HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 95 015 GP AMEND 95 01 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
Rich Henderson
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: March 14, 1995
SUBJECT:. MASTER CASE NO. 95-015, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01 TO
ADOPT RESOLUTION 95-21 TO AMEND THE CITY S GENERAL
PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
DEPARTMENT:. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND
The City's Housing Element of the General Plan has not received a compliance finding from
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Staff has been
working with HCD to address and satisfy their concerns so that compliance can be achieved.
The proposed Housing Element amendment is not a comprehensive revision, but rather is
aimed at addressing only those points noted by HCD for purposes of complying with state law
and receiving an HCD compliance determination. Under State law, the City must do a five-
year comprehensive Housing Element update next year. Therefore, this amendment does not
seek to bring the Housing Element up-to-date and much of the data from the previous
amendment is several years old.
On February 7, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
amendments and voted 4-1 to recommend that the City Council approve them. The
Commission noted that they had the same concerns with this item as they did with the
proposed affordable housing density bonus amendment to the Unified Development Code
(UDC). The concern is that the state interpretation of the affordable housing density bonus
is different from the intent of the Housing Element as originally adopted. The Commission
has forwarded a letter for Council consideration explaining its concerns and rationale for an
approval recommendation despite reservations on this project.
ANALYSIS
The main HCD concerns with the City's Housing Element center around the issues of
midpoint density as the basis for an affordable housing density bonus, adequacy of vacant
sites for affordable housing development, required findings for significant or overriding
community benefits to receive an affordable housing density bonus, and implementation of
affordable housing programs, particularly density bonuses, in the City. Other minor changes
in the element relate to expanding the description of programs the City will undertake or
consider to achieve increases in the number of affordable housing units in the City.
Adopted:— 95— Agea Item:
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive staff report, open public hearing, take testimony, approve
Resolution 95-21.
ATTACHMENTS
Letter of February 16, 1995 from the Planning Commission Transmitting its
Recommendation to Council
Resolution 95-21
Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 7, 1995
Planning Commission Minutes dated February 7, 1995
Planning Commission Resolution P95-4
Negative Declaration
READING FILE
Environmental Initial Study
Strike -out version of Exhibit 1 of Reso. No. 92-226 amending the General Plan Housing
Element
CD\Coun61\.lgpa95 Llhx
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 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
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. 95-015, GPA 95-01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes amendments to the City's Housing
Element including clarifications for the requirements for receiving density bonuses for
affordable housingprojects.
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 may 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
RESOLUTION NO, 95-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MASTER CASE NO, 95-015, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-01, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO, 92-226 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 December 8, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-
226, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 92-001 amending the Housing
Element and certifying the negative declaration of environmental impact
prepared for the amendment.
C. On February 7, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa
Clarita conducted a duly noticed public hearing on proposed General Plan
Amendment No. 95-01.
D. Following the public hearing of February 7, 1995, after duly
considering all testimony and evidence presented on General Plan
Amendment No. 95-001, the Planning Commission for the City of Santa
Clarita adopted Resolution P95-04, recommending adopting of the negative
declaration of environmental impact and recommending approval to the City
Council of General Plan Amendment No. 95-01.
E. On March 14, 1995, the City Council for the City of Santa Clarita
conducted a duly noticed public hearing in the City Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. on proposed
General Plan Amendment No. 95-01.
F. The City Council fully considered all testimony and evidence
regarding proposed General Plan Amendment No. 95-01.
G. The City Council fully considered the initial study and negative
declaration of environmental impact prepared for General Plan Amendment
No. 95-01. 1
H. Proposed General Plan Amendment No. 95-01 would amend the
General Plan Housing Element to identify and appraise existing capacity for
new housing development in relation to the identified regional housing
needs for the planning area.
I. General Plan Amendment No. 95-01 would amend the General Plan
Housing Element to clarify affordable housing density bonus policies and to
reflect state planning law.
J. General Plan Amendment No. 95-01 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, 95-01 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. 95-01. Based upon the
evidence received and the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby'
adopts General Plan Amendment No. 95-01, amending Resolution 92-226, 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.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1 1995.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
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 .1995.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 95-21
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
March 14, 1995
Draft Housing Element Amendment
The following page references are amendments to the previous Housing Element Amendment
adopted by Council as Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 92-226 on November 24, 1992. This
previous document is being amended based upon comments received from the State
Department of Housing and Community Development in their letter dated April 2, 1993, and
following discussions and informal review of the draft Housing Element Amendment with
HCD staff between September 1994 and January 1995.
Page 4, paragraph 5 of the Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development, delete
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.
And insert at the end of paragraph 5
The maximum density allowed in each residential category is the midpoint of the density
range with the exception of affordable housing density bonus projects in zones RM, RMH, RH,
Valley Center overlay and in specific plan zones designated for multiple family uses.. For
very low income, low income, and senior projects in these zones meeting state density bonus
requirements for affordable housing projects, the density bonus is granted based on the
maximum of the density range. A conditional use permit is required to obtain an affordable
housing density bonus.
In accordance with state law, the City shall provide at least one non-financial incentive or
concession, such as a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code
requirements, to encourage affordable housing density bonus projects. No findings of
significant community benefit are required to receive an affordable housing density bonus
where the project meets the minimum affordability requirements per state law, the project
density is consistent with zoning, adequate infrastructure exists to serve the site, and no
more than one non-financial incentive or concession is requested by the developer, or where
such findings are waived by the approving body.
