" mcans tlu;t the incremental offr-ct9 of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
With the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will L1 ❑
cause substantial adverse offects on hwnaa beings,
either directly or indirectly?
15
7.a
Packet Pg. 53
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Sigaiacent With significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
u) Does Oic. project have tho potential to degrade the
❑ � �
lltinllly of the cnvironment, substantially reduce the
habittit of a fish or wildlife specios, cause a fists or
wildlife ,population to drop below self-amtainirtg
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
curumunity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rate or cndattgerod plant or animal or ellminats
important cxn mples of the major perimb of California
history or prehistory?
b) Docs thn project have impncts Clint are hidividually ❑ ❑ ❑
limited, but cumulatively considerable? t^'Cumulntively
consi(Ierable" mcans tlu;t the incremental offr-ct9 of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
With the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will L1 ❑
cause substantial adverse offects on hwnaa beings,
either directly or indirectly?
15
7.a
Packet Pg. 53
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS
Is. No Impact.
The City of Santa Clarita is located within Southern California's
Santa Clarita Valley, which is bounded by the San Gabriel
Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susana Mountains to the
southwest, and the mountains of the Los Padres and Angeles
National Forests to the north. The surrounding natural mountains
and ridgelines, some of which extend into the City, provide a
visual backdrop for much of the urbanized area. Other scenic
resources within or visible from the City include the Santa Clara
River corridor, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons
and natural drainages in portions of the City.
The proposed project, the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone,
is regulatory in nature and is not associated with any construction
or grading project. The .proposed project --would not damage :any
scenic resources. Views in and around the three mobile home parks
am limited as the parks and surrounding areas are largely built -out
with densely configured strucduw with associated landscaping and
street trees. The proposed zoning code amendment would not
revise any development standards in a manner that could result in
an interruption of any views of scenic, resources. Therefore, the
proposed project would have no impact on scenic vistas.
I b. No Impact.
The only roadway in Santa Clarita that is identified in the
California Department of Transportation's State Scenic Highway
program is Interstate 5 (I-5). The designated eligible segment of I-
5 extends from the I-210 interchange to the State Route (SR)
126/Newhall Ranch Road interchange. SR -126 is also designated
as an Eligible State Scenic Highway from the City's boundary at
Inierstato 5 west to SR -150 in Ventura County. The proposed
project is not located on I-5, SR -126, or any other designated
scenic highway. The project is regulatory in nature and would not
impact scenic resources, ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, or
historic buildings. Therefore, there would be no impact.
I c. No Impact.
The proposed project consists of amendments to the Unified
Development Code, further referred to as the "zoning code". The
amendments are regulatory in nature and are focused on age
qualifying housing within three existing mobilehome parks. The
three involved moblilehome parks are currently fully built out and
16
7.a
Packet Pg. 54
no expansion or additional density is proposed. The proposed
amendments would not change the building types allowed nor
change existing requirements like landscaping or architectural
styles. Therefore, the proposed project would have no adverse
impact to the visual character or quality of the three mobilehome
parks.
I d. Less Than Significant Impact.
The project consists of amendments to zoning code and is
regulatory in nature. The proposed project does not propose any
lighfing for nighttime events or sporting activities. Existing
lighting exists on public streets and in private development and
nothing in the proposed project would be expected to increase
nighttime lighting beyond current levels. The project intends to
preserve the existing senior living environment and would not have
the potential to generate additional light that could affect daytime
views or nighttime views. Therefore, the project would not cause a
significant impact where lighting and glare is concerned.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
II a. No Impact.
Based on information from the California Department of
Conservation, the project area is considered to be `Urban and
Built -Up Land' that contains no farming resources. There are no
agricultural operations located within the project sites and the
planning area is not located within an area of Prime Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the California
Department of Conservation (Los Angeles Important Farmland
2008). This information was verified on June 15, 2017. The area is
developed with residential uses. 'Given that the project area has no
potential to convert existing farmland to non-agricultural use, the
project would have no impact.
H b. No Impact.
Santa Clarita does not have agricultural preserve areas. Further,
there is no Williamson Act eontFact land within the City limits.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for
agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts and would have no
related impacts.
II c, No Impact.
