HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - GP AMEND HOUSING SC 92 226 (2)AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: December 8, 1992
City Manager
Item to
Lynn M. Harris
a'
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 92-001, amending the Housing Element of the
General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita
Resolution No. 92-226
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
At Its meeting of November 24, 1992, the Council opened the public hearing on this Item, accepted
public testimony, and continued the Item to the next regular meeting of December 8, 1992. The
purpose of the continuance was to allow time for the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (CHCD) to respond to the draft amendment. The City has now been
Informed that official CHCD response only comes after City adoption of the element.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 92-226, approving General Plan Amendment No. 92-001 and the associated
Negative Declaration.
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 20, 1992, Including summary.
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. P92-37
3. Negative Declaration
4. Resolution No. 92-226
Counciliar92.001.mar
Adapted: /pq
Agenda Item:
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: November 24, 1992
' r
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to. be presented b t
Lynn M. Harrisf�_�/t��
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 92.001, amending the Housing Element of the
General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita
Resolution No. 92.226
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted the General Plan on June 25,1991. Upon adoption, the Housing Element
was submitted, as required, to the California Department of.Housing and Community Development
(CDHCD) for review and approval. Current State law requires that the CDHCD determine the
adequacy of housing elements for every Jurisdiction In California.
The CDHCD's determination was that, while the City's element was substantially in compliance,
Informational deficiencies existed which rendered it technically Inadequate. CDHCD staff
transmitted comments regarding these deficiencies, and has been very helpful In developing the .
amendment. General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 92-001 will bring the City's Housing Element Into
full compliance with State law.
The draft text of the proposed amendment Is set forth In Exhibit 1 of the Council resolution, and
a summary of the amendment is also provided. For a description and explanation. of the
amendment, please refer to the Planning Commission staff report of October 20, 1992. It should
be noted that Michael Brandman Associates produced some of the material contained within the
draft amendment so as to meet their contractual obligation to prepare a legally adequate document.
At Its regular meeting on October 20, 1992, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
adopted Resolution No. P92-37, recommending the approval of GPA No. 92.001 (and Negative
Declaration) to the Council. Attached for consideration are the staff report of 10/20/92, the
Commission's resolution, and the Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 92-226, approving General Plan Amendment No. 92-001 and the associated
Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 20, 1992, including summary.
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. P92-37
3. Negative Declaration
4. Resolution No. 92-226
Cound1*92-WI.gps
RESOLUTION NO. 92-226
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-001 AMENDING
THE HOUSING.ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR
THE CITY OF SANTA-CLARITA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine and
declare as follows:
A. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 91-98, approving and certifying the
Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan and
adopting the General Plan for the City of Santa
Clarita.
B. On October 20, 1992; the Planning Commission of
the City of Santa Clarita conducted a duly noticed
public hearing on proposed General Plan Amendment No.
92-001.
C. Following the public hearing of October 20, 1992,
after duly considering all testimony and evidence
presented on General Plan Amendment No. 92-001, the
Planning Commission for the City of Santa Clarita
adopted Resolution P92-37, recommending adopting of the
negative declaration of environmental impact and
recommending approval to the City Council of General
Plan Amendment No. 92-001.
D. On November 24, 1992, the City Council for the
City of Santa Clarita conducted a duly noticed public
hearing in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. on proposed
General Plan Amendment No. 92-001.
E. The City Council fully considered all testimony
and evidence regarding proposed General Plan Amendment
No. 92-001.
F. The City Council fully considered the initial
study and negative declaration of environmental impact
prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 92-001.
36759.2
G. Proposed General Plan Amendment No. 92-001 would
amend the General Plan Housing Element to identify and
appraise housing stock needs, existing and future, for
the planning area.
H. General Plan Amendment No. 927001 would amend the
General Plan Housing Element to accurately describe
existing and projected housing inventories and
opportunity for additional housing within the planning
area.
I. General Plan Amendment No. 92-001 would amend the
General Plan Housing Element to determine the extent of
housing problems in the community and planning area for
the General Plan.
J. General Plan Amendment No. 92-001 would amend the
General Plan Housing Element to describe the selection
and solution of methods for solving housing
deficiencies and providing the City•and'its planning
area with sufficient housing at all income levels.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence
received, and upon studies and investigations made by the City
Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds and
determines that the proposed General Plan Housing Element
Amendment No. 92-001 is consistent with the goals and policies of
the adopted General Plan, and that the proposed amendment
complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
has reviewed and considered the environmental information
contained in the initial study and determines that it is in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
and state and local CEQA guidelines, and the proposed project
will not have a significant impact on the environment. A
negative declaration was prepared for this project. Based upon
the evidence and testimony, and.upon the findings set forth in
this Resolution, the City Council hereby approves the negative
declaration of environmental impact.
SECTION 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
has reviewed and considered the evidence and testimony provided
at the public hearing and has reviewed and considered the
proposed General Plan Amendment No. 92-001. Based upon the
evidence received and the findings set forth in this Resolution,
the City Council hereby adopts General Plan Amendment No. 92-001,
an amendment to the Santa Clarita General Plan Housing Element,
as set forth in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
36759.2 -2-
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santa
Clarita at a regular meeting held on the day of
, 19_.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly
adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
, 19_, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
CITY .CLERK
36759.2 -3-
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
General Plan Amendment No. 92-001
DATE: October 20, 1992
TO: Chairman Voodrow and Members of the Planning Commission
,, Lwi
FROM: Lynn H Harris, Depu ?yCity Manager, Community Development
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: Citywide
REQUEST: Amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council adopted the General Plan on June 25, 1991. Upon adoption the
Housing Element was submitted to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for review and approval. Vhile the element was
adopted by the City, State law requires HCD to determine the adequacy of the
Housing Element following adoption.
HCD's determination was that while the element was substantially in compliance
with State law, technical and informational deficiencies existed which
rendered the element. inadequate. HCD transmitted comments addressing the
deficiencies and its :staff has been very helpful to the City in writing this
amendment. This General Plan amendment will bring the element into full
compliance with State law.
The City's contract.with the General Plan consultant requires the preparation
of a General Plan in full compliance with state law. As part of this
obligation, the City's General Plan consultant, Michael Brandman Associates,
has written some of the material contained within the draft amendment.
PROJECT
The proposed amendment to the General Plan consists of revisions of existing
information and the addition of new information. Subject areas in need of
revision are: Large Families, Farm Vorkers, Land Use Controls, and
Implementation Programs. New information includes a Land Inventory Suitable
for Residential Development, Quantified Objectives, Potential Loss of
Affordable Housing Subsidies, and Consistency with other General Plan
Elements. Some new information was required as a result of recent State laws
enacted after the General Plan contract and work program began.
The addition of this information does not change the intent of the General
Plan and its implementation measures, but further clarifies- and expands on
housing issues relevant to State requirements, as well as community needs in
the City of Santa Clarita. In particular, the amendment is technical in
nature and serves to clarify, but does not change, the policies, goals,and
objectives to implement mandated housing programs and requirements.
GPA 92-001
October 20, 1992
page 2
According to the HCD, all sections. of the attached draft amendment are
acceptable and require no further work to meet State law, with the exception
of the land inventory and implementation programs. If the Commission requests
additional work in these subject areas, then additional HOD review and.
approval may be necessary. The Staff may have an update for the Commission at
the October 20, 1992 meeting, regarding ECD approval of the remaining two
sections of this material.
The amendment must be adopted by the City Council, by December 22, 1992, to
meet the necessary deadline. Action by the Planning Commission at .its October
20th meeting will enable the City to meet this deadline.
A summary is attached. The full draft amendment is Exhibit 1 of the attached
resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
An environmental review of this project was conducted by Community Development
Department staff. The Initial Study indicated that this proposed project,
would have no adverse environmental impacts. Subsequently, a Negative
Declaration was prepared for this project, pursuant to Section 15070 of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. P92-37, recommending. that the City Council approve the
Negative Declaration for the project and the proposed General Plan amendment.
MAR:740
Summary of General Plan Amendment No. 92-001
(Housing Element Amendment)
Seven major subjects are addressed. Some are existing subjects.in the Housing
Element to which additional discussion is proposed. Others are new subjects
not presently covered.
1. LARGE FAMILIES (page 1) - Expands existing discussion of housing needs for
large families, and attempts to quantify the number of large families
within the planning area of the General Plan.
2. FARM WORKERS (page 1) - Expands existing discussion of farmworker
population within the planning area. It attempts to quantify the acreage
of agricultural land and show that agriculture -related jobs are minimal
within the .planning area, particularly those that would generate a need
for farm worker housing..
3. LAND USE CONTROLS (page 2) - Entirely replaces the existing discussion of
this subject. -Land use controls are those items that require submittal of
an application and City review for adherence to zoning, subdivision,
grading, and environmental requirements. This section provides an analysis
of how the City's land use controls have an impact as a constraint to
providing housing, particularly affordable housing. An inventory and
analysis.of land suitable for residential development is also provided.
4. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES (page 10) - This section is new information. It
attempts to objectively quantify how many housing units the City truly
expects will be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved in the period of
June 25, 1991 through June 30, 1994. The term "conserved° is used per
State requirements, but is- better explained by as "preserved," or
"maintained." It refers to the number of units of apartment buildings
having affordability controls as described in no. 5, below. An effort
must be made by the City. to preserve or maintain these controls. The
numbers indicated in the quantified objectives section are estimates based
on actual numbers of units according to applications submitted for new
construction, agreements though grant funding to rehabilitate existing
units, and known expiration dates of buildings where affordable rents
should be maintained.
5. POTENTIAL LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSIDIES. (page 12) This section
is new information. It pertains to subsidized multiple family ,housing
units at -risk of conversion to non -low income uses .The applicability is
to apartment buildings where the either a signficant portion, or the
entire building is subsidized to offer affordable rents for low and
moderate income levels, and that subsidy is due to expire by June 30,
1999. The City must be aware of these expirations and diligently help
maintain those subsidies, in the event any expire and are not renewed.. If
the subsidy expires, then the building owner is no. longer required to
offer low/moderate income rents; most likely these rents would then change
to market rate rents. If this occurs it could lead to a large scale
displacement of tenants who could not afford the new, higher rents.
6. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER (General Plan) ELEMENTS (page 19) - This section is
new information. The Housing Element is only one of 12 general plan
elements. A discussion is presented that explains how all of the General
Plan elements relate to each other in terms of internal consistency.
Certain procedures were designed as part of the General Plan process to
help ensure necessary consistency.
7. IMPLEMENTATION (page 24) - This section expands. upon existing
information. It strengthens the description of 25 of the 45
implementation programs to indicate a stronger committment on the City's
part toward implementation. Also specific information is provided that
shows six of the implementation programs are either specifically planned
or funded for a particular fiscal year, who will be responsible for
administering these programs, and who the beneficiary is.
MAR: 734
RESOLUTION NO. P92-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-001
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as follows:
a. On June 25,1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-98, adopting the General Plan
of the City of Santa Clarha and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report.
b. The City's contract with the General Plan consultant requires the preparation of seven state
mandated General Plan elements, plus six optional elements. Presently the Housing
Element, a mandatory element, has been deemed not in compliance with state requirements,
per letter of February 26, 1992 and October 2, 1992 by the State of California Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) which has the authority to review housing
elements. A proposed amendment, responding to recommendations of HCD, has been
provided to the City pursuant to the contract and is ready for Inclusion In the General Plan.
C. The proposed project was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
d. A duty noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 1992,
In the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
e. The General Plan Housing Element Identifies and appraises housing stock and needs,
existing and future, for the planning area.
I. The Housing Element accurately describes existing and projected housing inventories and
opportunities for additional housing within the planning area.
g. The Housing Element determines the extent of housing problems In the community and
planning area.
h. The Housing Element describes the selection and solutions of methods for solving
housing deficiencies and providing the City and Its planning area with sufficient housing
at all Income levels.
The Information which Is the subject of this General Plan amendment is consistent with all
other provisions of the Housing Element.
J. The Housing Element, as amended, remains consistent with all elements of the General
Plan.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and
Investigation made by the Planning Commission and on Its behalf, the Commission further finds
and determines that the proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and
policies of the adopted General Plan, and that the proposed amendment complies with all other
applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances.
SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and considered'
the environmental information contained In the Initial Study, and determines that It is in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and
that the proposed project will not have a significant Impact on the environment. A Negative
Declaration was prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated above, the Planning
Commission recommends approval of the Negative Declaration to the City Council.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval to the City Council of the General Plan amended to read as shown In the attached
Exhibit 1.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th dayof October .1992.
Jack Woodrow, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Ly K Harrls
Dlfector of Community Development
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Donna M. Grtndey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
20th day of October 1992 by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Woodrow, Doughman, Brathwaite, Cherrington
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Modugno
t�
/ijVoo."nna M. Grtndey
City Clerk
phgcmfts9247.~
��.z �c aellvtel l.Leixllel
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
..iii....i...II...i =II ... ....... II..= ......... =IIII==II..... II .... II .... =........
PERMIT/PROJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 92-001
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita CASE NO: GPA 92-001
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Addition of technical discussion to existing
information in the Housing Element of the General Plan
.i..= ... II ..... 1... ..... .II....i..... II...... lii .... .i ........................
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065.of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council
[ ] 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. [X] are not attached.
........................................
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGE R/COMMU Y.D VELOPUENT
Prepared by: ichael A. Rubin Associate Planner
( ignature (Name/Title)
Reviewed by: Jeff Chaffin. Assistant Planner II
(S' n ure) IV (Name/Title)
Approved by. otc nald M. Williams. Senior Planner
igna re) (Name/Title)
iiiII3R9ilII . li.Ci3iili.................. ............................
Public Review Period From September 29, 1992 To October 20, 1992.
Public Notice Given On September 29, 1992 By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [ ] Posting of properties. [ ] Written notice.
i............==ii......i.=..=iiiili...li...l..ii.l....iiiiii.l...iiiiii...� .
CERTIFICATION DATE:
1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CASE NO: CPA 92-001 Case Planner: Michael Rubin
ProjectLocation:. Citywide
Project Description and Setting: - Addition of the following detailed
information to the Housing Element of the City's adopted General Plan
large families, farm workers, land use controls. quantified objectives of
housing construction and rehabilitation. housing units at risk of conver-
sion to non -low income uses, and consistency with other general nlan
elements.
General Plan Designation N/A Zoning: N/A
Applicant: City of Santa Clarita
Environmental Constraint Areas: none
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [ I [XI
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [ ] [ I [XI
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? I I I ] [XI
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ I I ] IX]
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ ] I ] [X]
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... [ I I I [XI
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ I I I [XI
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... ( I [ ] [XI
IW.E
YES MAYBE NO
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? .......................
I 1 I I [XI
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............
[ ] [ 1 [X]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ......................
( ] [ ] [X]
1.
Other?
I l I ] IXl
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? ....................
[ ] ( ] [X]'
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? .......
[ ] I ] [X]
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? ..............
[ ] [ ] [X]
d.
Other?
[ ] [ ] [X]
3. Vater. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................
[ ] ( ] [X]
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ..............................
[ ] [ 1 IXl
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? .........................
I ] [ l IX]
d.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? .............
[ ] [ ] [X]
e.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? .....................
[ ] [ ] [X]
f.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............
[ ] [ ] [X]
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of C
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................
[ l I l [Xl
MM
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [ J [X]
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
YES MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ]
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ] [ ] [X]
i.
Other?
[ ] [ ] [X]
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
[ ] [X]
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ]
[ J [X]
of any species of plants (including trees,
a. Substantial alteration of the present
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
[ ] [ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ...........
[ ] [ ] [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? .......................................
[ J [ ] [X]
5. Animal
Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? ....................
[ ] [ ] [X]
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [ J [X]
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ]
[ ] [X]
6. Noise. Vill the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ]
[ ] [X]
b. Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ]
[ ] [X]
C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? [ ]
[ ] [X]
7. Light and Glare. Vill the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ]
[ J [X]
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? ....................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ] [X]
:
- 4 -
YES
MAYBE NO
C.
A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... [ I
[ I [XI
d.
A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ...................... ( I
[ ] [X]
9.
Natural
Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increase in .the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. I 1
[ I [XI
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? .... .................... [ j
[ I [XI
10.
Risk
of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a.
Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? .......................... [ ]
[ I [X]
b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ [ ]
[ I [XI
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?' ...................................... [ l
[ I .[XI
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ l
[ I [XI
11.
Population. Will the proposal:
a.
Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [ I
[ 1 [XI
b.
Other? [ ]
[ I [XI
12.
Housing. Will the proposal:
a.
Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ]
[ I [X]
b.
Other? [ ]
[ I [XI
13.
Transportation/Circulation.
Will the proposal
result
in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ I
( I [X]
- 5 -
YES
MAYBE. NO
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ................. '[ J
I l [Xl
C.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................ I l
I ] [Xl
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. I ]
[ l [XI
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ l
[ I [XI
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .............................. [ ]
[ 1 IXI
14. Public
Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental
services in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? ........................... [ ]
[ I [XI
b.
Police' protection? ......................... [ ]
[ ] [XI
C.
Schools? ......... :......................... [ I
[ 1 [X]
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? [ ]
[ ] [XI
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ ]
[ I 1X1
f.
Other governmental services? ............... [ ]
[ l [XI
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . .................................... [ ]
[ I [X]
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? [ ]
[ I [XI
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ]
[ l [Xl
b.
Communications systems? .................... [ ]
[ ] [XI
C.
Water systems? ............................. [ l
[ 1 [X]
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ]
[ 1 [X]
e.
Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ]
[ I [XI
.
YES MAYBE NO
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? ..........
[ ] [ ] [X]
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
] I ] [X]
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? .........
[ ] [ ] [X]
17. Human Health.. Will the proposal result in:
] [ ] [X]
a. Creation of any.health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ...
[ ] [ ] [X]'
b. Exposure of people to potential health
] [ ] (X]
hazards? ...................................
[ ] I ] [X]
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
J [ ] [XJ
view open to the public? ...................