For very low income, low income, and senior affordable housing density bonus projects, a fee
waiver or fee reductions may be granted where the approving body makes a finding that the
project provides significant community benefits. Where findings are made that adequate
services exist, the project provides significant community benefits, and higher densities would
be appropriate for the site, the base density for affordable housing density bonus projects may
Page 1
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
3/14/95
increase to 35 DU/ac in RM, RMH, RH and appropriate specific plan zones or up to 50 Du/ac
within the Valley Center overlay area.
The City also offers an amenities density bonus in zones RM, RMH, RH, Valley Center
overlay and in appropriate specific plan zones designated for multiple family uses with
approval of a conditional use permit. The purpose of an amenities density bonus is to
encourage projects which provide significant community benefits beyond the minimum
required by the development code. In order to receive an amenities density bonus, the
approving body must make a finding that the project provides a significant community
benefit. The amenity density bonus allows up to a 25% density bonus above the midpoint of
the density range for housing projects providing additional amenities such as on-site child
care centers.. The City's Unified Development Code identifies amenities which may be
considered a significant community benefit and make a project eligible for consideration for
an amenity density bonus. An amenity density bonus may be given in addition to the state
density bonus where appropriate findings are made.
Page 5, paragraph 1- of the Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development, delete
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.
Replace previous sentence with the following
The midpoint for each range has been set as the maximum development threshold for each
zoning category except for projects where density bonus provisions for very low income, low
income and senior affordable housing or for amenities apply as previously noted.
Page 5, after paragraph 2 of the Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development, add
An example of an affordable housing project approved by the City is the Canterbury Village,
a 64 -unit all senior, all very low income project which was approved through a Conditional
Use Permit. This project site is flat, encompasses 1.25 acres in the RM zone, and would
allow a maximum of 13 units without density bonuses. Since the site is centrally located
along a bus line, is within 2 miles of a regional hospital, and has existing services adjacent,
this project became eligible for a 35 DU/ac base density which would allow a maximum of 43
units on this site. In addition to the 25% density bonus over the base for very low income
projects, the City Development Code allows an additional amenities density bonus of 25%.
For the Canterbury Village project, each 25% density bonus allowed an additional 10,75 units
which allowed a total project density of 51 DU/ac.. Since the affordability provision of the
project were greater than the minimum provided by state law, the City also allowed a fee
reduction for project development fees.
Page 2
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
3/14/95
Page 5, add the non -italicized portion to the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph
beginning
Table 1 presents a summary of the residential land inventory for the City of Santa Clarita
with the dwelling unit potential based upon the midpoint of the density range of each site.
Page 6, add the non -italicized portion to the end of the third sentence of the first paragraph
beginning
The total dwelling unit capacity of the vacant sites is estimated at 7,788 units based upon the
midpoint of the density range.
Page 6, insert this table and new paragraphs between the first and second paragraphs
TABLE 1-A
SUMMARY OF UNIT POTENTIAL ON, VACANT LAND ZONED RM,RMH AND RH
WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Zone (Density
#
Acres
# Units
# Density
Total #
Suitability by
Range)
Sites
Maximum
Bonus
Units
Income Level
Density
Units
RM
9
461
6,915
1,725
8,640
Low- 1,728
(6.7 - 15 DU/ac)
Moderate -6912
Midpoint
11 DU/ac
RMH
2
12
300
75
375
Low -75
(15.1-25 DU/ac)
Moderate -300
Midpoint
20 DU/ac
RH
0
0
0
0
0
0
(25-32 DU/ac)
Midpoint
28 DU/ac
TOTAL
11
473
7,215
1,800
9,015
Low- 1,803
Moderate
7,212
Table 1-A presents a summary of the unit capacity on vacant residential land with no
proposed or approved entitlements zoned RM, RMH and RH assuming a state density bonus
Page 3
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
3/14/95
for affordable housing projects. Table A-2 in Appendix A presents this inventory. The total
dwelling unit capacity of these vacant RM, RMH and RH sites based upon a state affordable
housing density bonus is 9,015 units. This capacity assumes a 25% density increase over the
maximum of the range of densities in accordance with state density bonus requirements for
low income projects. When combined with the vacant land zoned for single family residential
uses with no proposed or approved development, the City's unit capacity on vacant
residentially zoned land increases to 11,560 units. Thus, when combined with vacant land
with existing proposed and approved residential development, the City's 82 vacant
residentially zoned sites have a potential to contain approximately 18,562 new construction
dwelling units, well in excess of the City's total regional share of 6,401 new housing units.
The RM, RMH and RH zones are appropriate zones to facilitate lower-income development.
These zones are designed to accommodate multifamily developments at greater densities than
single family residential developments. These greater densities provide opportunities for
apartment and condominium development which provide rental and ownership opportunities
for those with very low, low and moderate incomes. Table 1-A shows that at least 1,803 units
are likely to be suitable for low income residents in the RM, RMH and RH zones assuming
that an affordable housing density bonus is requested with the minimum 20% low income
restriction. Based upon the information in Table 1-A, at least another 7,212 units in the RM,
RMH and RH zones would be suitable for moderate income residents.
Page 6, paragraph 2, sentences 1 and 2, replace" the words "allowable density and "density
allowable" with the words "midpoint density."
Page 7, insert this new paragraph in the second paragraph of the section titled Relationship
of Residential Land Inventory and Housing Needs following the sentence "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)."