The project would amend the City's zoning code to designate three
existing mobilehome parks as age qualified housing. The project
area is not located in an area zoned as Open Space -National Forest
nor does the project area contain any forestland, timberland, or
areas zoned for Timberland Production. The project consists of
revisions to age qualifying housing, is regulatory in nature, and is
17
7.a
Packet Pg. 55
not associated with any construction or grading project. Therefore,
the project would have no impact.
II d. No Impact.
The project consists of maintaining age qualifying housing within
tluve existing mobilehome parks. The project area does not contain
any forest land nor would the project result the conversion of forest
land to non -forest uses. Therefore, there would be no impact.
II e. No Impact.
The project does not have the potential to result in the conversion
of farmland to non-agricultural use because no such lands or
resources exist in the project area; nor wuld the project result tin
tine conversion of forest lan&i to non -forest use. The project
consists of preserving existing; huid umcs, is regulatory in nature,
and is not associated with any construction or. guiding project.
Tltcrefore, there would be no impact.
III, AIR QUALITY
III a. No Impact.
Santa CMta is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is
bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto
mountains to the north and east, and by the Pacific Ocean to the
south and west, The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an
area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are
exceeded. Because of the violations of the California ambient air
duality standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires
trienriial preparation of nn Air Qntality Management flan (AQW).
77ie AQW1 analyzes air gwdity on a regional level and identifies
region -wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality
standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include
regulations for stationary -source polluters; facilitation of new
transportation technologies, such as low -emission vehicles; and
capital improvaments, such as park-and-ride facilities and public
transit improvements..
The current adopted pian is the 2016 AQMP adopted on March 3,
2017. The 2016 AQMI' is designed to meet the state and federal
Clean Air Act planning requirements and focuses on new federal
ozone and ultra -fine particulate matter (PM2.$) standards. The
SCAQMD's AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to
reduce the high levels of pnliut:tats within the areas under the
jurisdiction of SCAQMD, and to attain clean air within the region,
18
7.a
Packet Pg. 56
Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would
not interfere with attainment, because this growth is included in the
projections used to formulate the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses,
and activities that are consistent with the: applicable assumptions
used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize
attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP.
AQMPs utilize projections of population and transportation
activity forecasted. by SCAG in their Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). If the project is consistent with the General Plan and
zoning, it has been assumed in the AQMP and won't obstruct
implementation of the AQMP.
The proposed project is consistent with the zoning and General
Plan land use designation for the site. The project would require
ago qualifying housing And would not change any development
density. As a result, the project is consistent with the growth
expectations for the region. The proposed project is therefore
consistent with the AQMP and would have no associated, impacts.
Mb. No Impact.
Santa Clarita is Iocated in a normttai=e'nt area, an area that
frequently exceeds national and state ambient air quality standards.
The proposed amendments are regulatory in nature and address age
qualifying housing. The proposed amendments do not entitle any
development not already allowed in the planning area and there are
no changes to the land use map or existing development density.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in no air quality
impacts related to the air quality standards.
III C. No Impact.
As stated in Section IIIb, the project would not involve
construction or grading, nor would the project prodeme any
emissions: the project is regulatory in nature, is not associated with
any development. The project would not impact or exceed the
thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD which,
were established in consideration of cumulative air pollution in the
SCAB. Since no emissions are involved with the proposed project,
there would be no impact.
III d. No Impact.
Certain residents, such as the very young, the elderly, and those
suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities, are particularly
sensitive to air pollution and are considered sensitive receptors. In
addition, active park users, such as participants in sporting events,
are sensitive air pollutant receptors due to increased breathing
rates. Land uses where sensitive air pollutant receptors congregate
19
7.a
Packet Pg. 57
include schools, daycare centers, parks, recreational areas, medical
facilities, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities.
The proposed project does not involve any construction or grading
activities that would cause toxic substances such as oils, solvents,
paints, or adhesives, to be entering the atmosphere. The proposed
project is regulatory in nature and has no potential to affect air
quality. Therefore, the proposed project would have no air quality
impacts on sensitive receptors.
III e. No Impact.
