HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 95 001 UDC AMEND 95 01 (2)AGENDA REPORT
s'
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by
Rich Henderson
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: March 14, 1995
SUBJECT: MASTER CASE NO. 95-001, UDC AMENDMENT 95-01 TO ADOPT
PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-2 TO MODIFY PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL AGRICULTURAL AND
RESIDENTIAL ZONES CONCERNING SINGLE FAMILY AND
MANUFACTURED HOUSING.
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
On December 13, 1994, the City Council considered several options to limit the placement of
manufactured housing in single family residential areas for the purpose of ensuring that this
type of housing will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Council directed staff
to prepare an ordinance for this purpose, have the Planning Commission consider it, and then
return to the Council with recommendations for further action.
On January 17, 1995 and on February 7, 1995, the Planning Commission held public
hearings and considered proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC)
which would accomplish the following:
1. Require that a manufactured home be no more than 10 years old upon placement and
have a minimum of 16 -inch eaves as provided for under state law in all agricultural
and residential zones.
Prohibit the placement of metal siding on single family residences and required
parking structures in all agricultural and single family residential zones.
Require that the primary roof on all new single family residences have a minimum
incline of 2:12 feet in all agricultural and single family residential zones.,
The Planning Commission did not agree with all of these changes presented by staff. The
Planning Commission recommended adoption of the first item above requiring that a
manufactured home be no more than 10 years old and have minimum 16 -inch eaves. They
Continued To: 3 —14 —C/ -S— Agenda Item:_.
recommended against items 2 and 3 which apply to all single family residences and prohibit
metal siding and require sloped roofs for new single family development. While. the
Commission understood that the metal siding and sloped roof provisions were proposed to
encourage both manufactured and "stick -built" housing to be compatible with existing
neighborhoods, the Commission felt that design standards for single family residential areas
would better be considered as part of future design review discussions, rather than as part
of this proposed ordinance..
ACTION
Staff has provided the Council with the Ordinance as brought before the Commission,
including the metal siding and sloped roof provisions.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive staff report, open public hearing, take testimony, introduce Ordinance No.
95-2, waive further reading and pass to second reading.
F. UMM .N"i�i�ikfl1.
Ordinance No 95-2
Planning Commission Staff Reports of January 17, 1995 and February 7; 1995
Planning Commission Minutes of January 17, 1995 and February 7, 1995
Planning Commission Resolution P95-01
Negative Declaration
READING FILE
Environmental Initial Study
Strike -out version of UDC with proposed amendments
.\aludv'Uhs
Public Hearing Procedure
1. Mayor opens hearing
*States purpose of hearing
2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice
3. Staff report
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent)
*Proponent
7. Mayor closes public testimony
8. Discussion by Council
9. Council decision
10. Mayor announces decision
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ORDINANCE NO. 95-2 OF THE CITY
OF SANTA CLARITA AMENDING CHAPTER 17, DIVISION 1 (GENERAL
PROCEDURES) AND DIVISION 2 (ZONING) OF THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL
ZONES RELATING TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING AND SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City of Santa Clarita City Council on this matter
and associated potential environmental impacts, if any, at the following time and location:
DATE: March 14, 1995
TIME: 6:30 p.m,
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide
APPLICATION: Master Case No, 95-001, UDC Amendment 95-01
Ordinance No. 95-2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes amendments to the City's Unified
Development Code including modifications to property development standards for all
Agricultural and Residential zones relating to manufactured housing and single family
residential development. The amendment regarding property development standards would
eliminate the use of metal siding as an exterior finish on all new dwellings and required
parking structures in the City's Agricultural and Residential zones and would require that
such new homes possess sloped roofs. As permitted by state legislation governing mobile -
/manufactured homes, the amendment would also establish a maximum structure age of ten
years for manufactured homes being placed on residential lots and would require that such
mobilehomes possess roof overhangs of at least sixteen (16) inches. The amendment would
not require that structures already permitted be replaced and/or refinished and would apply
to new construction and non -permitted (pre-existing illegal) structures only.
PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Santa Clarita
A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and
is available for public review beginning at 4:00 p.m. on February 22, 1995 at:
City Hall Valencia Library
Department of Community Development Reference Desk
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. 302 23743 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter
during the public hearing. Further information by be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's
office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, California.
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
Dated: February 16, 1995
Donna M. Grindey, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: February 22, 1995
ORDINANCE NO, 95-2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO REGULATE MOBILEHOMES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
AND SIDING ON DWELLINGS
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65852.3 et seg. preempts regulation by local
governmental entities of manufactured homes in residential zones with certain exceptions;
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan requires that all design elements be considered,
including building size, height, mass and architectural design review process so that new
development does not conflict with the character of neighborhoods;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has determined that the
public health and welfare requires that mobilehomes in residential zones be regulated to the
extent permitted by state law;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has determined that
aesthetic interests require that the composition of the exposed siding of single family
dwellings in residential zones be restricted to non-metal materials;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has determined that
aesthetic interests require that new single family dwellings have sloped roofs and new
additions which change the roofline of existing single family residences shall have sloped
roofs where consistent with the existing design of the house and the surrounding
neighborhood;
WHEREAS, the City desires to meet its regional housing need as determined by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and has considered the effect of this
ordinance upon regional housing opportunities as required by Government Code Section
65863.6;
WHEREAS, this ordinance amending the City's zoning and general procedures codes
is consistent with the General Plan including the Housing Element;
WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') of
1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21774, require the evaluation of the
Negative Declaration for projects such as amendments to the Unified Development Code;
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for these Unified Development Code amendments
was prepared, noticed, and circulated for public review in compliance with the provisions of
CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines;.