The City number of existing vacant sites and existing zoning to allow for new residential unit
construction to meet its regional housing needs based upon the income categories identified
in the RHNA. Tables 1 and 1-A show that the City's 82 vacant residentially zoned sites have
a potential to contain approximately 18,562 new construction housing units, well in excess
of the City's total regional share of 6,401 new housing units. Table 1-A demonstrates that
the City has the site capacity and appropriate zoning to accommodate its regional housing
need for 1,562 lower-income housing units. This table also demonstrates that the City has
the site capacity and appropriate zoning to accommodate its regional housing need for 992
new construction housing units for those of moderate income.
Page 21, Program Lb Existing Needs Prioritization add the following after the first sentence
The City recognizes affordable housing as a housing priority for the City and has adopted a
Page 4
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
3114/95
formal policy for expedited review of affordable housing projects. Affordable housing projects
receive one-stop review within three weeks of project submittal and receive priority
scheduling for a public hearing immediately following the determination that the project
application is complete. The City also has a five-year 1994-1998 Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy which identified housing needs and priorities for the City and annually
identifies programs to be undertaken as part of the City's Community Development Block
Grant Program to address those housing needs.
Page 21, Program Lc Specific Plan/Planned Development add the following after the last
sentence
Flexible development standards are instituted through the City's Unified Development Code.
Minor changes in development standards may be permitted by the Director of Community
Development through granting of an adjustment. Changes in development standards of 20%
or greater may be approved by the Planning Commission through approval of a standards
variance. Adjustments and variances are not likely to increase residential development
potential.
The City's Unified Development Code provides for a relaxation in standards to facilitate and
encourage new residential development in certain instances with approval of a conditional
use permit or approval of a hillside permit where applicable. Clustering and reduced setback
standards in hillside areas allow development which is compatible with existing
neighborhoods which may otherwise have been prohibited under regular development
standards. Projects requesting an affordable housing or amenity density bonus are eligible
for development incentives including a reduction in development standards or fees to increase
residential development potential in accordance with density bonus provisions of the City's
Unified Development Code and State Density Bonus laws,
Page 21, Program Lf Mixed Use add the following after the last sentence
Where a mixed use development is within 1/4 mile of an identified transit center such as the
Metrolink Station, the development may be eligible for a reduction in parking standards
relating to the housing portion of the use in accordance with state laws encouraging
congestion management. Development standards may be waived for mixed use affordable
housing projects as provided for by the state under the density bonus provisions identified
in Government Code Section 65915. The City has no estimated unit potential for housing
units in mixed use projects.
Page 22, Program Lg Infill Loan Program add the following after the last sentence
The City will encourage implementation of this program by applying for State HOME funds
when available. Set-aside funds from the City's Redevelopment Agency are also a potential
source of funds for infill development to implement this program.
Page 5
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
3/14/95
Page 22, Program 2.e Air Rights add the following after the last sentence
Due to staffing constraints, the City is unlikely to undertake any proactive measures to
implement this program during the current planning period other than to keep it open as a
development option. However, should an air rights project be proposed by another agency
or a developer, it shall be given priority status for consideration by staff.
Page 22, Program 3.a Increasing Affordable Programs add the following after the last sentence
The City has begun implementation of affordable housing programs in several ways. The
City's Unified Development Code contains provisions for density bonus for affordable housing
projects for very low income, low income and seniors. The City Council has adopted an
affordable housing policy which expedites processing procedures for affordable housing
projects and allows the granting of development incentives including reduced development
standards and fee reductions and waivers. The City Council has also adopted procedures and
guidelines for conduit financing to encourage the construction of affordable housing within
Santa Clarita.
Implementation of affordable housing programs includes the creation and adoption of a five-
year 1994-1998 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) as part of the City's
CDBG program. The CHAS identifies local housing needs, priorities, and goals as well as the
short-term and long-term programs which the City will undertake to address these housing
needs. The CDBG programs are targeted to assist very low and low income residents.
As the City identifies and implements redevelopment project areas, redevelopment set-aside
funds will become available for use in providing affordable housing opportunities within the
City. A housing plan identifying types of housing programs and expenditures will be
produced by the redevelopment agency once a redevelopment project area becomes functional.
The timeframe, the location, the types of programs, and the extent to which redevelopment
set-aside funds will become available to help meet the housing need for lower-income
households is uncertain; however, it is anticipated that a redevelopment housing plan will
become an important planning and funding tool for affordable housing in Santa Clarita.
Add the following TABLE A-2: INVENTORY OF UNIT POTENTIAL ON VACANT LAND
ZONED RM, RMH AND RH SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH
STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS to Appendix A
Page 6
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
3114/95
TABLE A-2: INVENTORY OF UNIT POTENTIAL ON VACANT LAND ZONED RM, RMH AND RH SUITABLE FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
VACANT LAND ZONED RM
Site No.
Acres
# of Units at the
# of Units at the
# of Units with
Total Potential
Midpoint Density
Maximum Density
Density Bonus
Dwelling Units
28
12
130
180
45
225
29
257
2,788
3,855
963
4,818
30
7
76
105
26
131
31
41
445
615
153
768
32
5
54
75
18
93
33
18
195
270
67
337
34
7
76
105
26
131
35
100
1,085
1,500
375
1,875
36
14
152
210
52
262
Subtotal RM
461
5,002
6,915
1,725
8,640
VACANT LAND ZONED RMH
Site No.