The proposed project is regulatory in nature, is not associated with
a construction or grading project, and has no potential to produce
odors. The planning area does not contain any uses shown on
Figure 5-5, Land Uses Associated with Odor Complaints, of the
SCAQMD's 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook which includes
such activities as agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants,
food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries,
landfills, dairies, fiberglass molding firms, etc. Therefore, there
would be no impact.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
General Biological Characteristic& of the Site
The planning area is developed. The project area contains street
trees, landscaped residential yards, and hardseape within the three
Mobilehome parks affected.
IV a. No Impact.
The proposed project would not adversely affect, dither directly or
through habitat modifications, 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 Wildlife or the US Fish and Wildlife Service because the
project does not involve construction or grading. The project
consists of zoning code amendments that aro regulatory in nature
and that have no potential for affecting the environment. As noted,
the planning area is a built -out and urbanized area. The proposed
amendments would not alter the land use designations or
development restrictions that apply to the involved areas.
Moreover, the proposed amendments would have no reasonably
foreseeable effect on the physical environment. Therefore, there
would be no impact.
IV b. No Impact.
There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
within the planning area. Although portions of the planning area
20
7.a
Packet Pg. 58
are adjacent to the Santa Clara River and to drainages that may
contain riparian areas, the proposed project does not involve
changes to policies or land use designations that would affect those
areas. There are no known natural communities identified in local
or regional plans or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Vegetation in
the planning area consists mostly of street trues and ornamental or
manicured vegetation artd landscaping for mobilehome park
properties. No changes are proposed or envisioned for natural
slopes or open space areas. Therefore, there would be no impact.
IV C. No Impact.
There are no wetlands within the planning area, portions of the
planning area are adjacent to the Santa Clara River and to tither
drainage courses. While some of these areas may be subject to
federal protection under Section 4174 of the Clean Water Act, the
Proposed project would not impact or affect these areas. The
project consists of zoning code amendments that set standards for
age qualifying housing. The proposed amendments would not alter
the land use designations or development restrictions that apply to
the Santa Clara River or any other drainage courses. No
construction or grading is proposed and there arc no identified or
anticipated impacts on wetlands as defined in Section 404.
Therefore, there would no impact.
IV d. No Impact.
The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species nor would
the project interfere with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, and would not impede the use of native wildfire
nursery sites. The proposed project consists of amendments to the
adopted zoning code that would regulate ago qualified housing
within three existing mobilehome parks. The project would not
change or impact Santa Clarita River or other drainage courses.
The planning area is located in an urbanized portion of the city. No
construction or change to the physical environment would occur in
association with the project, therefore,, there would be no impact.
IV e. Less Than Signif mat Impact.
Per Section 17.51.040 (Oak Tree preservation) of the Unified
Development Code, it is the City's policy to require the
preservation of till hcnithy oak trees unless compelling reasons
justify the removal of such trees. The three mobilchome parks
affected contain numerous oak trees, including protected
specimens on residential and s:ommercial lots. The City's Oak Tree
Ordinance protects these trees, provided the trees have established
21
7.a
Packet Pg. 59
themselves and achieved certain growth benchmarks. The
proposed project would not conflict with the City's Oak Tree
Preservation Ordinance because the oak tree preservation measures
and policies would remain in full effect. The proposed project is
regulatory in nature and would regulate three existing mobilehome
parks. Moreover, the proposed amendments would have iio
reasonably foreseeable effect on any trees. Therefore, any impact
would be less than significant.
IV f. No Impact. -
The project site is not within a habitat conservation plan (HCP),
natural community conservation plan (NCCP) or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the
project would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation
plans and the project would have no related impacts.
IV g. No Impact.
The project site is not within a Significant Ecological Area
identified on Exhibit CO -5 (Significant Ecological Areas) of the
City's General Plan Conservation Element. The project site is also
not within a Significant Natural Area identified by the CDFW.
Therefore, the proposed project would not affect a Significant
Ecological Area or Significant Natural Area.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
V a -d. No Impact.