[ J [ J IXJ
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? .......................
( ] [ ] [X]
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? ....
[ ] ( ] [X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? .....................
[ ] [ ] [XJ
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration.
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic -archaeological site? .............. [
] I ] [X]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... [
] [ ] [X]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [
] [ ] (X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? .....:................ [
J [ ] [XJ
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" FINDING
Will the project have an adverse effect either
individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife
resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose
of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants,
fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities,
including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends
for its continued viability,.
(Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code.) ................ [
] [N/AJ [X]
- 7 -
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in
part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the
project may have a significant effect on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared.
YES MAYBE NO
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus-
taining 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? ................. [ ] [ ] [XJ
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while.long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... [ ] [ ] [X]
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. [ J [ ] [X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects'
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ J [ ] [X]
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The information contained in the proposed General Plan amendment consists of
expanding the technical discussion on two existing subjects addressed in the
Housing Element on farm worker housing and large family housing. Also, new
discussion is provided on a residential land inventory,- quantified
objectives of housing unitconstruction and rehabilitation, subsidized
housing units at risk of conversion to non -low-income uses, and consistency
with other General Plan elements. The addition of this information does not
change the intent of the General Plan and its implementation measures, but
further clarifies the housing issues relevant to State requirements as well
as community needs in the City of Santa Clarita.
Although one policy and two. goals of the Housing Element are proposed to be
amended, no physical development, or other changes. to the environment will
result. None of the proposed land uses, densities, circulation patterns,
and safety concerns designated throughout the General Plan are affected by
this project, since this General Plan amendment does not initiate any
physical changes. Any subsequently proposed development or change in the
environment that may arise as a result of the information provided as part
of this project, will be evaluated separately for its potential
environmental impacts, at such time as a new project is proposed.
These amendments serve only to clarify policies, goals, and objectives to
implement mandated housing programs and requirements. Therefore, the City
has found that there is no evidence that the project will have a potential
to adversely affect wildlife resources of the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. No significant impact is anticipated with this project.
E. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . ..................................... [X]
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant
effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in.this case because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [ ]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required . ......................................... [ [
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared By.,, 17, ,
( &Oda" • (ZRWn�I Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner Sep. 24, 1992
Signature) (Name/Title) (Date)
R
Donald M. Williams. Senior Planner Sep, 25. 1992
(Name/Title) (Date)
MAR: 724
RESOLUTION NO. 92-226
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
November 24, 1992
LARGE FAMILIES
page H-38, following paragraph 1, insert the following:
The 1990 Census indicates 28,925 families in the City of Santa Clarita of which 4,719 (6 percent)
are large families (more than four family members per household). Of the large family total, 3,528
are owner households and 1,191. are renter households.
An important need that large families have is that of adequate living space. Most housing units
provide one to three bedrooms when large families may need four or more. Due to the
combination of limited availability of larger units and their higher price, low and moderate income
families may have to move into smaller homes, resulting in overcrowding.
There are 9,820 housing units with four or more bedrooms, of the City's 43,463 total dwelling
units according to the 1990 Census. Of the total large family housing that is present within the
City, it is unknown how much of the housing is affordable to these large families. The large units
may not be within an affordable range, but rather targeted for the upper income households.
Large family issues and needs are addressed in Goal 3, Policy 3.12, and Programs 1.c, 2.b, and
3.a.
FARM WORKERS
page H-41, following paragraph 1, add the following:
In the Santa Clarita Planning Area, according to the Land Use Map, there is one location west
of Interstate 5 and north of State Highway 126, near Val Verde, that is designated as agricultural
land. This location is comprised of approximately 1,160 acres and is generally range -land. It is
hilly topography and limited water availability makes it unsuitable for more intensive forms of
agriculture. The 1990 Census states that 446 City residents were employed in farming, forestry,
and fishing occupations. Additionally, the Census reports that in the City of Santa Clarita 693
persons were employed within the City, in the agricultural, forestry and fishery industries. As a
result, there are between 446 and 693 persons employed in the agriculture -related Industry, some
of whom may be farm workers. The limitations of these data make it difficult to discern of those
who reside locally, how many work locally, and conversely, of those who work locally, how many
reside locally. Since crop production is not present in this area, it is likely that a farm worker
housing problem does not exist.
Because of the transitory nature of agricultural employment, farm workers presumably migrate
to various locations to find employment year-round. Consequently, the demand for farm worker
housing may be considered a seasonal need and the type of - housing is different from
conventional housing. Policies 6.3 and 6.6, and Program 5.c, address the needs of farm worker
housing by including provisions for affordable, local, and temporary shelter.
Amend Goal 3 to read as follows:
"To provide sites suitable for a variety of housing types for all income levels and assist in the
development and provision of affordable and proportionally priced and sized homes to meet the
needs of all community residents; including low and moderate income, large families,
handicapped, families with female heads of households, farm workers, and the elderly."
Amend Policy 3.12 to read as follows:
"Encourage the exploration of nontraditional housing models to accommodate affordable housing
and/or the need for temporary or transitional shelter for special needs such as for the abused,
neglected, divorced, homeless, handicapped, large families, farm workers, etc."
Amend Program 3.h to read as follows:
"Special Needs Prioritizing
Prioritize housing projects which include housing to meet the special needs of the community,
such as low or very low income households, the elderly, the single -parent family, the homeless,
large families, farm workers, and the disabled.
Status: Ongoing implementation."
LAND USE CONTROLS
Page H-46 and H-47: Land Use Controls
Delete paragraphs 1-4 and insert the following:
The City of Santa Clarita is currently using Los Angeles County's subdivision, planning and zoning
codes until the City's own development requirements have been completed. As of November
1992, the City's draft zoning code, the Unified Development Code (UDC), has received
conceptual approval from the Planning Commission and is anticipated to be adopted by the City
Council by the end of 1992.
Land use controls act as a constraint to the development of housing for all income levels.
Development standards are intended to protect the public welfare and quality of construction and
can influence the cost of housing and/or a reduction in development densities. For this reason,
the City has included provisions that will help offset some of the effects of land use controls on
project densities and costs. These provisions include density bonuses, joint living and working
quarters, and home occupations.
Under the County land use provisions, the maximum possible density of residential development
is limited by the land use designation (including maximum density and minimum lot size), required
setbacks and a height limit of two stories and/or 35 feet depending on the land use designation.
There are six residential designations which provide for the development of a variety of housing
2
types in the County. The permitted density ranges from less than 0.5 units per acre to 50 units
per acre as shown in Table H-19.
The Land Use Element identifies seven residential designations in the City which allow for
densities similar to the County designations (0.5 units per acre to 35 units per acre, and up to 50
units per acre in the Valley Center). The following sections in the proposed Unified Development
Code are in addition to development standards currently imposed by the County and will affect
the maximum possible density of multi -family residential units:
• Provisions are available to consider densities above the maximum permitted density as
a density bonus in accordance with Government Code Section 65915.
• Under the proposed UDC, a minimum of 200 square feet of open area per ground floor
unit and a minimum of 150 square feet of open space for units contained wholly on the
second story or above will be required. The current County standards do not presently
quantify an open space requirement for residential development unless it is a clustered
development.
Minimum standards for recreation facilities and trash areas are also being established for
multi -family residential developments but are not anticipated to affect maximum possible densities.
Parking requirements and minimum lot frontages will not be changed.
Under the County land use provisions, the residential planned development zone allows flexible
standards of development for hillsides and other natural scenic areas. The City recently adopted
a Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance which will reduce the permitted
density of hillside development below the midpoint of the permitted density range. Also,
development in a significant ecological area (SEA) will require a detailed biota study and
compliance with specific development criteria.
Single family residential development not on hillsides or in an SEA are expeditiously reviewed at
the public counter. Similar multifamily residential developments require an application for plot
plan review. Also, environmental review is required for projects exceeding 15,000 square feet.
Under the County land use provisions, residential uses in commercial zones are subject to the
approval of a conditional use permit. Commercial uses in residential zones are prohibited. As
the combining of such uses can reduce transportation costs, energy consumption, air pollution
and aids in the rehabilitation of buildings and revitalization of central city areas, the City's
proposed UDC incorporates provisions for joint living and working quarters for artisans, artists,
and similarly situated individuals. Joint living and working quarters will be subject to the.approval
of a conditional use permit in Community Commercial, Industrial Commercial, and Industrial
Zones.- Home occupations in residential zones (not presently allowed by the County Code) will
be allowable subject to a "home occupation permit" a simple process conducted at the staff level.
The proposed UDC incorporates provisions for density bonuses of at least 25% to facilitate the
construction of senior, very low, and low income housing units with the approval of a conditional
use permit. These requirements are intended to work in conjunction with the applicable general
and special development requirements while at the same time providing assurances that such
units will remain available and affordable to seniors, very low, low, and moderate income
3
individuals and families. The County Code currently allows for density bonuses of 10 to 25% for
conventional low, moderate and senior housing and bonuses of up to 50% for new manufactured
housing development including used mobilehomes with the approval of a conditional use permit.