Acres
# of Units at the
# of Units at the
# of Units with
Total Potential
Midpoint Densitv
Maximum Density
Density Bonus
Dwelling Units
37
8
160
200
50
250
38
4
80
100
25
125
Subtotal RMH
12
240
300
75
375
TOTAL*
473
55,242
7 215
1,800
9=6015
*Note: There is
presently no vacant
land zoned RH advame\hou amdl.Aa
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Darcy and Members of the City Council
FROM: Chairman Modugno and Members of the Planning Commission
DATE: February 16, 1995
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Letter to the City Council Concerning Approval of
Unified Development Code Amendments Regarding Affordable Housing
Density Bonus Provisions to Comply with State Planning Law
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 7, 1995, to consider
amendments to the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) concerning affordable housing
density bonuses. City staff proposed these amendments in response to communications
received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
which noted that the City's density bonus policies do not comply with state planning law.
Specifically, HCD is concerned with state requirements that base an affordable housing
density bonus on the "maximum density of the zone", rather than the zoning "midpoint" as
is indicated in both the City's Housing Element and UDC. It was following much discussion
that the Commission, with some reluctance, narrowly voted 3-2 to recommend approval of
these amendments.
Approval of these density bonus amendments, as well as similar ones to the City's Housing
Element, is recommended because they conform to state law and will allow HCD to make a
compliance finding on the City's Housing Element. This HCD compliance finding will permit
the Planning Commission and Council to maintain some degree of oversight and discretion
over affordable housing projects, which otherwise may be forfeited upon challenge. However,
this recommendation is given with some reservations and concern that increases in potential
housing unit capacity and attendant infrastructure demands may not be consistent with the
intent of the City's General Plan at the time that zoning densities were originally designated.
These zoning densities considered the "midpoint" to be the basis for calculating density
bonuses, with the maximum of the zone being the highest achievable density, density bonus
included. When posed with the question of whether to conform to state law or follow the
intent of the General Plan, the Commission felt compelled to adhere to state law. Still, the
Commission would like to bring to Council's attention, that in the future, it may be
appropriate to revisit the issue of multiple residential zone densities for separate
consideration.
Piencnm\&e b,ft lhs
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, Community4I%jve olpa
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
REQUEST: Proposed amendments to the City's Housing Element
BACKGROUND
The City Council and the Community Development Department have adopted goals to have
a certified General Plan Housing Element. Staff has been following this Council direction
by working with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to
bring the City's Housing Element into compliance with state law. To satisfy HCD and
achieve compliance it will be necessary to make minor amendments to the Housing Element
as well as the Unified Development Code (UDC). Amendments to. the UDC will occur
through separate case processing (MC 95-020, UDC Amend 95-02).
ANALYSIS
This proposed Housing Element amendment is not a comprehensive revision to the Housing
Element, This amendment is aimed at addressing only those points noted by HCD for the
purposes of complying with state law and receiving an HCD compliance determination.
Under State law the City must do a five-year comprehensive housing element revision next
year. Therefore, this amendment does not seek to bring the Housing Element up-to-date and
much of the data from the previous amendment is several years old.
Housing Element Deficiencies
The main deficiencies in the City's Housing Element as determined by HCD center around
the issues of midpoint density as the basis for an affordable housing density bonus, adequacy
of vacant sites for affordable housing development, required findings for significant or
overriding community benefits to receive an affordable housing density bonus, and
implementation of affordable housing programs, particularly density bonuses, in the City.
Other minor changes in the Housing Element relate to expanding the description of
programs the City will undertake or consider to achieve increases in the number of affordable
housing units in the City.
Why Should the City Have an Approved Housing Element?
The following are reasons why it is to the City's advantage to have an approved Housing
Element, other than the obvious goal of complying with state law:
■ First, receiving a letter of compliance from the State Department of Housing and
Agenda Item:
Community Development gives the City's Housing Element apresumption of validity.
In a challenge to a planning decision where the City makes a finding based upon
consistency with the Housing Element, the burden of proof is upon the challenger,
rather than the City.
Second, a certified Housing Element allows the City and other public, private, and
non-profit agencies operating within the City to become eligible to receive State
HOME monies for housing -related projects, such as first-time homebuyer programs
and substandard unit renovations. The State HOME program is a significant source
of potential grant monies with available funding of $28.8 million in 1993 and $37.9
million in 1994.
Third, a certified Housing Element gives the City ameasure of protection from public
interest law suits from housing rights advocates. Cities throughout the state have
been sued by affordable housing interest groups for being in non-compliance with state
housing law, including locally, the City of Oxnard.
Fourth, a certified Housing Element allows the City to keep its requirements for a
conditional use permit for affordable housing projects. Without a certified housing
element, State law preempts the City from requiring a discretionary permit for density
bonus affordable housing projects where the project conforms to minimum state
density bonus laws.
Fifth, Redevelopment laws (AB1290) require a finding that housing programs
undertaken by a redevelopment agency be consistent with the housing element.
Having a consistent Housing Element simplifies making the determination of this
finding. Also, the existence of a functioning Redevelopment Agency makes a City an
attractive target for special interest non-compliance lawsuits.. These interest groups
are well aware of the funding potential redevelopment set -asides have for affordable
housing projects and may seek to allocate those funds through legal directive, as
opposed to only local legislative determination.
Sixth, local housing -related projects using federal funds are required to be consistent
with the local housing laws and policies. The City's Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) is the primary document for weighing the adequacy of
housing projects using federal funds.. However, having a consistent Housing Element
gives these projects a presumption of validity should they be challenged based upon
the inadequacy of the City's housing laws and policies.