The proposed amendments to the zoning code would not impact
cultural resources in the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed
amendments would not alter any unique geological feature,
paleontological resource, any human remains, or affect any other
historical or archeological resource. As part of the project analysis,
the City consulted with the Fernandeflo Tataviam Band of Mission
Indians as requirbd by AB52. Consultation concluded and no
mitigation measures were required. No construction or grading is
proposed with these amendments. The three mobilehome parks
affected by the project are fully developed. No additional grading
or development is anticipated. Therefore, amending the zoning
code would have no impact or effect. Furthermore, any future
development would be required to comply with the City's General
Plan and associated regulations for the preservation of historical
and culturally significant resources. No historic buildings exist
within the planning area. Therefore, no impact to archeological,
historical or cultural resources would be caused by the proposed
zoning amendments.
22
7.a
Packet Pg. 60
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
VI a -i. No Impact.
Southern Califonua bas numerous active and potentially active
faults that could affect the City. As stated in the City's General
Plan, the City is susceptible to geologic hazards in the event of a
major earthquake (magnitude 8.3) along the San Andreas Fault.
This could result in ground failure and liquefaction in certain
locations. The proposed amendments to the zoning code would not
change building and development codes; the amendments are
regulatory in nature and primarily involve regulations of age
qualifying housing. Future development would be required to
follow all state and City building codes and regulations. In
accordance with these codes and regulations, any future
development would be required to address the geologic and/or
soils conditions on its specific project site prior to the issuance of
any building permits on the project site. No development on
natural slopes is proposed as part of this project and no unique
geologic features would be destroyed, modified, or altered.
11- a fore, - the proposed zoning code amendments are not
anticipated to have any impact related to geology and soils.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
VII a. Leas Than Signifiamt Impact
The City of Santa Clarita's Climate Action Plan (CAP) identifies
the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted within Santa
Clarita and establishes a set of strategies that reduces the amount
of greenhouse gases produced in the city to a level that is
consistent with the reduction goals identified in the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) (Health and
Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, 38550, 38560,
38561-38565, 38570, 38571, 38574, 38580, 38590, 38592-
38599). The proposed project would be consistent with the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Because goals, objectives, and
policies approved under the General Plan are forecast to meet the
GHG emission reduction targets mandated by AB 32, development
projects that are able to demonstrate consistency with the General
Plait and Zoning Ordinance are, by association, consistent with the
CAP. The projact will not modify the existing zoning and General
Plan designations for any of the sites affected by the proposed
overlay zone. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan
land use designation and zoning for the site, impacts relating to
GHG emissions are less than significant.
VII b. Less Than Signlfcant Impact.
The proposed project would be consistent with the CAP. The CAP
must achieve emission reduction goals consistent with those
23
7.a
Packet Pg. 61
outlined by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
(AD 32). The project will be consistent with the General Plan and
zoning ordinance, as such the project will be consistent with the
CAP, Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any
applicable plans or policies adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHG and would be considered less than significant,
VIII- HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
VIII a-1. No Impact.
The proposed amendments to the zoning code would not directly
expose people to health hazards or hazardous materials, interfere
with any emergency response plans, or any land use within two
miles of an airport, airfield, or otherwise impact any airport land
use plan. The Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone contains no
sites listed on the California Department of Toxic Substance
Control'sEnviroStordatabase ( s://www,envirostor.dtsc.ca.aov),
The proposed amendments to the zoning code are regulatory in
nature, primarily regulating aged qualifying housing within three
existing mobilehome parks. The amendments are -not -associated
with any development or grading, would not change the land use
map, nor change development densities versus what is currently
allowed. Any future development projects would be subject to
various federal, state, and local laws and agencies that regulate
hazardous material sites, such as the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the state and federal Environmental Protection Agencies
(EPA), the California Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC), and the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Therefore,
given the amendments would not alter land use or create potential
hazards to the public, the proposed zoning code amendments are
not anticipated to have any impact to hazards or hazardous
materials.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IX &-l. No Impact.
The proposed project would not impact water quality standards,
nor affect groundwater supplies. The proposed amendments to the
zoning code include various regulatory changes and do not propose
any development, grading, or construction. The amendments
would not result in direct impacts on hydrology and water quality.