Page H-46, following the Land Use Controls section, insert the following:
Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development
Section 65583 (a) of State Housing Element Law requires that a Housing Element contain an
inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having
potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public services and
infrastructure to these sites. The majority of existing land use in the City of Santa Clarita has
been recently developed; therefore, the focus of the inventory is on the development potential of
vacant lands, rather than redevelopment of existing uses.
The primary purpose of the inventory is to determine if there are sufficient sites available for
residential development to meet projected needs within the five year period covered by the
housing element. In Southern California, the needs projections for housing are prepared by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Current projections are for the period
of 1989 to 1994.
An inventory of sites currently available and suitable for residential development within the City's
planning area was completed in August, 1992. As required by State Housing Element Law, sites
within the current City boundaries have been analyzed for their relationship to the City's zoning
categories. The zoning category densities in the City's proposed development code match those
of the General Plan, as required by State law. Table A-1 in Appendix A presents this inventory.
Each available site is listed along with the zoning designation and the potential number of
dwelling units that could be built on the site.
Densities of development projects recently approved by the City are generally consistent with the
densities allowed under the City's proposed Unified Development Code, which includes zoning
regulations. For example, Tract 43145, Watt -Parker (Appendix A - site no. 82) located within the
Residential Moderate (RM) zone consists of 82 multi -family units at a density of 8.8 units/acre;
under the proposed development code, the RM zone would allow 11 units per acre. Tract 48108,
P & V Development/William S. Hart Union High School District (Appendix A - site no. 63) consists
of 161 single family units at a density of 2.1 units per acre; under the proposed development
code, the zoning for this development is Residential Low (RL), which allows 2.2 units per acre.
The City has seven residential categories allowing development at maximum densities varying
from 0.5 to 28 units per acre. The maximum density allowed in each residential category is the
midpoint of the density range allowed. This density can be exceeded if overriding community
benefits or low/moderate income or senior housing projects are provided. Four of the zones are
primarily intended for the development of single family homes. These are the Residential Estate
(RE), Residential Very Low Density (RVL), Residential Low Density (RL), and Residential
Suburban (RS) zones. Additionally, the Agriculture (A) Zone allows one single family home per
legal lot (with a minimum size of 80 acres) and associated farm labor housing. The remaining
three residential zones --Residential Moderate (RM), Residential Medium High (RMH), and
Residential High (RH)--are intended for attached and multifamily dwellings, including apartments.
0
The City's Land Use Element and proposed Unified Development Code (draft as of November
1992) set a range of allowable density for each residential zoning category. The midpoint for
each range has been set as the maximum development threshold for each category, however,
this midpoint may be exceeded if senior, or low or moderate income housing projects with
overriding community benefit are proposed. The development potential of each site may be
affected by a number of factors. Potential constraints on development could include such
environmental considerations as topographic features, steep slopes, the existence of riparian
areas, sensitive natural resources, location near a known fault, etc. While the designations
assigned to land within the City and Santa Clarita Valley reflects some of these constraints and
the suitability of the land for residential development, site specific environmental evaluation will
occur in connection with individual project proposals. As a result of .the environmental evaluation,
alternative designs and residential densities may be permitted in certain locations.
On the other hand; certain sites may have increased development potential from density bonuses
provided by the City to encourage provision of affordable housing, senior housing, or other
housing projects offering significant community benefits. In connection with the City's Unified
Development Ordinance as currently proposed, the City of Santa Clarita is currently preparing a
density bonus ordinance that will allow development of a site to exceed the maximum density by
at least 25 percent. Development within the Valley Center area, as designated in the General
Plan, would be allowed at densities as high as 50 dwelling units to the acre. The density bonuses
would. be available if housing is provided to senior citizens in the very low, and low income
categories.
Table 1 presents a summary of the residential land inventory for the City of Santa Clarita. Vacant
land zoned for residential development currently within the city includes a total of 82 sites with
the potential to contain approximately 14,790 dwelling units. These vacant sites can be divided
into three categories: sites where there is no pending development, sites where there is proposed
residential development and sites where there is an. approved residential development project.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF CITY-WIDE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Land Category
# Sites
# Dwelling
Type of Dwelling
Units (du)
Unit (SF/MF)
Vacant
38
7,788
SF: 2,545
MF: 5,243
Proposed
15
4,670
SF: 2,404
MF: 2,266
Approved
29
2,332
SF: 2,296
MF: 36
TOTAL
82
14,790
SF: 7,245
MF: 7,545
5
As shown. in Table 1, there are currently 38.vacant sites with no pending development plans.
These sites range from 2 acres to 257 acres in size and are located throughout the city. The total
dwelling unit capacity of the vacant sites is estimated at 7,788 units. Of these, 11 sites, having
a development potential of 5,243 units (67 percent of the dwelling unit potential) are in the RM
and RMH zones, which allow attached and multifamily units. Typically this development type is
more affordable for both rental and ownership of housing.
The allowable density in the RM zone is 10.9 dwelling units per acre and the allowable density
in the RMH zone is 20.1 units per acre. While the density allowed in the RMH zone is most
suitable for the development of rental apartments, the RM zone is also suitable for the
development of rental units. Most projects in the RM zone are subdivided as condominiums.
Many of these units, however, are developed as rental units. These projects are initially
subdivided as condominiums to avoid the cost and processing requirements involved with
converting a rental project to a condominium project at a later date. Therefore, it is anticipated
that many projects in the RM zone will also provide rental housing. Due to the fact that the City
has been recently incorporated, little historical information on development in this zone is
available. An example of this trend to subdivide rental projects is the Valencia Vista project in
the Newhall area of the City. This project, built in the RM zone at a density of approximately 8
units per acre, contains both rental and for sale units.
The development potential of vacant land zoned RMH is 241 units. These units are likely to be
rental units. The development potential of the available RM zoned land is 5,074 units. As
discussed above, it is anticipated that projects in this zone will contain both rental and for sale
units.
The potential dwelling unit capacities for approved and proposed residential projects were based
upon a review of development applications. As indicated in Table 1, a total of 2,332 new units
have been approved by the City on 29 sites, with two of these sites located in zones which allow
multifamily housing, and the remainder in zones designated for single-family housing.
Additionally, 4,670 units are proposed for future development on the 15 remaining vacant sites
in the inventory, including 2,396 single family units and 2,266 multifamily units. Adding all the
potential residential units in all three categories results in a total future residential development
potential of 14,790 dwelling units within the City boundaries.
This inventory includes two major projects that will provide a substantial number of new housing
units in the City, particularly multi -family units. The Valencia Company North Hills project (Site
No. 53 on Table A-1) would provide 706 multi -family units, and 314 single-family units. This
project is currently scheduled for a hearing before the City Council in the third quarter of 1992..
The proposed Porta Bella Specific Plan (Site No. 51 on Table A-1), would provide a 1,560 new
multi -family units and 1,678 new single-family units. It should be noted that this proiect is in the
City's RS (Residential Suburban) zone. The allowable density for this zone is 5 dwelling units per
acre. This large scale project will meet this overall density while providing 706 rental and for sale
multi -family units. This example indicates that affordable rental and for sale multi -family units may
be produced in any of the City's zone categories.
The environmental review process was recently initiated for this project and the length of time for
project approval is estimated at one year. It should be noted that many of the single family units
in these and other projects will be small lot single family and/or residential planned developments
that are more affordable than traditional single family homes.
N
In addition to the vacant land currently within the confines of the City of Santa Clarita's present
boundaries, there is significant residential development potential on sites located within the City's
planning area. As shown in Table 1, there are 4,200 dwelling units currently proposed (as of
1992) in areas pending annexation to the City. Also, it is estimated that 31,472 additional units
could be potentially developed in remaining portions of the planning area based on the medium
buildout scenario under the General Plan land use designations. This estimate was made by
deducting existing residential units in the planning area in 1988 (43,259 units) and all potential
units discussed in the inventory analysis (20,823 units) from the buildout capacity of the planning
area (94,976 units) as discussed under Section 11 (Population/Housing) of the General Plan Final
EIR.
Table A-1 in Appendix A also lists the number of dwelling units that have been constructed since
1989. A review of City building permits indicates that a total of 1,020 single family residential'
units and 813 multifamily units have been produced in the city since 1989; of the 813 multi -family
units produced, 233 have been apartments. As indicated in Table 1, addition of these units to
the inventory would increase the residential development potential in the City to a total of 20,823
units.
Relationship of Residential Land Inventory and Housing Needs
As shown in Table H-11 of the Housing Element, The Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) prepared by SCAG indicates an existing housing need of 3,087 units for very low income
households, and 1,285 units for low income households in the city. Additionally, the RHNA
projects a need for 6,401 new housing units in the City between 1989 and 1994. Of this figure,
the RHNA estimates project that 1,031 units (16.1 percent) will be required for very low income
households, 531 units (8.3 percent) will be required for low-income households, 992 units (15.5
percent) will be required for moderate income households, and 3,847 units (60.1 percent) will be
required for high-income households.