State Density Bonus Requirements
The Housing Element wording concerning affordable housing density bonus requirements
needs clarification. State law specifies that an affordable housing density bonus shall be
based upon the maximum allowable density of the zone, whereas the City's UDC grants such
based on the midpoint density. The proposed amendment corrects this deficiency by directly
repeating state law to clearly state that affordable housing density bonus is based on "the
maximum density of the zone."
Capacity to Accommodate Regional Share of New Construction
In an issue directly related to density bonus, the City must demonstrate that it has adequate
capacity to accommodate its regional share of housing as determined by SCAG in their most
recent Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) last released in 1989. Staff has
prepared a new chart and appendix table which identifies unit potential for vacant land
zoned multi -family based on the maximum density of the zone, rather than the midpoint as
had been previously submitted_ With the change in determination of density bonus, the City
can demonstrate that it has adequate capacity to accommodate its share of regional growth.
Since the City presently requires density bonus projects to attain a conditional use permit,
it is important that the City demonstrate that adequate capacity exists for this new growth
based on RHNA projections. If the City cannot prove that adequate capacity exists, the City
is precluded from requiring a conditional use permit. New state laws which took effect
January 1995 restrict the City's ability to require environmental review for affordable
housing projects under 45 units. Therefore, without an, identification of adequate sites and
subsequent certification of the Housing Element, the development of affordable housing
projects of less than 45 units are 1) categorically exempt from environmental review and
subsequent mitigation measures and 2) permitted uses not subject to the review and
development conditions of a Conditional Use Permit.
Significant or Overriding Community Benefit
The City's Housing Element makes several references requiring affordable housing projects
to provide overriding or significant community benefits. Nowhere in the Housing Element
is there a definition or description of what constitutes a significant community benefit.
Under state density bonus law, the City is generally precluded from requiring additional
development standards (including significant community benefit findings) to receive an
affordable housing density bonus. State law only allows a city to require additional
standards for affordable housing density bonus projects, such as a finding of significant
community benefits, where a developer is requesting a development fee waiver or reduction.
The City's Housing Element already has policies that allow incentives to encourage affordable
housing opportunities_ Similar policies have been reiterated in the City's Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and Council's Affordable Housing Policy. The only
way the City may follow state law as well as adhere to Council housing policies for allowing
direct financial incentives and encouraging projects with "significant community benefits",
is to require a significant community benefit finding where direct financial incentives are
requested.
The draft Housing Element amendment includes clarification on the issue of significant
community benefits to require such a finding at the discretion of the decision-making body
and only where a developer has requested a fee waiver or reduction. Examples of items that
may be considered "significant community benefits" are proposed to be included in the UDC
since that is where required findings for other entitlements are outlined.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution P95-04 recommending approval of the amendments to the City's
Housing Element to the City Council.
MINUTES OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
February 7, 1995
7:00 pan.
ITEM 5 MASTER CASE 95-015, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01
(RESOLUTION NUMBER P95-04)
Rich Henderson introduced the item, proposed amendments to the City Housing Element.
The State has asked for changes in the language of the General Plan in order for the City to
obtain a certified Housing Element.
Commissioner Brathwaite wanted item 4 explained more thoroughly, Mr. Henderson
explained if you don't have a certified housing element, State law preempts the City from
requiring any discretionary permits for density bonus to affordable housing projects. Our
present Ordinance and housing element would probably not be upheld in the courts but it
will be upheld as soon as we get our housing element certified.
Commissioner Townsley wanted to know that if a development was not low income but met
the amenities specified, that development would be given the bonus. Mr. Henderson said no,
only if it was an affordable housing project.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m.
Commissioner Doughman made a motion to adopt Resolution P95-04 and it was seconded by
Commissioner Brathwaite. Said motion was carried on a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner
Cherrington dissenting.
Chairman Modugno requested that this item also be included in the letter that will be going
to the Council.
RESOLUTION NO. P95-04
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
February 7, 1995
RESOLUTION NO. P95-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-01
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 Clarita 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 the letters of February 26, 1992 and October 2, 1992 by the
State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the
agency that has the authority to review housing elements.
c. On December 8, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-226, amending the
Housing Element of the General Plan and adopting negative declaration. The
amendment, responding to recommendations of HCD, was provided to the City
pursuant to the contract for inclusion in the Housing Element of the General Plan.
d. The Housing Element as amended on December 8, 1992 has been deemed not in
compliance with state requirements, per the letter of April 2, 1993 by HCD:
e. This proposed amendment to Resolution 92-226 amending the Housing Element of the
General Plan responds to recommendations of HCD in their previous letters and in
subsequent conversations between City and HCD staff.
f. The proposed project was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
g. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 7,
1995 in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00
p.m.
h. The General Plan Housing Element identifies and appraises housing stock and needs,
existing and future, for the planning area.
The Housing Element describes existing and projected housing inventories and
opportunities for additional housing within the planning area.
The Housing Element determines the extent of housing problems in the community
and planning area.
k. The Housing Element describes methods for solving housing deficiencies and providing
the City and its planning area with sufficient housing at all income levels.
1. The information which is the subject of this General Plan amendment is consistent
with all other provisions of the Housing Element.
M. 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 Clarity 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 I.
SECTION 5, The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
1'
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this i I day of
19
PAT MODU O0,�. AIRMA
PLANNING OMMISSION
ATTEST:
r
LYNpYM. HARRIS
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
19 95 by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:. Modugno, Townsley, Brathwaite and Doughman
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Cherrington
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C
CLERK
�ms�o�o�.essi-oa.ms
RESOLUTION NO. P95-04
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
February 7, 1995
Draft Housing Element Amendment
The following page references are amendments to the previous Housing Element Amendment
adopted by Council as Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 92-226 on November 24, 1992. This
previous document is being amended based upon comments received from the State
Department of Housing and Community Development in their letter dated April 2, 1993, and
following discussions and informal review of the draft Housing Element Amendment with
HCD staff between September 1994 and January 1995.