WHEREAS, following City Council direction on December 13, 1994 and in accordance
with Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public
hearings on January 17, 1995 and February 7, 1995. The Commission recommended the
following UDC amendments to the City Council: adopt requirements that manufactured
homes on residential lots be no older than ten years upon placement and have eaves with a
minimum overhang of 16 -inches; do not adopt requirements that prohibit the use of metal
siding and require slope roofs for new development in single family areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Section 17.07.93, 17.07.188 and 17.07.195 shall be amended
to add Sections 17.07.93.5, 17.07.188.5 and 17.07.195.5 to the Santa Clarita Unified
Development Code to read as follows:
"93.5 EAVES shall mean the lower border of a roof that overhangs the wall.
188.5 ROOF, SLOPED shall mean a roof that has a minimum slant or inclination of
2:12 feet. Also known as a pitched roof.
195.5 SIDING shall mean the exposed material covering the exterior surface of the
walls of the main structure of a building but not gutters or other fixtures and
not the exposed material covering the exterior surface of the walls of any minor
attachments to the main building such as porches."
SECTION 2. That Section 17.13.010(3) of the Santa Clarita Unified
Development Code shall be amended to read as follows:
"Mobilehomes on individual lots, and permanent foundations which are certified under
the National Mobilehome Const. and Safety Standards Act of 1974 as provided for in
Section 17.15.020(G), and are in compliance with setback and parking requirements
of this Code."
SECTION 3. That Section 17.15.020 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development
Code shall be amended as follows:
"Section G. MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" shall be relettered as "Section I.",
"Section H. DEVELOPMENT INA SEA (SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA)"
shall be relettered as "Section J.",
"Section I. HII.LSIDE DEVELOPMENT" shall be relettered as 'Section K.",
"Section J. OTHER REQUIREMENTS" shall be relettered as "Section L.",
"Section K. SECOND UNITS AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES" shall be relettered
as "Section M."
SECTION 4. That the Section 17:15.020 of the Santa Clarita Unified
Development shall be amended to add new Section 17.15.020(G) as follows:
"G. MOBILEHOMES ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS
-2-
Mobilehomes as provided for in Section 17.13.010.3 shall meet the following
requirements:
1. Certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety
Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. § 5401 et seg.
2: Constructed less than ten (10) years prior to the date of the application for the
issuance of permits to install such mobilehomes.
Installed on permanent foundations on individual lots.
4. Installed in places which are not exempted pursuant to Health and Safety
Code §65852.1(b) as having a special character or special historical interest.
5. Possessing roof eaves with overhangs of at least sixteen (16) inches.
6. Possessing a sloped roof with a minimum incline of 2:12 feet.
Not possessing on the surface of the exterior walls siding composed primarily
of metal."
SECTION 5. That Section 17.15.020 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development
shall be amended to add new Section 17.15.020(H) as follows:
"H. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
1. Metal Siding. New single family dwellings and required parking
structures shall not possess on the surface of the exposed exterior walls
siding composed primarily of metal.
2. Sloped Roof The primary roof of new single family dwellings shall be sloped
with a minimum incline of 2:12 feet. New additions which change the roofline
of existing single family residences shall have sloped roofs where consistent
with the existing design of the house and the surrounding neighborhood. This
sloped roof requirement does not apply to open patio covers."
SECTION 6. That existing Section 17.15.020(G) of the Santa Clarita Unified
Development Code shall be amended to add Section 17.15.020(6)(11) to read as follows:
"11. Metal Siding. New multifamily dwellings and required parking
structures shall not possess on the surface of the exposed exterior walls
siding composed primarily of metal."
SECTION T That the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this project has been
prepared, reviewed, considered, and found complete in accordance with the provisions of
CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines and the City Council adopts the Negative
Declaration prepared for this project.
-3-
SECTION 8. That if any portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid that portion
shall be stricken and severed, and the remaining portions shall be unaffected and remain in
full force and effect.
SECTION 9. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and
shall cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of
, 19_
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do 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 Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
LSTOTLEILcou l\ord95.21hs
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 17, 1995
TO Chairman Modugno and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager, Community beveli> enter
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
REQUEST: Proposed amendments to the City's Unified Development Code to
modify property development standards for all agricultural and
residential zones concerning single family and manufactured housing
and to modify density bonus provision for affordable housing to conform
to state planning law.
On December 13, 1994, the City Council directed the staff to hold a Planning Commission
hearing to consider an ordinance that would amend the City's Unified Development Code
(UDC) to regulate the placement of manufactured housing on residential lots to the extent
allowable under state law. Staff has also been working with the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) to bring the City's Housing Element into
compliance with state law. To achieve compliance, in part, an amendment of the affordable
housing density bonus provisions of the UDC is necessary. All of these amendments to the
UDC have been combined into one ordinance for expediency.
ANALYSIS
Manufactured Housing in Residential Zones
The State heavily regulates mobilehomes and manufactured housing which limits the
authority of the City to create standards for such housing. A city may prohibit the placement
of manufactured housing which was constructed more than ten years prior on residential lots
and require manufactured housing to have 16 -inch eaves. Beyond that, the City may only
impose the same standards upon manufactured homes that apply to other single family
residences. The proposed ordinance prohibits placement of manufactured homes greater than
ten years old and requires 16 -inch eaves.