As previously discussed, a total of 1,833 residential units, consisting of 1,020 single family units
(56 percent) and 813 multifamily units (44 percent) have been produced in the City between 1989
and August, 1992. This represents approximately 29 percent of the City's regional housing
allocation of 6,401 new housing units. The residential land inventory indicates more than
sufficient vacant land available for future residential development within the City to meet the
remaining regional allocation of 4,568 units (6,401 - 1,833 = 4,568 units). Even more residential
units could be provided through future annexation of land within the City's planning area. Based
on affordability criteria, SCAG also identified an existing need for 4,372 units for low and very low
income households. White many of the potential residential dwelling units In the City and the
surrounding outlying planning area are located within zoning categories intended fordevelopment
of low density, detached single-family units, the inventory of residential land also includes
approximately 500 acres of land zoned for multifamily units in the RM and RMH zones, for a
potential total of 5,985 multifamily dwelling units. In addition, the Porta Bella project, which is
located within the City's single family RS zone, proposes 1,560 multifamily units, in addition to
1,678 single-family dwelling units. Altogether, this represents a potential total of 7,545 multi -family
dwelling units to meet the demand for affordable housing within the City.
Sales data collected on new housing units developed in the Santa Clarita Valley since 1989
indicates a sales price range of $95,000 to $322,000 for attached dwelling units, and a range of
$146,950 to $1,245,000 for detached dwelling units during this period.' For example, the
Valencia Vista proiect, developed in the City's RM zone at a density of approximately 8 units per
acre, contained condominium units for sale at a price of $95,000. The average sales price in
1991 was $141,434 for attached housing and $259,000 for detached housing. A survey of local
realtors indicates rental prices for housing that range between $500 and $3,000 per month. Two-
bedroom apartments typically rent between $600 - $700 per month, and the median rent for all
housing in the City, based on the 1990 census,_ is $832 per month.
For housing costs to be considered affordable by Federal standards, the cost to purchase a home
should not exceed 2.5 times the gross annual income of a household, and monthly rent should
not exceed 25 percent of gross monthly income. In the Los Angeles region, however, housing
costs typically exceed these thresholds. The SCAG threshold for housing affordability is 30
percent of monthly income.
Household income categories are updated annually by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD), based upon the median family income for different areas within
the State. in Los Angeles County, the median family income is currently estimated at $42,300
(May, 1992). Table 2 summarizes current income ranges for very low, low, moderate, and high
income households based upon this median income, as well as the range of affordable rent
and/or housing costs for each income category, based upon regional threshold of 30 percent of
monthly income for rent, or 3 times annual income for housing ownership.
TABLE 2
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Household Income
Category (% of Median)
Household
Income Range
Affordable Housing
Range
Very Low (50% or less)
$21,150 or less
Rent: $529/mo or less
Low (50 - 80%)
$21,150 - $33,840
Rent: $529-$846/mo
Buy: $63,450-$101,520
Moderate (80 - 120%)
$33,840 - $50,760
Rent: $846-$1264/mo
Buy: $101,520-$152,280
High (120% or more)
$50,760 or more
Buy: $152,280 or more
As can be seen in Table 2, households in the high, moderate, and low income categories would
be able to afford housing in the Santa Clarita area, given the range of sales price and monthly
rents for new housing described previously. Moreover, resale housing prices and rents in older
residential properties would most likely be less than costs for new housing. Households in the
very low income range. could have difficulty in obtaining affordable housing, although rental
housing affordable to these households is available within the city.
'.Continental Land Title Company Market Bulletin; a quarterly
report on residential sales activity. Spring 1989 - Winter 1991.
Based on the rental rates and sales prices of units recently constructed in the City, the available
land inventory appears sufficient to meet the need for approximately 1,000 units for very low
income households and 500 units for low income households. The affordability information
contained in Table 2 indicates that rental units need to be produced for very low income
households.
Since 1989,233 apartment units have been produced in the City: As previously discussed, rental
units have been primarily built in the RM and RMH zones. There is a potential for over 5,000
units in these zones. In addition, rental housing can also be provided in the City's other zones.
The Porta Bella Specific Plan project, currently proposed in the City's RS zone, would provide
over 1,500 multi -family units for rent and sale. The City's density bonus program will also likely
result in the production of additional rental units. Due to the recent formation of the City, detailed
historical information that would indicate the likelihood that rental units would be produced by
these types of projects in these zones, is not available. However, with a potential of over 6,500
units that could be multi -family rental units, it is considered reasonable that at least 800 to 1,000
rental units will be produced and at least 500 condominium units affordable to low income
households will be produced. The rental rates for newer apartments in the City indicate that
rental assistance will probably be needed to make these rental units affordable to very low income
families.
Production of higher density, multifamily units should be promoted through density bonuses, such
as discussed under Housing Element Program 3e (Density Bonuses), and other City programs
to increase the availability of housing affordable to those households within the very low income
category. In particular, larger planned development projects, such as the Porta Bella Specific
Plan, may provide a primary opportunity for this type of development, where land costs and other
costs of development can be spread out among a larger number of units. Initially, however, these
units are typically not affordable to low and very low income households unless a subsidy is
involved. In the long term, however, as these units age they may "trickle down" to become more
affordable. It is expected that the very low income category is where a subsidy will be needed.
program in the future.
The City recognizes that it has very little existing housing available at rental rates affordable to
may be utilized to achieve these goals.
0
Public Services and Infrastructure for New Residential Development
To meet future housing need, development of potential residential sites must be coordinated with
the development of public services and infrastructure, such as water and sewer systems, roads,
and schools. The Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element outlines programs for
development of .public services and infrastructure in the City. All of the potential residential
development sites within the City's boundaries as identified in the inventory can be feasibly
served with upgrades to the existing water and sewer systems. The City will condition
improvements to these service systems as necessary in order to serve new development.
Schools within the City of Santa Clarita are currently overcrowded; additional schools will be
required to serve new residential development. Implementation of school construction fees will
help to offset this impact. For residential development within the planning area, outside the City's
boundaries, additional upgrades to water and sewer service systems will be required. As new
areas are annexed, the City will condition improvements to these systems and other public
services and infrastructure as required to serve new development.
Onsite and Offsite Improvement Requirements
Page H-48, delete paragraphs 1-3 and insert the following:
Site improvement requirements should remain the same for the development of housing for all
income levels. As with the existing County code, the following will be required of new
construction:
• Alleys, streets and highways shall be dedicated from the centerline to the width required
by the Circulation Element of the General Plan
• Payment of bridge and thoroughfare fees
• Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, base, pavement, street lights, street trees and drainage
structures shall be constructed where required
• Connection to sewer and utilities
S
Page H-48 & 49, following the paragraph entitled "Housing Conservation," insert the following:
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
To meet the requirements of Section 65583(b) of the Government Code, the City's quantified
objectives for the period June 25, 1991 through June 30, 1994 are identified in Table 3. This
represents the period since the adoption of the General Plan until the next required Housing
Element update. .
10
TABLE 3
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Income Level
Units Constructed
Units Rehabilitated
Units Conserved
Very Low
13
< 141
0
Low
81
22
76
Moderate
216
0
High
811
0
0
Total
1,121
167
76
Under Goal 3 (Affordable Housing) in the Housing Element (page H-63), there are nine
programs listed to assist the City in meeting the quantified objectives.
Units Constructed
The total units constructed, 1,081, represents the total `number of new units the City actually
anticipates will be constructed and available for occupancy from June 25, 1991 (date of General
Pian adoption) through June 30, 1994. This number is based on a total of 2,332 units (identified
in Table 2, Summary of Citywide Residential Development Potential) which are presently
approved by the City. Of these 2,332 units, it is estimated that forty-five percent (45%), or 1,081
units, are likely to be completed by mid-1994.
All of these units represent projects submitted for review and approval by local developers. None
of these are City subsidized. Therefore, most fall into the moderate and high income categories
since they are in response to market demand. Only 13 units of very low income and 81 units of
low income housing have been committed by local developers. None have requested a density
bonus, which would likely provide a portion of the units in the lower income categories. No other
indication exists that these projects are due to allocate a portion of their units to low income
levels. The division of these units between the moderate and high income levels is representative
of the proportions of these income levels according to the 1990 U.S. Census in Santa Clarita.
The City can also utilize several programs in the Housing Element, particularly programs 1.a,
i .c -j, 2.c -d, 3.a, 3.b, 3.e -g, and 5.a, to assist in gaining additional housing at the very low and low
income levels.
Units Rehabilitated
The 167 units to be rehabilitated represent an actual number of units budgeted through
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the fiscal years 1991 through 1993 in
four different housing rehabilitation programs. These programs are: (1) Handyworker Program
- minor home repairs addressing code violations and improvement of safety and living conditions
are emphasized, (2) Two different Paint Programs offering rebates for exterior painting for
11
residential properties. One is designated for a specific target area, and the other is available
citywide to eligible recipients, and (3) a Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program, limited to
owner -occupied single family residences,.in a target area, and must qualify under Section 8
eligibility requirements. Income level breakdowns indicated represent how the income levels
actually occurred in the first two years of these programs, and then. projected through the
remaining years to mid-1994. Approximately 86 percent of qualified applicants appear in the very
low income category, and 14 percent in the low income category.