Page 4, paragraph 5 of the Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development, delete
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.
And insert at the end of paragraph 5
The maximum density allowed in each residential category is the midpoint of the density
range with the exception of affordable housing density bonus projects in zones RM, RMH, RH,
Valley Center overlay and in specific plan zones designated for multiple family uses. For
very low income, low income, and senior projects in these zones meeting state density bonus
requirements for affordable housing projects, the density bonus is granted based on the
maximum of the density range. A conditional use permit is required to obtain an affordable
housing density bonus.
In accordance with state law, the City shall provide at least one non-financial incentive or
concession, such as a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code
requirements, to encourage affordable housing density bonus projects. No findings of
significant community benefit are required to receive an affordable housing density bonus
where the project meets the minimum affordability requirements per state law, the project
density is consistent with zoning, adequate infrastructure exists to serve the site, and no
more than one non-financial incentive or concession is requested by the developer, or where
such findings are waived by the approving body.
For very low income, low income, and senior affordable housing density bonus projects, a fee
Waiver or fee reductions may be granted where the approving body makes a finding that the
project provides significant community benefits. Where findings are made that adequate
services exist, the project provides significant community benefits, and higher densities would
be appropriate for the site, the base density for affordable housing density bonus projects may
Page 1
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
217195
increase to 35 DU/ac in RM, RMH, RH and appropriate specific plan zones or up to 50 Du/ac
within the Valley Center overlay area.
The City also offers an amenities density bonus in zones RM, RMH, RH, Valley Center
overlay and in appropriate specific plan zones designated for multiple family uses with
approval of a conditional use permit. The purpose of an amenities density bonus is to
encourage projects which provide significant community benefits beyond the minimum
required by the development code. In order to receive an amenities density bonus, the
approving body must make a finding that the project provides a significant community
benefit. The amenity density bonus allows up to a 25% density bonus above the midpoint of
the density range for housing projects providing additional amenities such as on-site child
care centers. The City's Unified Development Code identifies amenities which may be
considered a significant community benefit and make a project eligible for consideration for
an amenity density bonus. An amenity density bonus may be given in addition to the state
density bonus where appropriate findings are made.
Page 5, paragraph 1 of the Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development, delete
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.
Replace previous sentence with the following
The midpoint for each range has been set as the maximum development threshold for each
zoning category except for projects. where density bonus provisions for very low income, low
income and senior affordable housing or for amenities apply as previously noted.
Page 5, after paragraph 2 of the Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development, add
An example of an affordable housing project approved by the City is the Canterbury Village,
a 64 -unit all senior, all very low income project which was approved through a Conditional
Use Permit. This project site is flat, encompasses 1.25 acres in the RM zone, and would
allow a maximum of 13 units without density bonuses. Since the site is centrally located
along a bus line, is within 2 miles of a regional hospital, and has existing services adjacent,
this project became eligible for a 35 DU/ac base density which would allow a maximum of 43
units on this site. In addition to the 25%'density bonus over the base for very low income
projects, the City Development Code allows an additional amenities density bonus of 25%.
For the Canterbury Village project, each 25% density bonus allowed an additional 10.75 units
which allowed a total project density of 51 DU/ac. Since the affordability provision of the
project were greater than the minimum provided by state law, the City also allowed a fee
reduction for project development fees.
Page 2
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
217195
Page 5, add the non -italicized portion to the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph
beginning
Table 1 presents a summary of the residential land inventory for the City of Santa Clarita
with the dwelling unit potential based upon the midpoint of the density range of each site.
Page 6, add the non -italicized portion to the end of the third sentence of the first paragraph
beginning
The total dwelling unit capacity of the vacant sites is estimated at 7,788 units based upon the
midpoint of the density range.
Page 6, insert this table and new paragraphs between the first and second paragraphs
TABLE 1-A
SUMMARY OF UNIT POTENTIAL ON VACANT LAND ZONED RM,RMH AND RH
WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Zone (Density
#
Acres
# Units
# Density
Total #
Suitability by
Range)
Sites
Maximum
Bonus
Units
Income Level
Density
Units
RM
9
461
6,915
1,725
8,640
Low- 1,728
(6.7 - 15 DU/ac)
Moderate -6912
Midpoint
11 DU/ac
RMH
2
12
300
75
375
Low -75
(15.1-25 DU/ac)
Moderate -300
Midpoint
20 DU/ac
RH
0
0
0
0
0
0
(25-32 DU/ac)
Midpoint
28 DU/ac
TOTAL
11
473
7,215
1,800
9,015
Low- 1,803
Moderate
7,212
Table 1-A presents a summary of the unit capacity on vacant residential land with no
proposed or approved entitlements zoned RM, RMH and RH assuming a state density bonus
Page 3
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
217195
for affordable housing projects. Table A-2 in Appendix A presents this inventory. The total
dwelling unit capacity of these vacant RM, RMH and RH sites based upon a state affordable
housing density bonus is 9,015 units. This capacity assumes a 25% density increase over the
maximum of the range of densities in accordance with state density bonus requirements for
low income projects. When combined with the vacant land zoned for single family residential
uses with no proposed or approved development, the City's unit capacity on vacant
residentially zoned land increases to 11,560 units. Thus, when combined with vacant land
with existing proposed and approved residential development, the City's 82 vacant
residentially zoned sites have a potential to contain approximately 18,562 new construction
dwelling units, well in excess of the City's total regional share of 6,401 new housing units.
