Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-09 - ORDINANCES - SENIOR MH PARK OVERLAY ZONE (2)ORDINANCE NO. 18-01 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; 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. 1633 1) 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; 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: 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, Sheriffprotection, 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 zoning practice; 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. 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 9th day of January, 2018. MAYOR ATTEST: tcatckl TY CLERK DATE: 1 1 �1` i 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 No. 18-01 was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of December 2017. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 9th day of January, 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Smyth, Miranda, Kellar, McLean, Weste NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. 18-01 and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806). CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: e 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, 18204 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 prof ect, 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 PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Prepared by:_ Mike Ascione, Assistant Planner Il (Signature) (Name/Title) Approved by: Ben Jarvis AICP Associate Planner (Signat re) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From October 17, 2017 To November 7 2017 Public Notice Given On October 17 2017 [X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: S:\CD\IPLANNING DIVISION\CUf•:REN'i'1? d017lMC I7-0 i9 (UDC 17.001 Mobile Home 0verlay)\1S\Draft ND.doc ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Project Title and Master Case Number: Lead Agency Name & Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone 2017 Code Amendment Master Case 17-039 Unified Development Code Update 17-001 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Mike Ascione, Assistant Planner It 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 County, CA. All three parks are located on Soledad Canyon Road --18323 Soledad Canyon Road (northwest corner of Solamint Road), 21301 Soledad Canyon 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: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation(s): City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Urban Residential 5 (UR5) Mixed Use Corridor (MX -C) Urban Residential 5 (UR5) Soledad Corridor Plan Urban Center (SC -UC) Proiect Setting/Existing 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: UR5 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. • Santa Clarita Municipal Code, Chapter 6.04 —Manufactured Home 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 mobilehome park in which at least 80% of the occupied spaces have at least one resident who is 55 years of age or over. The residents were concerned that changing 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 Clarita 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 place 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. Proiect Description The City is considering the adoption of a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone which would include Greenbrier Estates, Canyon Palms, and Sierra Park mobilehome parks and would permanently prohibit their conversion from senior parks to all -age parks. This adoption and implementation of the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone would not involve any construction or any type of development, as all three involved mobilehome parks are fully built out. Creation of the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlav Zone The City has determined there is a shortage of affordable senior housing, and that senior mobilehome parks represent 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 affordable housing options available to seniors, it is necessary to implement the Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone, The Overlay Zone would prohibit the park owners in the three parks regulated from taking any action which would reduce the number of senior spaces, as defined above, to less than 80% of the total occupied spaces in the park. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Not Applicable Proiect Location Exhibit I: Mobilehome Park Locations A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agricultural and Forestry [ ] Air Quality Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology/Soils [ ] Greenhouse Gas Emissions [ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology & Water Materials Quality [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Traffic & Transportation [ ] 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 prof ect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EM pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. I` /d-1 % _ Mike Ascione, Assistant Planner II Date — - &,,— I Ben Jarvis, Assoc a e Planner Date 5 C. EVALUATION OF FNVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [} ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ❑ ❑ ❑ not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that ❑ ❑ ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? I1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided In Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a n 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(8))? 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 ❑ 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? 6 ❑ ❑ Li ❑ IN I EJ Ll N c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 7 ❑ l_1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ►a AMEMOR Less 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 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? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 7 ❑ l_1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ►a AMEMOR 8 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ® ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as ❑ ❑ ❑ identified on the City of Santa Clarita 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 resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [,.� ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ z adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated ❑ ❑ ❑ oil the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ j� liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the ❑ ❑ ❑ loss of topsoil, either on or off site? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ❑ ❑ ❑ that would become unstable as a result of the project, 8 9 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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 18-1- ❑ ❑ B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use El of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Result in a change in topography or ground surface ❑-1 El X relief features? g) Result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 ❑ El cubic yards or more? h) Involve development and/or grading on a natural slope El greater than 10% natural grade? i) Result in the destruction, covering, or modification of El any unique geologic or physical feature? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or Q indirectly, that may have significant impact on the environment?? b) Conflict with the adopted Climate Action Plan 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 C. ,l ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the El El 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 El El El acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 9 IM Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ 0 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ E. 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlauds are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential ❑ ❑ ��� health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ [_] requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ �� ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? IM 11 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the El El El site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed El ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as EJ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Q ❑ 1XI 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? n k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and El El D M directions of surface water and/or groundwater? 1) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? E El Z X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community EJ (including a low-income or 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 plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, El ❑ natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 11 Less Than 0 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant Impact XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the 1:1 ❑ ❑ residents of the state? ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and ❑ inefficient manner? XII. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the prof ect? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [� would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels'? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, 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, [] Necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? Less Than 0 ❑ Significant Less Than ❑ With Significant No Mitigation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ M- 1:1 ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ ❑ z ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 1Z ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ z c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? 