Standards for Single Familv Residences
Additionally, the draft ordinance would regulate materials used in exterior siding on all
residences and required parking structures in the City and require all roofs on new
construction to have a minimum incline of 2:12 feet. The siding provision would prohibit
metallic siding throughout the City, thereby assuring a degree of compatibility with the
existing community, as envisioned in the General Plan. The sloped roof provision would
apply to the primary roof of any new single family dwelling. New additions which would
Agenda Item:
I . Ap\
change the roofline of existing single family residences would be required to have sloped roofs
where consistent with the existing design of the house and the surrounding neighborhood.
The sloped roof requirement would not apply to patio covers.
Density Bonus Provisions
State law specifies that an affordable housing density bonus shall be based upon the highest
allowable density of the zone, whereas the City's UDC grants such based on the midpoint
density. The draft ordinance would amend the UDC to comply with state law and provide
an affordable, housing density bonus based on the highest density of the zone. The State
HCD has also stated that clarification upon this point will need to be made to the Housing
Element. A draft amendment to the Housing Element is presently under informal review
with the State HCD and is to be considered by the Planning Commission as soon as informal
HCD approval is received.
State law allows a city to grant development fee waivers/reductions for affordable housing
projects as a development incentive where a finding can be made that a project provides
significant community benefits. The City's Housing Element, Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS), and Council's Affordable Housing Policy encourage the use
of incentives to provide affordable housing opportunities within the City. Of particular need
as identified in the CHAS, is affordable housing for families. The draft ordinance requires
a finding of significant community benefit to receive fee waivers.
Long Term Maintenance of Affordability
The proposed ordinance provides clarification to the UDC sections concerning maintaining
long term availability of affordable housing. State law allows a city to require the affordable
housing developer to enter into a development agreement to ensure that units will retain
their affordable housing status per the conditions of project approval. Since adoption of the
UDC, the City has identified a redevelopment project area which is subject to its own
affordability requirements based on state redevelopment law. The City's UDC section
covering long term affordability provisions has been rewritten to clarify and be consistent
with both state planning and state redevelopment laws concerning maintenance of
affordability status.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution P95-01 recommending approval of the ordinance amending the City's
Unified Development Code to the City Council.
LHS & NH:. plagcom/srmlc951.16s
�L
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 7, 1995
TO: Chairman Modugno and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager, Com un jDEvelopment
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
REQUEST: Proposed amendments to the City's Unified Development Code to
modify property development standards for all agricultural and
residential zones concerning manufactured housing in single family
residential areas.
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 1994, the City Council directed the staff to hold a Planning Commission
hearing to consider an ordinance that would amend the City's Unified Development Code
(UDC) to regulate the placement of manufactured housing on residential lots to the extent
allowable under state law. On January 17, 1995, the Planning Commission considered
proposed amendments to the UDC that address manufactured housing in residential zones,
provide standards for single family residential zones prohibiting metal siding and requiring
sloped roofs on new single family developments, and modify the organization and wording of
the affordable housing density bonus section to conform to state density bonus law.
The Commission directed staff to divide the UDC amendment into two separate ordinances --
one addressing manufactured housing issues and the other addressing affordable housing
density bonus requirements. For the issue of manufactured housing, the Commission
recommended adoption of the provisions requiring that a manufactured home be no more
than 10 years old upon placement and have a minimum of 16 -inch eaves. The Commission
recommended against prohibiting metal siding on single family residences and against
requiring sloped roofs for new single family development. It was also recommended that
design standards for single family residential areas be considered during future discussions
of architectural review, not as part of this ordinance.
The public hearing was continued and staff was directed to return with a resolution with
these recommendations for the City Council on February 7, 1995. Per Commission direction,
the issue of affordable housing density bonus will be considered as a separate item on
February 7, 1995..
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution P95-01 recommending that the City Council approve certain
amendments to the City's Unified Development Code relating to manufactured
housing as identified in the above staff report.
LHS:
Agenda Item: 3
MINUTES OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
January 17, 1995
7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 3: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE (RESOLUTION P95-01)
Rich Henderson introduced the item. He said the City Council directed staff to come back
with an ordinance that would implement architectural and other regulations where cities
allow mobile homes to be placed on single family lots. The most recent version of the
Mobilehome Park Act allows a city to disallow the placement of a mobilehome on a lot if that
mobilehome is more than ten years old. It also allows a city to put a requirement on
mobilehomes to have 16" eaves even if there is not a requirement for single family homes.
It also goes on to say that you may place restrictions on types of siding. The three proposals
would affect mobilehomes while one would affect all homes, Another proposal that would
affect all homes is that you have a sloping roof. From now on any single family residence or
any mobile home would have to have a minimal incline if the Commission adopted the
ordinance as written.
The other provisions relate to completely separate issues - the density bonus provisions and
the long term maintenance of affordability, or affordable housing.. Mr. Henderson stated that
the Redevelopment Agency would not be able to enact itself because you couldn't get any tax
increment because the City does not have a Certified Housing Element. The HCD
Department at the State certifies housing elements. He said Laura Stotler has been working
with the HCD. HCD has informed staff that certain elements must be placed in the housing
element and that those elements must be clearly written in our Zoning Code. Mr. Henderson
said that HCD has verbally agreed that they will certify our housing element.
Mr. Henderson also gave information regarding the density bonus provision. Under State
law, if someone has affordable housing, 10% very low income or 20% low income or 50% for
seniors, or a combination of these three, then by that condition, you have an affordable
housing project and you must grant a density beyond the zoning. State law requires you
must grant the bonus beyond the top end of your range.
Commissioner Doughman asked if manufactured housing was just mobilehomes. Mr.