Further, the proposed amendments are not anticipated to impact
any 100 -year flood hazard area, tsunami, drainage pattern, or
runoff of Stormwater Management systems. Any future
construction related activity within the three mobilehome parks
would comply with the zoning codes in place at the time that
24
7.a
Packet Pg. 62
revisions are requested, including any additional CEQA review if
applicable. The City's Municipal Code and floodplain
requirements would continue to apply to areas within designated
floodplains, such as the Santa Clara River, regulating, limiting, or
prohibiting development, Therefore, the proposed zoning code
amendments are not anticipated to have an impact to hydrology
and water quality.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
X a. No Impact.
The proposed project consists of amendments to the zoning code
that are regulatory in nature, no development, construction, or
grading is proposed. The project would not physically divide an
existing community nor would the project result in barriers or
obstructions for pedestrians. Therefore, the project would have no
impact related to physically dividing a community,
X b. No Impact.
The project site consists of three existing mobileheme parks. The
project area is not located in any other planning area that is
designated for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. Santa Clarita is not within the Coastal Zone.
The project site has a General flan, designation and zoning that
allows for mobilehorne parks to exist. 'herefore, the proposed
project would not cause impacts due to conflicts with applicable
land use pians, policies, or regulations.
X ¢, No Impact.
The project site is not within a habitat conservation plan (HCP),
natural community conservation plan (NCCP) or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Likewise, the
proposed project would not conflict any policies of agencies with
jurisdiction over resources in the project area. No impacts would
occur.
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES
XI a -b. No Impact.
Gold mining and oil production historically have been the principal
mineral extraction activities in and around the Santa Clarity Valley.
Other minerals found in the planning area include construction
aggregate, titanium, and tuff. Mineral resources and extraction
areas are shown in the City's General Plan. The proposed zoning
code amendments would not affect mineral resources in Santa
Clarity generally or in the three mobilehome parks affected.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
41
7.a
Packet Pg. 63
XII. NOISE
XI C. No Impact.
While the proposed project does not involve construction,
development or grading, future development projects may occur
within the three mobilehome parks affected. Those projects would
be subject to the applicable building codes and recycling policies.
The proposed amendments focus primarily on regulating age
qualified housing within three existing mobilehome parks and
would not permit or approve any physical changes in the
environment. Therefore, the proposed zoning code amendment
would not result in -the use of nonrenewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner and there would be no associated impacts.
XII a -d. Less than Significant Impact.
The proposed zoning code amendments would not expose persons
to an increased level of temporary, periodic, or permanent noise,
ground -borne vibration, or ambient noise. The proposed
amendments are regulatory in nature and do not include any
development. The proposed amendments do not diminish or
remove any noise -related regulations and would not or could not
create additional significant noise in the three mobilehome parks
affeeted. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated in
relation to noise.
XII e -f. No Impact.
There are no airports, airfields, or airport land use plans within the
City. Therefore, the proposed zoning code amendments would
create no impacts related to airport noise.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
XIII a-c.No Impact.
The proposed amendments to the zoning code is not anticipated to
induce population growth in the Santa Clarita Valley, either
directly or indirectly, nor would any of. the proposed provisions
cause displacement of existing homes or people. The zoning code
amendments aro regulatory in nature, primarily focusing on senior
housing. The zoning code amendments would not alter the City's
population projections and are consistent with the City's General
Plan. Therefore, the zoning code amendments would have no
adverse impact to population and housing.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
XIV a.
(i) No Impact.
The proposed amendments would not directly or indirectly
increase the need for fire protection services. The proposed
26
7.a
Packet Pg. 64
zoning code amendments are intended to preserve the age -
restricted nature of existing mobilehome parks, No
additional structures or population would result from the
proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed project
would have no environmental impacts related to fire
services.
No Impact.
The proposed amendments are not anticipated to directly or
indirectly increase the need for police services. The
proposed zoning code amendments are intended to preserve
the age -restricted nature of existing mobilehome parks. No
additional structures or population would result from the
proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed project
would have no environmental impacts related to police
services.
No Impact.
The sites are located within the Saugus Union Filamentary
School District, the Sulphur Springs School District and
also the William S. Had Union High School District. The
proposed project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly
increase the population of the City of Santa Clarita. The
proposed zoning code amendments are intended to preserve
the age -restricted nature of existing mobilohorne parks. No
increase in school -aged population would result frorn the
proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed project
would have no environmental impacts related to school
services.