Units Conserved
Only 76 units of subsidized low and moderate income housing are due to expire by June 30,
1994, the end of the current five-year update period of the Housing Element. This represents the
amount of affordable housing units that the City should commit to conserve. A conservation
program is detailed in the section of the Housing Element entitled, Subsidized Multiple Family
Housing Units at Risk of Conversion to Non -Low Income Uses. All 76 units are within one
apartment complex, which is an all -Section 8, all senior citizen building. The units are available
to low and moderate income level residents. No predetermined formula is set that requires a
percentage of the units to either income level, which is why the chart above shows 76 units as
being combined under low and moderate as a single category.
Page H-53, following paragraph 1 insert the following:
Potential Loss of Affordable Housing Subsidies
This section discusses subsidized multiple family housing units at. risk of conversion to non -low
income uses. It pertains to apartment buildings where either a significant portion, or the entire
complex is subsidized to offer affordable rents for low income levels, and that subsidy is due to
expire by June 30, 1999. The City must be aware of these expirations and diligently help
maintain those subsidies, in the event any of them are due to expire and subsequently may not
be renewed. If the subsidy expires, then the building owner is no longer required to offer low
income rents; most likely these rents would then change to market rate rents. If this occurs it
could lead to a large scale displacement of tenants who could not afford the new, higher rents.
Inventory and Project Information
This section is an inventory of multiple family rental housing projects which are wholly or partially
subsidized to accommodate low and/or moderate income tenants, and where that subsidy is due
to expire prior to June 30, 1999. The list is divided into two five-year periods coinciding with the
next two mandatory Housing Element review periods. For each housing project identified, the
following information is provided: name, address, number of units and number of. units
subsidized, type of subsidy, senior citizen units, and the earliest date at which the subsidy may
expire, (thus allowing for conversion to market rate rents), and the source of this information.
The following sources were investigated and found to list housing units with subsidies showing
an expiration date: (1) HUD programs (only Section 8 was applicable), and (2).State and local
multifamily revenue bond programs.
12
Additional sources that were examined, but indicated no subsidized units with expiration dates
were: (1) Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG), (2) Redevelopment programs
(for an explanation of these two sources, please refer to the section below entitled "Resources
for Preservation"), (3) Local in -lieu fee or inclusionary programs - none have been established
to date, and (4) density bonus and direct government assistance per Government Code Section
65915 - none have been requested to date.
First 5 -year Period (July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1994)
Valencia Villa Apartments
25827 Singing Hills Drive
Valencia, CA 91355
76 units
Section 8 rental units (all, and all are senior citizen)
Earliest conversion date: January 17, 1994
Second 5 -year Period (July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1999)
Projects are listed in chronological order of their eligible conversion dates:
Canyon Terrace Apartments 3
22640 Garzota Drive
Saugus, CA 91350
242 Units (26 units low/mod. income)
H.U.D. Prepay - opt out (earliest conversion date): July 1991
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue - earliest conversion date December 1994
Sierra Canyon Apartments 2
27520 N. Sierra Hwy.
Canyon Country, CA 91351
232 Units (42 units low/mod. income)
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue
Earliest conversion date: 1996
Park Sierra Apartments 2
18414 Jake's Way
Canyon Country, CA 91351
13
780 Units (156 units low/mod. income)
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue
Earliest conversion date: 1997
Riverpark Apartments 2
27303 N. Sara Street
Canyon Country, CA 91351
256 Units (52 units low/mod. income)
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue
Earliest conversion date: 1998
Diamond Park Apartments 2
27940 Solemint Road
Canyon Country, CA 91351
544 Units (109 units low/mod. income)
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue
Earliest conversion dater 1999
Sand Canyon Villas 3
28923 Prairie Lane
Canyon Country, CA 91351
220 Units (44 low/mod. income)
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue
Earliest conversion date: 1999
Canyon Country Villas 3
26741 Isabella Parkway
Canyon Country, CA 91351
328 Units (66 low/mod. income)
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue
Earliest conversion date: December 1997
Valencia Village Apartments 3
23700 San Fernando Road
Newhall, CA 91321
384 Units (77 low/mod. income)
H.U.D. Prepay
Opt out (earliest conversion date): 1999
14
Sierra.Canyon Apartments 3
27520 Sierra Highway
Canyon Country, CA 91351
232 Units (42 low/mod. income)
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue
Earliest conversion date: April 1997
Meadow Ridge Apartments 3,4
23645 N. Meadow Ridge Drive
Newhall, CA 91321
176 Units (36 low/mod. income)
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue
Earliest conversion date: December 1, 1995
Additionally, four projects are identified which have subsidies, but do not expire until well after the
ten-year period required to be inventoried. These are listed to demonstrate that some affordable
units are assured beyond ten years, even if all units due to expire in ten years do so. Therefore,
additional units will remain to assist the City's affordable housing needs:
Sand Canyon Ranch 3
28856 N. Silver Saddle Circle
Canyon Country, CA 91351
255 Units (51, units low/mod. income)
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue
Earliest conversion date 2006)
Canyon Villas 3
27850 Solemint Road
Canyon Country, CA 91351
215 Units
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue
Earliest conversion date, 2011
Valencia Village 3
23700 N. San Fernando Road
Newhall, CA 91321
384 Units (77 units low/mod. income)
Multifamily Housing Bond Issue
Earliest conversion date: 2014
15
Whispering Oaks°
22816 Market Street
Newhall, CA 91321
65 units (13 units very low income, 21 units low income)
Los Angeles County land write-down
No conversion date - in perpetuity
' Units identified through California Debt Advisory Commission report: "1990 Annual
Summary - The Use of Housing Revenue Bond Proceeds"
. Z Units identified through report entitled, "Inventory of Subsidized Low-income Rental Units
at Risk of Conversion," 1991 Update, prepared for the California Housing Partnership Corporation,
by the California Coalition for Rural Housing Project.
3 Units identified through County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning as H.U.D.
Prepay projects and Multifamily Housing Bond Issue projects
° Units identified through County of Los Angeles Community Development Commission
(provider of Housing Authority services to the City of Santa Clarita).
5 Units identified through "A Guide to Local Housing Resources for Older Persons," third
edition, May 1992, by Consumer Housing Information Service for Seniors: ajoint program of the
Santa Clarita Valley Committee on Aging, and the American Association of Retired Persons.
Analysis of Preserving Versus Replacing At -Risk Units
Since only one project is due to expire within the first five-year period, a cost estimate for
replacement is provided for this one development only. This is an example of the direct costs
involved to demonstrate what would be required to replace this project if new construction were
required to do so. Those projects whose subsidy is due to expire within the second five-year
period will be estimated as part of the 1994 Housing Element update; since costs are expected
to change by then. Additionally, different programs may be available in the future to alternatively
address housing replacement, or extensions of existing subsidies.
Estimated Proforma for Replacement - 76 unit apartment building
Land
$1,820,400
Engineering and Plans
250,000
Grading, materials and labor
3,174,000
Contingency
250,000
Appraisal
7,500
Fund Control
6,580
Inspections
1.00b
$6,319,480
16
Only hard costs are provided to show actual replacement figures. If the project were financed, a
prudent loan would be 65% max. financed. In this case; financing would expend an additional
$396,551 (at 10%).
The costs of preserving all units, by means other than land acquisition and physical construction,
would be determined by costs of staff time or adding staff to the City and other public agencies
to adequately oversee this function. Since only one project is due to expire within the first
five-year period, it appears reasonable that existing staffs of public agencies could accommodate
the responsibility of attempting to preserve this one project's subsidy.
Resources For Preservation
Community Redevelopment Agencv
Santa Clarita is a newly incorporated City, incorporating on December 15, 1987, The City's
Community Redevelopment Agency was activated on November 28, 1989. However, no
redevelopment project areas have been designated as of July 1992, and therefore the Agency
does not have the statutory authority to assist in housing projects. Should the agency develop
its full authority, this form of assistance should be given consideration in the future to provide
funding as a means of extending existing subsidies for low income tenants.
Housinq Authority
The City does not have a housing authority; projects requiring Housing Authority services may
be contracted with the Community Development Commission of Los Angeles County. Presently,
there are 53 Section 8 vouchers issued within the City through the County. Also, most of the
units inventoried above are administered through the County. It is conceivable that the City may
create its own housing authority in the future.
Public Agencv and Nonprofit Housino Corporations
Presently, three nonprofit housing corporations have contacted the City expressing interest to
participate in affordable housing projects:
Mr. Barry J. Kernel
President/CEO
CORPORATE FUND FOR HOUSING
6029 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
Culver City, CA 90230
Mr. Marc Herrera
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRESBYTERIAN HOMES
1111 N. Brand Blvd., Suite .300
Glendale, CA 91202
17
(This organization is also among the list of "Entities Interested in Right of First Refusal Program"
and has shown an interest in developing a particular site in the City with an affordable housing
project.)