Henderson said anything built off site and assembled on site is manufactured housing.
Commissioner Doughman also had a question regarding the requirement of parking
structures.. Mr. Henderson explained that when you build a home you have to build a two -car
enclosed garage.
Commissioner Cherrington asked if Planning Commission review should be part of the
ordinance. Mr. Henderson said that language could be added. Commissioner Cherrington
also wanted the sloped roof provision explained. Mr, Henderson explained the background
of how staff came up with the sloping roof requirement. Commissioner Cherrington asked
if the ordinance would preclude someone who chose to build a custom home in the Spanish
style with a typically flat roof and buttress. Mr. Henderson said he thought the Commission
would want to discuss this matter.
Commissioner Cherrington also had questions regarding the density. He asked if the
Commission would be empowered to award higher density than the zoned density range. Mr.
Henderson said you can award a higher density, it is even in the General Plan.
Commissioner Cherrington said perhaps one way of dealing with this would be to alter the
ranges for the existing zones. Commissioner Cherrington wanted the zone densities changed
before approval of the ordinance. Mr. Henderson said if this is done, we may have to start
all over again.
Commissioner Brathwaite said it was his understanding that a local Planning Commission
could not set ordinances so as to circumvent the requirements of the State law.
Commissioner Brathwaite wanted clarification regarding the age of the mobilehome. Mr.
Henderson answered that the State is very clear. You can only restrict a mobilehome not be
older than 10 years. You cannot restrict it to 9 or 2, only that it cannot be older than 10.
Chairman Modugno wanted to know that if a mobilehome was put on a permanent
foundation if it was taxable as fixed real property. Mr. Henderson said that it was. When
the building official finals the permit the County Assessor assesses the value of the property
and it then goes on the property tax roll.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:37 p.m.
Mark Subbotin, 23823 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita. Mr. Subbotin is a representative of
Valencia Company. He said he understood the intent of the Commission regarding the
mobilehome changes however he was concerned with the repercussions to the single family
provisions of the code. He had comments regarding sloped roofs. Mr. Subbotin also made
comments regarding the density bonus.
James Robinson, 28504 Sand Canyon Road, #129, Santa Clarita. Mr. Robinson spoke in
opposition to the item. He is the president of the Santa Clarita Area Mobilehomes Council.
He said what is happening is that mobilehome owners are being discriminated against. He
feels the City does not want mobilehomes in the City.
Kim Kurowski, 22164 Barbacoa, Santa Clarita. She lives on a residential street that has a
mobilehome on it. She feels it has ruined the site of her neighborhood. She would like help
from the City so that mobilehomes would not be allowed in residential neighborhoods.
Commissioner Brathwaite commented that he has visited the site and spoke to some of the
neighbors concerning the mobilehome on Barbacoa. He said he would be happy to share what
he saw with the Commissioners.
Jeff Miller, 22263 Barbacoa Drive, Santa Clarita. He wanted to make a couple of
suggestions. He felt a public hearing should be held prior to the issuance of any permits for
the relocation of mobilehomes. He said the sloped roof issue should be taken on a case -by -
2
case basis
Connie Clift, 22133 Barbacoa, Santa Clarita. She lives directly across the street from the
mobilehome on Barbacoa. She says it looks very bad. She felt the Commissioners should
take a look at it before a decision is made. She feels the property values have declined
because of the mobilehome. She suggested that something be done so this will not happen
again.
Commissioner Brathwaite gave a brief commentary on what he saw when he visited the site.
He said the workmen were doing good work. He said when the mobilehome work is
completed it would not match the other homes in the area. He said the home that is being
put in does not compare to the newer model mobilehomes. The newer models have pitched
roofs, they are longer, they have a better facade and it looks more like a house.
Commissioner Doughman asked if wording could be used to specify the roofs should be
similar to adjacent roofs. Mary Gayle said if you don't set a minimum pitch you will not be
able to enforce the pitched roof on either kind of structure. If there are flat roofs on million
dollar houses you could then have flat roofs on $50,000.00 houses in the same neighborhood.
Rich Henderson said he was concerned with how staff can regulate this. He said perhaps
there could be a review process. Mary Gayle said this was a very good point.
Commissioner Brathwaite suggested staff prepare language that would cover the ideas put
forward concerning the roof lines.
Chairman Modugno asked if there was a way to maintain some square footage level of the
property that would vary no more than 10 to 20 % from the average home in the
neighborhood. Mr. Henderson said it would get complicated if staff has to review every house
that comes in.
Mary Gayle said what you do for mobilehomes you have to do for all housing. Any formula
you work out for mobilehomes has to be applicable to single family houses.
Chairman Modugno said he was troubled by certain items in the ordinance. The roof line
and the siding were two items that caused him concern.
Commissioner Cherrington asked if it would be appropriate to break the ordinance into pieces
and treat the mobilehome issue as a single issue detached from the standards for single
family residences and also separate from the density bonus provisions. He also recommended
that the Commission look at the enactment of architectural design standards for the entire
community. He also suggested the density bonus provision be put on the shelf.
Mr. Henderson stated staff has been directed to get the housing element certified and has
been working very hard to do so.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked Ms. Gayle's view on the action that the Commission would
be taking.
She said staff could be directed to revise the proposed ordinance and resolution in a way the
Commission could agree upon. She said it would be best to recommend staff amend them
3
and bring it back for the Commission to take a second look at. Ms. Gayle advised that the
Public Hearing be continued to a date and time certain. She said that as it stands right now,
the City is not complying with the housing requirements and it could be construed that we
are being discriminatory in that regard.