(iv) No Impact.
The proposed project is not anticipated to directly or
indirectly increase number of persons using public parks.
The proposed zoning code amendments are intended to
preserve the age -restricted nature of existing mobilehome
parks. No increase in population would result from the
proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed project
would have no environmental impacts related to parks
(v) No Impact.
The project would not result in the need for new or
expanded public facilities. The proposed project would not
contribute new residences to the area that would lead to an
increase in the use of the local library system or other
public facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.
27
7.a
Packet Pg. 65
XV. RECREATION
XV a -b. No Impact.
The proposed amendmdnts to the zoning code would not have any
impact on recreational amenities within the City of Santa Clarita.
The proposed project is a regulatory adjustment and does not
include any development activities. Subsequent projects would be
required to comply with the City's General Plan and would be
subject to the City's park impact fees as applicable. Therefore, no
impact to recreation is anticipated with the proposed zoning code
amendments.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFP7C
XVI a. Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed amendments are generally limited to the further
restriction of land uses in three existing moblohome parks, are not
associated with any grading or development, and would not entitle
any new project. The project would not be anticipated to generate
additional vehicle trips. Therefore, any impact the project would
have on the performance of the circulation system would be less
than significant.
XVI b. Leas Than Significant Impact.
The proposed project would not generate trips: the project consists
of regulatory amendments to the zoning code that would further
limit land uses in three a dsting mobilehome parks. The project
would not entitle or approve construction, grading, or development
activity and would not change the land use map or established
densities. In accordance with the City's Traffic Impact Report
Guidelines, projocts that generate less than 50 trips during both the
AM or PM peals hours do not require a traffic impact analysis.
Given the zoning code amendments would not generate any
vehicle trips, the proposed project would not exceed, either
individually or cumulatively, an established level of service
standard or any other circulation system performance measures
established by the City or in the Los Angeles County Congestion
Management Program (CMP), and the project would cause no
related significant impacts. Any impact would be less than
significant.
XVI a No Impact.
The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport. There are no airports
in the City of Santa Clarita. Consequently, the proposed project
would not affect any airport facilities nor would the project cause a
change in the directional patterns of aircraft. Therefore, the
proposed project would have no impact to air traffic patterns.
28
7.a
Packet Pg. 66
XVI d. No Impact.
The project consists of amendments to the zoning code and does
not include any construction, grading;, or development activities.
Nothing about the project would increase sharp curves or
daztgcrous intersectiow or increase hazards due to design features
or incompatible uses like Farni equipment. Therefore, there would
be no impact.
XVI C. No Impact.
The project consists of amendments to the zoning code and does
not include any construction, grading, or development activities.
Nothing about the project would result in inadequate emergency
access or decreased emergency services. Therefore, there would be
no impact.
XVI f. No Impact.
The project consists of amendments to the zoning code and does
not include any com(ruction, grading, or development activities,
Nothing about the project would conflict with adopted policies,
pians, or prognu3as regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or deomase the performance or safety of such facilities.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
XVII a -g. No Impact.
The proposed Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone does not
include any new development proposals. The amendments are
regulatory in nature. The proposed amendments would not result in
the construction of new water .facilities, expansion of existing
facilities, affect drainage patterns, water treatment services, nor
would the amendments have the potential to impact landfill
capacity or demand. Any subsequent development would be
required to comply with the; City's General. ,Plan, currant
development regulations, the requirernenui of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and all applicable utility purveyors.
Compliance with These requirements would ensure all federal, state
and local statutes and imposed regulations arc met, Therefore, no
impact to utilities or service sys€ems is anticipated as a result of the
approval of the proposed code amendments,
XVM- MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
XVIII a -c. No Impact.
The proposed Senior Mobilehome Park overlay zone will not
impact the environment, will not lead to a substantial reduction in
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or reduce or restrict the number
29
7.a
Packet Pg. 67
of rtfre, tlueatened or endfingered species. The proposed.
amendments arc regulatory in nature. As such, the proposed
amendments do not remove any estfablished City reguladons runt
protect any plant and animal species, The proposal would not
contribute to any cumulative impacts said would not cause
environmental affects that would adversely affoot hunms.