The RM, RMH and RH zones are appropriate zones to facilitate lower-income development.
These zones are designed to accommodate multifamily developments at greater densities than
single family residential developments, These greater densities provide opportunities for
apartment and condominium development which provide rental and ownership opportunities
for those with very low, low and moderate incomes. Table 1-A shows that at least 1,803 units
are likely to be suitable for low income residents in the RM, RMH and RH zones assuming
that an affordable housing density bonus is requested with the minimum 20% low income
restriction. Based upon the information in Table 1-A, at least another 7,212 units in the RM,
RMH and RH zones would be suitable for moderate income residents.
Page 6, paragraph 2, sentences 1 and 2, replace the words "allowable density" and "density
allowable" with the words "midpoint density."
Page 7, insert this new paragraph in the second paragraph of the section titled Relationship
of Residential Land Inventory and Housing Needs following the sentence "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)."
The City number of existing vacant sites and existing zoning to allow for new residential unit
construction to meet its regional housing needs based upon the income categories identified
in the RHNA. Tables 1 and 1-A show that the City's 82 vacant residentially zoned sites have
a potential to contain approximately 18,562 new construction housing units, well in excess
of the City's total regional share of 6,401 new housing units. Table 1-A demonstrates that
the City has the site capacity and appropriate zoning to accommodate its regional housing
need for 1,562 lower-income housing units. This table also demonstrates that the City has
the site capacity and appropriate zoning to accommodate its regional housing need for 992
new construction housing units for those of moderate income.
Page 21, Program l.b Existing Needs Prioritization add the following after the first sentence
The City recognizes affordable housing as a housing priority for the City and has adopted a
Page 4
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
217195
formal policy for expedited review of affordable housing projects.. Affordable housing projects
receive one-stop review within three weeks of project submittal and receive priority
scheduling for a public hearing immediately following the determination that the project
application is complete. The City also has a five-year 1994-1998 Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy which identified housing needs and priorities for the City and annually
identifies programs to be undertaken as part of the City's Community Development Block
Grant Program to address those housing needs.
Page 21, Program Lc Specif e Plan/Planned Deoelonment add the following after the last
sentence
Flexible development standards are instituted through the City's Unified Development Code..
Minor changes in development standards may be permitted by the Director of Community
Development through granting of an adjustment. Changes in development standards of 20%
or greater may be approved by the Planning Commission through approval of a standards
variance. Adjustments and variances are not likely to increase residential development
potential.
The City's Unified Development Code provides for a relaxation in standards to facilitate and
encourage new residential development in certain instances with approval of a conditional
use permit or approval of a hillside permit where applicable. Clustering and reduced setback
standards in hillside areas allow - development which is compatible with existing
neighborhoods which may otherwise have been prohibited under regular development
standards. Projects requesting an affordable housing or amenity density bonus are eligible
for development incentives including a reduction in development standards or fees to increase
residential development potential in accordance with density bonus provisions of the City's
Unified Development Code and State Density Bonus laws.
Page 21, Program Lf Mixed Use add the following after the last sentence
Where a mixed use development is within 1/4 mile of an identified transit center such as the
Metrolink Station, the development may be eligible for a reduction in parking standards
relating to the housing portion of the use in accordance with state laws encouraging
congestion management. Development standards may be waived for mixed use affordable
housing projects as provided for by the state under the density bonus provisions identified
in Government Code Section 65915. The City has no estimated unit potential for housing
units in mixed use projects.
Page 22, Program Lg Infill Loan Program add the following after the last sentence
The City will encourage implementation of this program by applying for State HOME funds
when available. Set-aside funds from the City's Redevelopment Agency are also a potential
source of funds for infill development to implement this program.
Page 5
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
217195
Page 22, Program 2.e Air Rights add the following after the last sentence
Due to staffing constraints, the City is unlikely to undertake any proactive measures to
implement this program during the current planning period other than to keep it open as a
development option. However, should an air rights project be proposed by another agency
or a developer, it shall be given priority status for consideration by staff.
Page 22, Program 3.a Increasin,-Affordable Programs add the following after the last sentence
The City has begun implementation of affordable housing programs in several ways. The
City's Unified Development Code contains provisions for density bonus for affordable housing
projects for very low income, low income and seniors. The City Council has adopted an
affordable housing policy which expedites processing procedures for affordable housing
projects and allows the granting of development incentives including reduced development
standards and fee reductions and waivers. The City Council has also adopted procedures and
guidelines for conduit financing to encourage the construction of affordable housing within
Santa Clarita.
Implementation of affordable housing programs includes the creation and adoption of a five-
year 1994-1998 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) as part of the City's
CDBG program. The CHAS identifies local housing needs, priorities, and goals as well as the
short-term and long-term programs which the City will undertake to address these housing
needs. The CDBG programs are targeted to assist very low and low income residents.
As the City identifies and implements redevelopment project areas, redevelopment set-aside
funds will become available for use in providing affordable housing opportunities within the
City. A housing plan identifying types of housing programs and expenditures will be
produced by the redevelopment agency once a redevelopment project area becomes functional.
The timeframe, the location, the types of programs, and the extent to which redevelopment
set-aside funds will become available to help meet the housing need for lower-income
households is uncertain; however, it is anticipated that a redevelopment housing plan will
become an important planning and funding tool for affordable housing in Santa Clarita.