Chairman Modugno is concerned that there is not enough public input on something that has
major public significance. He would prefer to see the issues separated.
Commissioner Cherrington made a motion that staff be directed to return to the Commission
a revised resolution addressing the issue of mobilehomes on residential lots, amending the
Unified Development Code, particularly Section G with the elimination of items 6 and 7.
Said motion was seconded by Chairman Modugno and carried on a vote of 3-1 with
Commissioner Brathwaite dissenting.
Commissioner Cherrington made a motion that staff be directed to return with
recommendations for architectural design standards for single family residential units within
the City. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite and carried on a vote of
4-0.
A discussion was had regarding the issue of affordable housing.
Commissioner Cherrington said he hoped staff would give more detailed information with
reference to the relationship between the circulation element and the housing element. He
stated the ordinance should not be rushed into just so that the City could get its
Redevelopment Agency on track sooner.
Chairman Modugno stated he would like to have someone present at the meeting that
understood the mechanics of the issue over a long period of time and not just muddled in
with the other ordinances. He stated he would like to have some public participation if
possible.
Commissioner Doughman had a concern that someone could purchase a home under the
affordability program and at some time down the line turn it over for a quick profit.
Rich Henderson said there is usually no "windfall profit" issue with affordable housing.
Affordable housing is not offered at the market rate. When the owner of a.home sells, he has
to sell to a person who often qualifies for affordable housing.
Commissioner Cherrington made a motion to continue the issue of affordable housing until
the next scheduled meeting on February 7, 1995, and that it be renoticed as a separate item
and that provisions of the State law be included in the discussion. Said motion was seconded
by Commissioner Doughman and carried on a vote of 4-0.
4
MINUTES OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
February 7, 1995
7:00 p.m.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 3 MASTER CASE 95-001, UDC AMENDMENT 95-01 (RESOLUTION
P95-01)
Rich Henderson introduced the item. Staff had made the changes requested by the
Commission and brought back the Resolution for approval regarding the area of mobile
homes and architectural features.
Commissioner Townley informed the Commission that she had listened to the tapes from
the meeting of January 17, 1995 and she was aware of what happened at the meeting.
Commissioner Cherrington wanted an explanation as to why items regarding roof slope and
siding were in the Resolution. Rich Henderson clarified the contents of the Resolution.
Chairman Modugno expressed his concern that there should be conformity as far as rooflines
were concerned. He also had a question regarding metal siding. He asked if detached metal
sheds could be used as a garage. Mr. Henderson stated that the Director has some
architectural discretion, and denials have been given to some proposals of putting in metallic
buildings in residential zones which were accessory in nature.
Those wishing to speak regarding this item were:
Mark Subbotin, 23823 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. He stated that Mr. Henderson had
answered his concernsregarding sloped roofs and he had no further comments.
The public hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m.
A motion was made by Commissioner Cherrington to adopt Resolution P95-01 recommending
the City Council approve certain amendments to the City's Unified Development Code
relating to manufactured housing. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughman
and carried on a vote of 5-0.
RESOLUTION NO. P95-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO MOBILEHOMES IN
SINGLE-FAMILY AREAS AND STANDARDS
FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita General Plan requires the implementation of
a City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code to be in compliance with the Governmental
Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the Government Code Section 65852.3 et seq. preempts regulation by local
governmental entities of manufactured homes in residential zones with certain exceptions;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita has determined
that the public health and welfare requires that mobilehomes in residential zones be
regulated to the extent permitted by state law; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan requires that all design elements be considered,
including building size, height, mass, and architectural design review process so that new
development does not conflict with the character of neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance to amend the City's zoning code is consistent with
the General Plan including the Housing Element;
WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of
1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21774, require the evaluation of the
Negative Declaration for projects such as amendments to the Unified Development Code; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for these Unified Development Code amendments
was prepared, noticed and circulated for public review in compliance with the provisions of
CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, following City Council direction on December 13, 1994 and in accordance
with Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public
hearings on January 17, 1995 and February 7, 1995, receiving staff reports and public
testimony on this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA DOES HEREBYRESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The proposed amendments to the Santa Clarita Unified Development
Code are consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and meet the requirements
of the Government Code of the State of California,
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study
and Negative Declaration prepared for this project and recommends that the City Council
adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the amendments to the Unified Development
Code as complete and in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the City's
Environmental Guidelines.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council
act upon the amendments to the Unified Development Code as follows: approve amendments
requiring manufactured homes be no more than ten years old upon placement and have
minimum 16 -inch eaves; and, eliminate proposed amendments that prohibit the use of metal
siding and require sloped roofs for new development in single family residential and
agricultural zones,
,- ,.PASSED, APPROVED AND .ADOPTED this _ day of
19L .
i
PAT MODUGiZ0,,eHAHWAAS4
PLANNIN ISSION
ATTEST:
LYNN/M. HARR S
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, 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 7th day of February
1995 by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Modugno, Townsley, Brathwaite; Cherrington and Doughman
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:. None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
planrnin\ree95 1.1h=
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[ ] Proposed WFlnal
MASTER CASE NOS: 95-001 and 95-020, UDC Amendments 95-01 and 95-02
PERMIT/PROJECT: Amendments to the City's Unified Development Code relating to standards
for manufactured housing In single family areas and affordable housing density bonus.
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarlta
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Amendments to the City's Unified Development Code relating
to standards for manufactured housing in single family areas and affordable housing density
bonus.
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 [ ] Are Not Attached
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEV LOPMENT
Prepared by, Laura Stotler/Assistant Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Review Period From December 28, 1994 To March 14, 1995.