Mr. Peter Boron
President - Board of Directors
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
P.O. Box 7315
North Hollywood, CA 91603
Other similar nonprofit corporations are capable of providing similar assistance. A 300 -member
listing of these agencies is contained in the "1991 Membership and Resource Directory" published
by the So. California Assn. of Nonprofit Housing. Additionally, the publication available through
the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development entitled, "Entities
Interested in Right of First Refusal Program," also identifies eligible nonprofit and other public
entities capable of participating.
Prior to the 1994 Housing Element update, the City intends to identify which of these nonprofit'
corporations and other entities have the best capability to work with the City to assist in the
potential need for continuing, extending, or replacing subsidies due to expire.
HUD Programs
Community Development Block Grant
The years 1988-91 were the City's first as a "participating city," with funding through the
Community Development Commission of Los Angeles County of $714,267. No funds were used
for multiple family rental housing during this period.
Since 1991-92, Santa Clarita has been a CDBG Entitlement City. In the first year in this category,
$522,000 was allocated. No funds were used for multiple family rental housing.
1992-93 $593,126 budgeted. No funds to be used for multiple family rental housing.
Above indicates the City's past CDBG activity. Based on past experience it appears that
approximately $500,000 annually has been the City's allotment, in the more recent years.
However, the City cannot guarantee future receipt of these funds. To the extent that CDBG
funding remains available future uses of funds could include extension of subsidies for multiple
family housing where low and moderate income units are at risk of conversion to market rate
rents.
Section 8
As discussed above 53 vouchers are currently in effect, and administered through the Community
Development Commission of Los Angeles County. One Section 8 New Construction program is
currently in effect (Valencia Villas).
IF
Other Programs
Numerous additional local, state, and federal assistance programs are available as outlined in the
"Directory of Housing Programs." March 1987, by the State of California Department of Housing
and Community Development.
Also, as discussed above, prior to the 1994 Housing Element Amendment, the City intends to
identify which programs are best suited and capable of assisting with affordable housing needs.
Quantified Objectives: Number of At -Risk Units to be Preserved
The City's objective is to preserve all 76 federally -assisted housing units that are eligible for
conversion to non -low-income housing during the first five year period.
Proaram Efforts to Preserve At -Risk Units
No notices of "intent to convert" have been received by the City since incorporation; therefore no
low or moderate income subsidized units are nearing termination. The one project whose subsidy
is due to expire within the first five-year period,' has been contacted. by the City; the owner has
already indicated a willingness to continue Section 8 participation, contingent upon continued
availability through the federal government.
Many of the goals, policies, and programs contained in the Housing Element emphasize creating
and maintaining low and moderate income housing. A great number of these are ongoing
presently, those not yet implemented, are scheduled to commence by June 30, 1993, which is
well ahead of the first potential at -risk conversion.
The City will also study the following to assist in the preservation of conversion of units to market
rate rents:
■ Identify at -risk units and establish a system of early identification of potential conversion.
■ Update the Housing Element in 1994 to include conversion prevention strategies.
■ Use its adopted Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (C.H.A.S.) to compete for
state and federal funds to assist in conversion prevention.
■ Monitor at -risk units to promptly respond to potential conversions.
Provide community and tenant education programs to inform the public of conversion
issues.
■ Adopt preservation incentives and/or conversion disincentives.
■ Assist nonprofit corporation and.other public entities.
Obtain additional Section 8 certificates and vouchers.
Support additional multifamily rental housing.
Responsible Department: Community Development Department
Funding Source: City General Fund
Page H-54-55: delete section entitled Vacant Land.
Page H-58 following paragraph 3 (and prior to the goals, policies, and programs section add the
following:
Consistency with other Elements
In compliance with Government Code Section 65583(c), the City of Santa Clarita has employed
several means to maintain consistency between the Housing Element and the other General Plan
Elements. This comprehensive General Plan is the City's first, which was adopted on June 25,
1991. All Elements of this General Plan were written concurrently so consistency and uniformity
could be assured.
As required by the City's General Plan, an implementation program has been prepared as a
separate document, and contains specific implementation measures .and action items to be
followed in order to achieve the goals of the General Plan. The implementation program identifies
the following as high priority items: a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map; zoning
regulations and project submittal requirements; development of.a growth management monitoring
system; development agreements; building and housing codes. This implementation program was
adopted by the City Council on July 14, 1992, and includes the specific implementation measures
and actions for each element. The implementation plan for the Housing Element recites the 45
distinct programs which address the areas of statewide goals, opportunities for all income groups,
housing needs assessment, and program development. Many of the Housing Element programs
have been initiated while others are on-going activities; those not yet implemented are
programmed and scheduled to commence by June 30, 1993.
Consistency between the elements is also being assured through monitoring of the City's growth
management effort. This is being accomplished through the development of a geo-base computer
tracking system and a County project monitoring program. Infrastructure controls, density
limitations, and higher quality design standards will be attained through the implementation of the
City's General Plan policies. Implementation will be achieved through the application of City
adopted guidelines and ordinances, including the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside
Development Ordinance, Development Agreement standards, and a proposed Uniform
Development Code (with Zoning Map). This General Plan (and its supporting ordinances and
programs) allow enough flexibility to accommodate community needs, permit appropriate
development, and accomplish the type, balance, and intensity of growth desired by the existing
and future residents of Santa Clarita.
Development proposals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for compliance with all standards
and to ensure that adequate services and infrastructure will be provided. Subsequent to this
effort, the City Engineering/Building and Safety Division is continuously monitoring the number
20
of residential units approved for evaluation of the most current need for services and
infrastructure. The issuance of project approvals and associated building permits ultimately
provides the community with the consistent implementation of the General Plan.
Page H-54 & 55, delete the entire section entitled "Vacant Land."
Page H-56 & 57, delete the entire section entitled "Availability of Public -Services and
Infrastructure."
Page H-59, following the first paragraph, add:
The City will review, annually, the Housing Element implementation programs. Each year
priorities will be established to determine the year's goals and objectives. Where necessary, the
City's budget will include necessary expenditures to reflect program implementation and
commitment.
Page H-60, beginning with the programs on this page, delete the line labeled "status" following
each program and amend the following programs to read:
1.b Existing Needs Prioritization
Prioritize and fulfill the existing housing needs of the community with incoming housing
project applications.
1.c Specific Plan/Planned Development
Permit flexible development standards in specific plans and planned developments
which allow housing development to meet the needs of the community. Flexible
development standards shall allow for clustering, ' and a variety of site design
characteristics as appropriate.
1.d Specific Plan/Planned Development for Special User Groups
Use flexible development standards in specific plans and planned developments which
allow housing development to meet the needs of special users. Partial credit toward
public open space requirements shall be considered for including child care facilities
or when the site design is accessible to the disabled. In order to reduce housing
costs, permit shared kitchens, living rooms, second units, and other such facilities set
aside for single -parent families or the elderly as appropriate.
fil6i•JiM9IM
Permit mixed-use developments and require that all mixed use (housing -commercial
development) plans provide the necessary open space and parking and adequately
buffer residents from the adverse impacts of adjacent commercial development.
21
1.g
1.h
1.j
2.c
2.e
3.a
Infill Loan Program
Work and facilitate negotiations with lending institutions to offer low interest loans to
foster the development of infill projects.
Specialty Housing Zone
Establish a specialty housing zone which contains provisions for flexible design
standards for senior housing. Standards and considerations shall include permitting
congregate housing and shared housing within the zone and in locations near
neighborhood stores, medical offices, and public transportation.
Infill Transitional Housing
Assist agencies serving the homeless to acquire, rehabilitate, and recycle
underdeveloped parcels throughout the City by ongoing communication and
consultation with appropriate agencies. Establish design standards which
accommodate. transitional housing needs.
Emergency Housing
The zoning ordinance shall permit the location and operation of emergency shelter in
a residential, industrial, or commercial zones with an approved temporary use permit
with appropriate timeframes.
Periodic Review
Periodically the City shall review and revise planning, zoning, and development
regulations to ensure an adequate supply for a variety of housing types and programs.
Air Rights
Study the use of air rights above City owned and other publicly owned land for
housing.
Increasing Affordable Housing Opportunities Through Incentives
low, low or moderate income levels.
3.b State and Federal Programs
Participate in state and federal
ing assistance programs such as State Rental
ral Public Housing Funds, and Sections 8, 202,
Develop programs that increase the amount of
22
3.c
3.e
3.g
RX
sm
4.c
affordable housing and retain housing affordability for successive buyers and renters
through grants, low cost loans, equity sharing, and deed restrictions..
Rental Rehabilitation Loans and Grants
Apply for federal funding, such as the Home Investment Program to establish a
program for owners of substandard rental property with.50 percent or more tenants
who are eligible lower income households, to enable them to improve their property
without raising rents or evicting tenants.
Density Bonuses
Provide the state -mandated density bonus of at least 25 percent for housing
developments with five or more units of which 10 percent of the units are set aside for
very low income households or 25 percent are set aside for low income households.
Affordable units created in this way 'shall be subject to resale control or rent
restrictions.