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 facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 13 ❑ ❑ M ❑ Less Than ❑ Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ }� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ 14 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ® [f program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ El El either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ E] fl Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs �] regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 El applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant envirozunental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ E 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 ❑ E] Z project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ Q El 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 1:1 El Q V1 capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and L El ❑ regulations related to solid waste? 14 15 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the El ❑ (l 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 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 will ❑ El IM cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 15 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts I. AESTHETICS I a. 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 are limited as the parks and surrounding areas are largely built -out with densely configured structures 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 int6rruption of any views of scenic, resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic vistas. I b. No Iinpact. 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 Interstate 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 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 lighting 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. II b. No Impact. Santa Clarita does not have agricultural preserve areas. Further, there is no Williamson Act contract 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 P 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 three 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 could the project result in the conversion of forest lands to non -forest use. The project consists of preserving existing land uses, is regulatory in nature, and is not associated with any construction or. grading project. Therefore, there would be no impact. III. AIR QUALITY III a. No Impact. Santa Clarita is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east, and 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 quality standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifies region -wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for stationary -source polluters; facilitation of new transportation technologies, such as low -emission vehicles; and capital improvements, such as park-and-ride facilities and public transit improvements. The current adopted plan is the 2016 AQMP adopted on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP is designed to meet the state and federal Clean Air Act planning requirements and focuses on new federal ozone and ultra -fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. The SCAQMD's AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, and to attain clean air within the region. 18 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 age 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. III b. No Impact. Santa Clarita is located in a nonattainment 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 produce 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 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 SCAQMiD'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 Characteristics of the Site The planning area is developed. The project area contains street trees, landscaped residential yards, and hardscape within the three Mobilehome parks affected. IV a. No Impact. The proposed project would not adversely affect, either 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 CJS Fish and Wildlife Service because the project does not involve construction or grading. The project consists of zoning code amendments that are 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 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 trees and ornamental or manicured vegetation and 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 other drainage courses. While some of these areas may be subject to federal protection under Section 404 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 are 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 age 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 Significant 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 all healthy oak trees unless compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees. The three mobilehome parks affected contain numerous oak trees, including protected specimens on residential and commercial lots. The City's Oak Tree Ordinance protects these trees, provided the trees have established 2.1 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 no 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 Fernandefio Tataviam Band of Mission Indians as required 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 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS VI a -i. No Impact. Southern California has 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. Therefore, - the proposed zoning code amendments are not anticipated to have any impact related to geology and soils. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS VII a. Less Than Significant 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 Plan and Zoning Ordinance are, by association, consistent with the CAP. The project 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 Significant Impact. The proposed project would be consistent with the CAP. The CAP must achieve emission reduction goals consistent with those 23 outlined by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 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 -i. 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 https://www.envirostor, Ltsc.ca.ov . 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 Iand 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), tho California. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC), 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 a-1. 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 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 floodplain, 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 mobilehome 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 Plan designation and zoning that allows for mobilehome parks to exist. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause impacts due to conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. X c. 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 Clarita 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 Clarita generally or in the three mobilehome parks affected. Therefore, there would be no impact. 25 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 affected. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated in relation to noise. XII a -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 are 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 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. (ii) 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. (iii) No Impact. The sites are located within the Saugus Union Flementary School District, the Sulphur Springs School District and also the William S. Hart 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 mobilehome parks. No increase in school -aged population would result from 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 XV. RECREATION XV a -b. No Impact. The proposed amendments 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/TRAFFIC XVI a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments are generally limited to the further restriction of land uses in three existing inoblehome 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. Less 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 existing 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, projects that generate less than 50 trips during both the AM or PM peak 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 c. 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 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 dangerous intersections or increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses like farm equipment. Therefore, there would be no impact. XVI e. 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 construction, grading, or development activities. Nothing about the project would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or decrease 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, current development regulations, the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and all applicable utility purveyors. Compliance with these requirements would ensure all federal, state and local statutes and imposed regulations are met. Therefore, no impact to utilities or service systems is anticipated as a result of the approval of the proposed code amendments. XVIII. 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 of rare, threatened or endangered species. The proposed amendments are regulatory in nature. As such, the proposed amendments do not remove any established City regulations that protect any plant and animal species. The proposal would not contribute to any cumulative impacts and would not cause environmental effects that would adversely affect humans. Therefore, the project would not result in a mandatory finding of significance. 30 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. • 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 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 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. r N d O L I J' �.ry� ryry ov o rae a rh>� � 01 GOv I 'rY*JV+ ,'u"f„4PN,dk„r bP8'Aa99 '4'g'. _.. "S 0 r <rx i G t.ar7 ,, Y ij I r t w e rF/ r ✓ ,,.�+ i'µSpq ,�, �� // fi�r•' +�� r P a 49p;, 4 °o 7PA 'zu r,/ JV f e� r 1 0 o lausia4ee of