Public Notice Given On December 28, 1994 and February 22, 1995 By:
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE: March 14. 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MASTER CASE NOS: 95-001 and 95-020
UDC Amendment: 95-01 and 95-02
Case Planners: Laura Stotler, Assistant Planner
Nicole Howard, Planning Technician
Project Location: Citywide
Project Description/Setting:
The project proposes amendments to the City's Unified Development Code including
modifications to property development standards for all Agricultural and Residential zones
and modifications to the requirements for receiving density bonuses for affordable housing
projects.
The amendment regarding property development standards would eliminate the use of metal
siding as an exterior finish on all dwellings and required parking structures in the City's
Agricultural and Residential zones and would require that such homes possess sloped roofs.
As permitted by state legislation governing mobile -/manufactured homes, the amendment
would also establish a maximum structure age of ten years for manufactured homes being
placed on residential lots and would require that such mobilehomes possess overhangs of at
least sixteen (16) inches. The amendment would not require that structures already
permitted be replaced and/or refinished and would apply to new construction and non -
permitted (pre-existing illegal) structures only.
The amendment regarding requirements for density bonus eligibility would clarify the
existing Unified Development Code to align it with State of California requirements. The
amendment would identify "significant community benefits" and require a finding that a
project provides a significant community benefit in order for density bonus projects to qualify
for an alteration in development standards. Furthermore, the amendment would require that
developers maintain the affordable housing status for which they were granted the density
bonus for a period of at least twenty (20) years in non -redevelopment areas and in accordance
with redevelopment law within designated redevelopment project areas. The amendment also
allows density bonuses based upon the highest allowable density of the zone of the project
as required by State Planning Law,
General Plan Designation: Citywide
Zoning: A, RE, RVL, RL, RS, RM, RMH, RH, CTC, SP Overlay
Applicant: City of Santa Clarita
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the 'proposal result in-
a-
Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? [ j
[ ] [Xl
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ... „ . , ....... , .. _.. , _ [ 1
C 1 1X1
C.
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ....... . : ... . : . . ........ . .... [ l
[ 1 [Xl
d.
The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features? ....... [ ]
[ 1 [X1
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? ........... , . ,_..... [ ]
[ 1 1X1
f.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? [ l
[ ] [X]
g.
Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? [ ]
[ ] [X1
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ......... .:. . ............... [ l
[ ] [X1
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? . ................ . ....... [ l
[ 1 [Xl
j:
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25% natural grade? ...... . .. . .... [ 1
[ ] [X1
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ... . ........... . ........ [ ]
[ 1 [X1
L
Other? .... ::........................... []
1] [Xl
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? ...:. . ................ , . , . [ ]
[ I 1X1
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? [ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
-2
3 a�
either locally or regionally? .: :..... , I . I ..... , ,. [ 1
[ 1 [Xl
d.
Other? .. , ... , . , .. L l
[ I [Xl
3. Water, Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoffs ..... . ......... . ............ [ 1
[ l [Xl
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? . ....... . ......... L ]
[ 7 [Xl
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ...... [ ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? .......... , ...... [ ]
[ I [X]
e.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ... _ . t 1
[ l [X]
f,
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? .......:........ [ ]
[ l 1X1
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? .... , .. [ ]
[ l [Xl
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? .............. [ ]
[ ] [X]
i.
Other? ........... ............... Ll
[] [Xl
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:;
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? , ......... [ ]
[ ] [X1
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ........... [ 1
[ 1 [X]
C,
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
3 a�
replenishment of existing species? , , . .. .. [ ] [ 1
[X]
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ............ ........... .......,...... [] []
[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? ........... [ ] 1 ]
[X]
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ......... [ ] [ ]
[X]
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? .............. [ ] [ ]
[X]
6. Noise. Will 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. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ...................... [ 1 [ ]
[X]
S. 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]
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? .................. ...........................:. [] []
[X]
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? .................... < . [X] [ 1
[ ]
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? .... ::. . ......... . ....... [ 1
[ 1 [X]
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? _ , _ .. __ ... , . ♦ „ ; , ... • • . „ • [ 1
[ 1 [Xl
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? ..... . ................. . . .. [ 1 [
1 1X1
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous
or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? .. . ........ . .. •................ [ 1 [
1 [XI
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...... ..:...::..................::.. [l [1
[X1
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................. [1 11
[X1
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ............ ; ... , . , . , , [ ] [
1 1X1
b. Other?......... ..............:........ [1 11
[Xl
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a: Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ............ , ... [XJ [
1 [1
b. Other?..................... 11 [l [1
[X1
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? , . , . [ 1 [
1 [Xl
-5 a3
14.
15.
16.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .. _ ._ ......
C_ Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ........... [ ]
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .......... [ 1
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? [ ]
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? [
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? ..... _ . [
b. Police protection?
C. Schools? [ 1
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .. _ . ( j
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ............. [ 1
f. Other governmental services? ...:. ; . [X]
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy? .........:..:::
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? [ ]
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities;
a. Power or natural gas?
-6-
[ 1 [X]
[1 I1
[ 1 [X]
[ I [XJ
17
18.
19.
20.
b: Communications systems? . , .. . ; . _ . ; [ J
C. Water systems? ....... , .. .. [ J
d. Sanitary sewer systems? ........... . . _ , , , [ J
e_ Storm drainage systems? .................. [ ]
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? ........ . .... [ J
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ... [ ]
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ........ [ ]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? [1
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in.
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? . ... . ... . .. . . . ...... . [ ]
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? .. , ............ [ 1
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? . , , ... [ ]
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? .. .....................
Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? ............ . .. . ... [ ]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ........... [ ]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
.7.
[ 1 [X]
a.s
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ...... _ . ,, _ , .. [ ] [ ] 1XI
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..::............. . . . . . . [ ] [ j [X]
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 . . ....................:. [ ] [ ] [ X ]
53
I. EARTH
Discussion of Impacts
There are no significant permanent or temporary soil or geological impacts associated
with the proposed policy change (Community Development).
2. AIR
Discussion of Impacts
There are no significant permanent or temporary air quality impacts associated with
the proposed policy change (Community Development).
3. WATER
Discussion of Impacts
There are no significant permanent or temporary water quality or water quantity
impacts associated with the proposed policy change (Community Development).
4. PLANT LIFE
Discussion of Impacts
There are no significant permanent or temporary impacts on the diversity or quantity
of plant species associated with the proposed policy change (Community Development).
5. ANIMAL LIFE
Discussion of Impacts
There are no significant permanent or temporary impacts on the diversity or quantity
of animal species associated with the proposed policy change (Community
Development).
6. NOISE
Discussion of Impacts
There is no permanent or temporary increase in the noise level associated with the
proposed policy change (Community Development).
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
Discussion of Impacts
There are no increases in light and glare associated with the proposed policy change
(Community Development),
S. LAND USE
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code will not alter the land
use designations of the City's General Plan. The checklist states that the
amendments may result in a use which does not adhere to existing development
criteria:. this is solely because the amendment is a change to the development criteria
itself. The new residential development standards and density bonus eligibility
requirements will not significantly change land use in the City, but will clarify the
existing Unified Development Code, aligning it with State of California requirements
(Community Development).
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed policy changes will not result in an increase in the rate of use or in the
depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources (Community Development).
10. RISK OF UPSET/1 A -MADE HAZARDS
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed policy change will not expose people to safety hazards nor will it upset
man-made hazards (Community Development).
11. POPULATION
Discussion of Impacts
The proposal is of a character which will not incrementally increase nor decrease the
population of the City. The policy changes merely modify existing, allowed uses and
bring the City's Unified Development Code into conformance with existing state law.
No significant impact upon the distribution or density of the population is anticipated
(Community Development).
12. HOUSING
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed policy changes will not result in a decrease in the amount of designated
residential land uses and/or residential dwelling units. The study above states that
the existing housing stock may be affected: this is because the policy changes
proposed relate to development standards for residential dwelling units and/or
residential developments. The Unified Development Code amendments will modify
property development standards for single-family homes (including
-10-
�g
manufactured/mobilehomes), but will not significantly alter their use:
The modifications regarding affordable housing density bonuses are merely
clarifications of the City's Unified Development Code which are required to adhere to
existing State Planning Law, It is anticipated that the proposed policy changes will
not create a significant demand for additional housing units; however, with the
changes in effect, there is a potential for construction of a greater number of
affordable housing units (Community Development).
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed policy changes will not significantly affect the amount or distribution
of pedestrian traffic, vehicular traffic, or parking facilities (Community Development).
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed amendments will not have a significant effect upon fire protection, police
protection, schools, parks, public facilities, or roads. However, one governmental
service may be affected as a result of the amendment to the City's density bonus
policy. As required by the State of California, developers will be obligated to record
their affordable housing units with the County of Los Angeles Community
Development Commission and the State Office of Housing and Community
Development. These agencies will monitor the density bonus projects to ensure that
the affordable status of the approved units is maintained over a specified period of
time, which will vary on a project -by -project basis.
15. ENERGY
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed amendments will not result in an increased demand for energy sources
(Community Development).
16. UTILITIES
Discussion of Impacts
There will be no need for new utility systems or expansion of existing systems
associated with the proposed policy changes (Community Development).
17. HUMAN HEALTH
Discussion of Impacts
The proposal will not significantly impact human health. There will be no exposure
to health hazards associated with the policy changes (Community Development).
18. AESTHETICS
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed amendments will not result in aesthetically offensive or view -obstructing
developments. Conversely, the purpose of amending the single-family property
development standards is to improve the aesthetics of new construction, ensuring
cohesiveness with the materials and design of existing single-family dwellings.
19. RECREATION
Discussion of Impacts
The policy changes are not of the type or scale to significantly affect recreational
opportunities within the City. No significant impact is anticipated (Community
Development)_
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Discussion of Impacts
There are no cultural resource impacts directly associated with this policy change.
However, for any future construction of housing, builders shall abide by the standard
precautions for archaeological resource protection.
Department of Fish and Game "De Minimus" Finding
The property in question has been recently graded in order to create a level project site. All
utilities and infrastructure are available on-site. The City has found that no evidence exists
to demonstrate that the project has the potential to adversely affect wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which wildlife depends. No significant impact is anticipated with this project
(Community Development).
30 12
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 wild-
life population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? [ l [ ) [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.) [ ] [ 1 [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.) [ ] [ ) [Xl
4. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? [ ] [ ] [X]
-13- 3/
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
(Signature) (Name/Title)
cure do r.hlh
(Name/Title)
-14-
(Date)
/Z z 7 -`iy.