Special Housing Need Fee Subsidization
Aggressively pursue federal and state funds to establish and implement a sliding scale
fee subsidization program based on the percentage of units affordable to low and very
low income households, the disabled, single -parents, and the elderly. Subsidy may
vary with tenure and type of unit provided.
Site Accessibility
Include design provisions for subdivisions to be site accessible to the disabled. Site
accessibility includes curb cuts, ramps instead of or in addition to steps, wider entry
doors with level thresholds to permit wheelchair access, especially in special types of
housing such as senior or handicapped housing, and study the feasibility of wider
private sidewalks.
Property Maintenance Ordinance
Require by ordinance property owners to consistently maintain their property in a
clean, safe, and well kept condition. The ordinance shall include reasonable and
appropriate warning and enforcement procedures, including the power to issue
citations and correct problems and bill the owner later.
Rehabilitation Loans
Work with lending institutions by sharing financial advice and potential applicants on
the availability and rates of loans. This will facilitate a low-interest loan program for
lower income home owners enabling them to make needed home repairs. The
program shall primarily focus on senior citizens, the disabled, and residents of the
revitalization target areas.
23
4.e Demolition Regulations
Develop and implement a program which regulates demolition of existing affordable
housing for commercial or industrial uses. Such a program shall include replacement
of existing affordable units or payment of an in lieu fee for the construction of
replacement units and provision of relocation assistance to the tenants or other
governmental assistance.
4.g Self Help Programs
In addition to loans and grant programs, provide the development of self help efforts
to stretch funding while increasing job training skills.
5.a Ordinance, Assessment, and Fee Review
The City shall review the impact of proposed ordinances, assessments and fees, as
appropriate, on housing affordability and availability.
5.b Enforcement of Conditions of Approval and Permit Approval
The conditions of approval for permits, mitigation measures, and other City
authorizations shall be implemented with project development, concurrent processing,
and monitoring operation.
7.a Site Design Features
Implement a revised zoning ordinance which shall make provisions for a variety of site
design features so that sensitive natural areas remain undisturbed.
8.b Site Design with Low Water Utilization
_Require the development of site design and landscaping plans which feature drought
tolerant, fire resistant, and xeriscape of low water consumptive materials, with irrigation
methods that maximize efficiencies.
Page H-74, following program_ 8d, insert the following:
IMPLEMENTATION
The City's commitment to implementation includes the following planned or funded programs.
Work on six projects utilizing five of the Housing Element programs is underway as of November
1992. For a complete description of these programs, please refer to the Goals, Policies, and
programs section of the Housing Element beginning on page H-58. These programs represent
those which will be implemented between June 25, 1991 (adoption date of the General Plan) and
June 30, 1994, the end of the current Housing Element update period.
24
Prior to June 30, 1994, the City will determine additional programs to be implemented for the
following Housing Element update period of 1994-99.
Program:
3b. STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS (Project 1)
Responsibility: City of Santa Clarita, Parks and Recreation Department
Target: Direct loans to qualifying very low, and low income groups, for first time home
buyers. Number of applicants to be determined.
Timeframe: Fiscal years 1992-93 and 1993-94
Funding: Community Development Block Grant
Status: Planned
3b. STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS (Project 2)
Responsibility: City of Santa Clarita, Parks and Recreation Department
Target: Rental assistance to 57 households of qualifying very low, and low Income
groups, in 1991-92 and a number of applicants to be determined in 1992-93.
Timeframe: Fiscal years 1991-92 and 1992-93
Funding: Federal funding through Section 8 Rental Assistance via County of Los Angeles
Community Development Commission
Status: Funded
3d. PUBLIC FACILITIES FUNDING
Responsibility: City of Santa Clarita, Parks and Recreation Department
Target: Drainage and curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements East Newhall, portion of
block group 2 of census tract 9203.11
Timeframe: Fiscal years 1991-92 and 1992-93
Funding: Community Development Block Grant
Status: Funded
W
4c REHABILITATION LOANS
Responsibility: City of Santa Clarita, Parks and Recreation Department
Target: Rehab of single-family owner -occupied homes of low and very low income level
groups in East Newhall, and surrounding areas.
Timeframe: Fiscal year 1991-92
Funding: Community Development Block Grant
Status: Funded
4d. EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANTS
Responsibility: City of Santa Clarita, Parks and Recreation Department
Target: Handyworker program for qualifying very low, and low income level groups,
approximately 78 units, to make minor home repairs for either owner or renter occupied
homes.
Timeframe: Fiscal years 1991-92 and 1992-93
Funding : Community Development Block Grant - Handyworker Program and Paint Rebate
Program
Status: Funded
6a. FAIR HOUSING EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
Responsibility: City of Santa Clarita, Parks and Recreation Department via the Fair
Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley
Target: Available to all City residents to provide information on housing discrimination
issues .and rights.
Timeframe: Fiscal years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94
Funding: Community Development Block Grant
Status: Funded
advancelhousing.mar
26
APPENDIX A
TABLE A-1: INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
VACANT - NO PENDING DEVELOPMENT
Site No.
Zama S!tM
DdActa
Ann
Dwd[iea
U" Phtwfid
RmW
Midpoint
Rl v
Midpoint
I
RE -2
0.0
- 0.5
0.3
65
0
- 33
16
2
RE -2
0.0
- 0.5
0.3
109
0
- 55
27
3
RE -2
0.0
- 0.5
0.3
161
0
- 82
41
4
RE -2
0.0
- 0.5
0.3
179
0
- 90
45
SWADW
517
t2!
5
` RVL
0.5
- 1.0
0.8
129
65
- 129
97
6
RVL
0.5
- 1.0
0.8
43
22
- 43
32
7
RVL
OS
- 1.0
0.81
31
16
- 31
23
8
RVL
0.5
- 1.0
0.8 .
195
91
- 195
146
9
RVL
0.5
- 1.0
0.8
24
12
- 24
is
10
RVL
OS
- 1.0
0.8
88
44
- n
66
11
RVL
0.5
- 1.0
0.8
18
44
- 88
66
Srblold
598
449
12
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
32
35
- 106
70
13
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
30
33
- 99
66
14
RL
1.1
- 3.3
22
254
279
- 838
559
l5
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
19
21
- 63
42
16
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
50
55
- 165
110
17
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
36
40
- 119
79•
18
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
16
li
- 53
35
19
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
96
106
- 317
211
20
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
79
87
- 261
174
21
RL
LI
- 33
2.2
17
96
- 217
191
22
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
34
37
- 112
75
SWAotd
733
1,613
23
Its
3.4
- 6.6
5.0
6
20 -
40
30
24
RS
3.4
- 6.6
5.0
4
14 -
26
20
25
RS
3.4
- 6.6
5.0
SS
187 -
369
275
26
RS
3.4
- 6.6
S.0
4
14 -
26
20
27
RS
3.4
- 6.6
5.0
2
7 -
13
10
Su61ow
71
355
28
RM
6.7
- 15.0
10.9
12
80 -
180
130
29
RM
6.7
- 15.0
10.9
257
1,722 -
3,955
2,788
30
RM
6.7
- 15.0
10.9
7
47 -
105
76
31
RM
6.7
- 15.0
10.9
41
275 -
615
445
32
RM
6.7
- 15.0
10.9
5
34 -
75
54
33
RM
6.7
- 15.0
10.9
18
121 -
270
195
34
RM
6.7
- 15.0
10.9
7
47 -
105
76
3S
RM
6.7
- 15.0
10.9
100
670 -
1,500
1,085
36
RM
6.7
- 15.0
10.9
14
94 -
210
152
snuotd
461
5,002
37 '
RMH
IS.1
- 25.0
20.1
8
121 -
200
160
38
RMH
15.1
- 25.0
20.1
4
60 -
100
80
Stibb"
12
741
SUBTOTAL
7,786
2,392
4,617 - 10,959
U
PROPOS®
No. Dwelling
Silo No. zoning
Units
39
RE -2
4
40
R&-2
36
SoMaw. .
42
41
RVL
10
42
RVL
4
43
RVL
6
44
RVL
147
SabWW
167
45
RL
2
46
RL
46
Sa6lotal
48
47
RS
47
41
RS
4
49
RS
86
s0
RS
3
51
RS
3,238 a
52
RS
1S
smbeutd
3,393
53
RM
1,020 b
SUBTairAL 4,670
a Includes 1,560 multi -family limits, 1,678 cinglc-family umis
b 10chW= 706 mdti-firmly units, 314 single-family omits
N
"PROVED/UNBUQ.T
Sib No. Zoning Cahgoq
54 RE -2
somaw
55 RVL
56 RVL
57 RVL
58 RVL
59
RL
60
RL
61
RL
62
RL
63.
RL
6{
RL
65
RL
66
RL
67
RL
68
RL
No. Dwelling Units
10
10
110
17
70
237
80
201
16
16
161
299
29
SS
161
253
1,271
69
RS
14
70
RS
119
71
RS
183
72
RS
15
73
RS '
90
74
RS
5
75
RS
24
76
RS
10
77
RS
104
78
RS
29
79
RS
103
Subtotal
696
80
RM
24
81
RM
12
82
RM
82
Subtotal
118
SUBTOTAL
2,332