Therefore, the project would not result is a ruandatoay finding of
significance.
30
7.a
Packet Pg. 68
EXHIBIT B
Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone — 90% Senior Occupancy
SECTION 17.38.085 SENIOR MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE
A. Purpose.
The senior mobilehome park (SMHP) overlay zone is intended to preserve the maintenance and
viability of existing senior mobilehome parks consistent with the City's goal of meeting the
housing needs of senior residents at a standard consistent with the preservation of the public
health, safety, and welfare. The SMHP overlay zone is intended to limit the conversion of
existing senior mobilehome parks to other land uses. Prior to the adoption of the SMHP overlay
zone, the City Council adopted a moratorium on the conversion of senior mobilehome parks to
all -ages parks and required the senior mobilehome parks to maintain 80% senior occupancy.
The moratorium ran from January 26, 2016, to January 26, 2018. Although the General Plan
does not designate mobilehome parks as a separate land use designation, the SMHP overlay zone
is consistent with the urban residential, non -urban, and commercial land use designations of the
General Plan.
B. Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in this Section:
"Senior" means a person who is fifty-five (55) years of age or older.
"Senior Mobilehome Park" means a mobilehome park in which at least 80% of the spaces are
occupied by, or intended for occupancy by, at least one senior.
C. Location.
The City conducted surveys of each of the parks designated as a senior mobilehome park and
verified that at least 80% of each park's occupied spaces are occupied by at least one senior.
The following are designated as senior mobilehome parks:
7.a
Packet Pg. 69
• Canyon Palms Mobilehome Park
18323 Soledad Canyon Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91387
APN's 2844-003-088, 2844-003-012, 2844-003-013
• Greenbrier Mobile Estates
21301 Soledad Canyon Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91351
APN's 2849-021-018, 2849-021-019, 2849-024-034
Sierra Park Mobilehome Park
18204 Soledad Canyon Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91387
APN's 2844-001-070, 2844-001-071
D. Land Use Regulations.
At least 80% of the spaces in senior mobilehome parks must be occupied by, or intended for
occupancy by, at least one senior. If a park designated as a senior mobilehome park in
Subsection (C) met this qualification as of January 26, 2016, the senior mobilehome park overlay
zone shall be applied to that mobilehome park, and that park shall be required to operate as a
senior mobilehome park. Furthermore, from and after the effective date of this Section, senior
mobilehome parks are required to issue new leases only when at least one occupant of the space
is a senior, except that once 90% of the spaces are occupied by at least one senior, the remaining
spaces may be rented to non -seniors. If the occupants of a space who do not meet this
requirement rented the space before the effective date of this Section, they shall be allowed to
remain. When such occupants cease to occupy a space, the space must thereafter be rented as set
forth in this Section.
The signage, advertising, park rules and regulations, and leases for spaces in senior mobilehome
parks shall state the park is a senior park.
E. Notification of New Leases and Biennial Verification of Occupancy.
The City will conduct a biennial verification of the occupancy of each senior mobilehome park
to confirm its status as a senior mobilehome park. Each senior mobilehome park shall maintain
occupancy consistent with the requirements of Subsection (D) herein. The park owner shall
7.a
Packet Pg. 70
7.a
provide notice to the City when a new lease is signed and shall certify that the lease complies
with the requirements of Subsection (D) herein. Each senior mobilehome park shall have
procedures in place to document the percentage of occupied spaces that have at least one senior.
The park owner shall provide an affidavit demonstrating compliance with this documentation
requirement upon request by the City.
F. Violation.
Failure to comply with the requirements of this Section shall constitute a violation of this code,
subject to enforcement in the manner and form provided for in the Santa Clarita Municipal Code.
Packet Pg. 71
CL ._ _. 00
C oc `21
u
.................
L 1
u ,oi
m Z -ice .!
1
�a
C d a
1 V d S 4p,a. Z
leilsie lee of
Y
If
J
7.a
s
eo
�Aa a
aqe �
iso s
z < e use
a
Packet Pg. 72
r
C Y
m Y
N
NO
[31W=
J
.4/yyj,
' +rte R w
a
leilsie lee of
Y
If
J
7.a
s
eo
�Aa a
aqe �
iso s
z < e use
a
Packet Pg. 72