(Date)
STRIKE -OUT DRAFT
PROPOSED UDC AMENDMENTS
RE: AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
MC 95-020, UDC AMEND 95-02
February 7, 1995
DIVISION 2
ZONING
17.16.030 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE (continued)
(b) Provide for development within the zone in a manner
consistent with the General Plan and with related
development and growth policies of the City.
c: Provide for the construction, improvement, or extension of
transportation facilities, public utilities, and public services required by
development within the zone.
d. There shall be no minimum yard requirement for individual lots except
as established by a specific plan, a conditional use permit, or
development review.
e. There shall be no minimum usable open space requirement for
individual lots, except as established by a specific plan, a conditional
use permit, or by development review.
f. The maximum number of dwelling units within a Specific Plan Zone
shall not exceed the ability of the City to provide services in accordance
with the General Plan and applicable local ordinances; provided that the
distribution of units within the zone and the maximum residential
density on any individual site or within designated portions of the zone
shall be governed by the specific plan, conditional use permit, or
development review.
In the event the General Plan does not establish a maximum residential
density for said site, the City Council, after considering the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, shall determine the
appropriate density based on detailed review of the specific plan and the
provisions of this Code.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 217195
2. Special Requirements.
a. The Specific Plan Zone and all uses therein shall be designed and
developed in a manner compatible with and complementary to existing
and potential development in the general vicinity of the zone. Site
planning on the perimeter shall provide for the mutual protection of the
zone and surrounding property from potential adverse influences.
2-50
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 217195
13
17.17.070 DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENTS
A, Density bonuses for senior, very low and low income housing.
Purpose. The density bonus provisions for senior, very low, and low income housing
are intended to facilitate the construction of senior, very low and low income housing
for sale and rental housing units that will serve the current and long term City need
while maintaining a high degree of quality in project design, construction, and
environmental protection. These requirements are intended to work in conjunction
with the applicable general and special development requirements of the residential
zones and the provisions of the state planning law related to density bonuses while at
the same time providing assurances to the City that units, developed by use of the
incentives offered as part of this section, remain available and affordable to seniors,
very low and low income individuals and families.
2. Applicability. In addition to the requirements of Section 17.03.060 (Development
Review) of this Code, applicants requesting a density bonus, pursuant to Government
Code Section 65915, shall be subject to the following:
a. The development shall consist of five or more units in which at least 20% of
the total units are reserved for lower income households or at least 10% of the
total units are reserved for very low income households or at least 50% of the
total units are reserved for senior citizens.
b. The plan shall show the intended use of the density bonus within the housing
development or within the geographic area of the housing development.
C. A written preliminary proposal shall be submitted, including a development
incentive checklist, to determine the means for complying with this section. A
preliminary proposal shall be submitted prior to any formal requests for general
plan amendments, zoning amendments or subdivision map approvals.
d. An independently prepared fiscal impact statement shall be submitted with the
preliminary proposal examining the general effects of the proposed project to
the City. The study shall include the potential specific fiscal impacts to the
various funds of the City which may be affected by the particular development
concessions being requested, such as general fund, property taxes, police and
fire safety, park development fees, etc. The study shall also include the
positive or negative fiscal and economic benefits to the City for granting one or
more incentives.
2-107
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 217195
17.17.070 DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENTS (continued)
3. Conditions. Proposed projects must meet the following conditions in order to qualify
for an affordable housing density bonus:
a. The area infrastructure must be in place or be constructed as part of the project
and capable of serving the proposed project including, but not limited to the
following:
(1) streets;
(2) sidewalks; and
(3) traffic and pedestrian signals.
b. The project may not be located in an area designated as "hillside" by the City's
Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance.
C. The site must be zoned RM, RMH or RH.
d. The project site must be proximate to commercial establishments, service
providers, and other amenities, including, but not limited to the following;
(1) grocery stores;
(2) drug stores;
(3) banks;
(4) medical and dental facilities;
(5) public transit (main or frequently used routes); and
(6) open space/recreational facilities.
4. Incentives for affordable housing. In order to reduce development costs associated
with the construction of projects qualifying under Government Code Section 65915,
the City may offer a developer some or all of the following incentives, depending
upon the quality, size, and scope of the proposed project.
a. Setbacks/Height. The City may grant a reduction in required setbacks of up to
20% and/or grant a maximum additional height of up to 65 feet and five
stories.
2-108
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 2/7/95
45
17.17.070 DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENTS (continued)
5
6<
1'e
b. Dwelling unit density bonus. The City may grant a density bonus of 25% in
excess of the midpaint maximum density of the zone. In areas where higher
densities are appropriate and services are available, densities of up to 35
dwelling units per gross acre may be permitted. In the Valley Center area
only, densities up to 50 dwelling units per gross acre may be permitted.
C. Fee Waivers/Reductions. Projects submitted under this section may receive,
depending upon the size, nature and scope, a reduction or waiver of some or all
City imposed development submittal and processing fees. Such reductions or
waivers may affect the following:.
(1) Development application fees;
(2) Park fees;
(3) Other fees.
NAM
M
1-109
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 217195
IM
B. Amenities bonuses.
1. Purpose. Pursuant to this section, the City may grant a density bonus for projects
where exceptional and overriding community benefits would be achieved from higher
densities and/or floor area ratios ("FAR's" ).
2. Applicability. The City may grant an increase in the permitted density or FAR in
excess of the mid -point. Such projects shall be subject to the approval of a
conditional use permit. Bonuses may be granted based upon the finding that any
proper combination of the following amenities are provided clearly in excess of those
normally required to achieve mid -point density:
a. Roadway dedication and/or improvements;
b. On- or off-site mature landscaping;
C. Open space;
d. Recreational facilities;
e. Child care facilities;
f. Infrastructure improvements;
g. Public services and facilities;
h. Additional clear and substantial benefits identified and accepted by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council.
IhsadvanttVcMudc.dd
1110
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 217195