Add the following TABLE A-2: INVENTORY OF UNIT POTENTIAL ON VACANT LAND
ZONED RM, RMH AND RH SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH
STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS to Appendix A
Page 6
PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita
217195
TABLE A-2: INVENTORY OF UNIT POTENTIAL ON VACANT LAND ZONED RM, RMH AND RH SUITABLE FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
VACANT LAND ZONED RM
Site No.
Acres
# of Units at the
# of Units at the
# of Units with
Total Potential
Midpoint Density
Maximum Density
Density Bonus
Dwelling Units
28
12
130
180
45
225
29
257
2,788
3,855
963
4,818
30
7
76
105
26
131
31
41
445
615
153
768
32
5
54
75
18
93
33
18
195
270
67
337
34
7
76
105
26
131
35
100
1,085
1,500
375
1,875
36
14
152
210
52
262
Subtotal RM
461
5,002
6,915
1,725
8,640
VACANT LAND ZONED RMH
Site No.
Acres
# of Units at the
# of Units at the
# of Units with
Total Potential
Midpoint Density
Maximum Density
Density Bonus
Dwelling Units
37
8
160
200
50
250
38
4
80
100
25
125
Subtotal RMH
12
240
300
75
375
TOTAL*
473
55,242
7,215
15,800
91015
*Note: There is
presently no vacant
land zoned RH advance\houaamd 1.1ha
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[] Proposed [X] Final
--------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MASTER CASE NO: 95-015
PERMIT/PROJECT: GPA 95-01 (Housing Element Amendment)
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Amendments to the City of Santa Clarita Housing
Element
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
[XI City Council [ I Planning Commission [ I 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 I Are Not Required [ I Are Attached [ I Are Not Attached
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by Laura Stotler, Assistant Planner
(Signature (Name/Title)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Review Period
Public Notice Given C
[X I Legal Advertisem
CERTIFICATION DATE: 3/14/95
advan e/gpASInd.lhs
STRIKE -OUT VERSION
EXHIBIT 1, RESOLUTION NO 92-226 AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT
AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 24, 1992 WITH
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
March 14, 1995
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 Lc, 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, jointliving
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
2
for the development of a variety of housing 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 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 (SLAG). 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 allewe4 iii eaeh msidentia4
ceded:- 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
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 4
5
amenities apply aspreviously hated 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
N
Proposed
15
4,670
SF: 2,404
#Density
Total #Suitahiiityby
MF: 2,266
Approved
29
2,332
SF: 2,296.
Bonus
Units
Ixicome bevel
MF: 36
TOTAL
82
14,790
SF: 7,245
t.1nit$
...
...
MF: 7,545
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 based upon the,
midpoint of the Llensity range 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,
Zone (Density
#
Acres
#:Units
#Density
Total #Suitahiiityby
Range)
Sites
Maximum
Bonus
Units
Ixicome bevel
Density
t.1nit$
...
...
RM
9
461
6915
1;725
$,640
Low 1,728
(617. - 15 DUlac)
Moderate 6972
Midpoint
1Y DU[ae
RMH
2
12
300
75
375
Low•75'
(15.1-2b Di/ac)
,
ltioderate=3flU
Midpoint
2017DUl=
RH
Q
Q
4
U
0
0
(25-32
DUlac)
Midpoint
2S' DUIac
TOTAL
IS
473
7x215
1,8Q
$,fi75
Low 1,8Q3
Moderato
7,21.2
7
The allowable Elensity inidpaint density in the RM zone is 10.9 dwelling units per acre and
the allowable density >nidpointi density in the RMH zone is 20.1 units per acre. While the
density allowed midpoint density. 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 project 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.
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).
(NbW l�Tew..paragrap x break)
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. While many of the potential
residential dwelling units in the City and the surrounding outlying planning area are located
within zoning categories intended for development 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 project, 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,
Continental Land Title Company Market Bulletin;.a quarterly
report on residential sales activity. Spring 1989 - Winter 1991.
10
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..
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.
11
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. A sufficient number of units can be
produced to meet the housing needs of these income levels, but a subsidy, such as Section 8
Rental Assistance, may be necessary to accommodate this income group. The City has made
use of Section 8 in the past, and fully expects to continue this program in the future.
The City recognizes that it has very little existing housing available at rental rates affordable
to the very low income category. An effort will be made by the City to make existing housing
more affordable and to concentrate on developing new housing at rates affordable to the very
low income level. Several of the Housing Element programs including 1b, 3a, 3b, 3d, 3e, 4g,
and 5a may be utilized to achieve these goals.
In summary, within the City the capability exists to produce sufficient future housing units
and at the appropriate income levels. This is shown through the land inventory, citing of
specific housing projects with their anticipated sales and rental rates, the local practice of
constructing condominium units to be rented as conventional apartments and, where
necessary, use of rental assistance as a subsidy to assist the lower income groups.
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:
12
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
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.
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
Plan adoption) through June 30, 1994. This number is based on a total of 2,332 units (identified
13
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,
1.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
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
14
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 Proiect 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.
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 -near 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
15
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
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 date: 1999
Sand Canyon Villas 3
28923 Prairie Lane
Canyon Country, CA 91351
220 Units (44 low/mod. income)
16
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
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
17
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
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"
2 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
4 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: a joint 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
1.000
$6,319,480
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 Agency
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.
Housing Authority
19
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 Apencv and Nonprofit Housino Corporations
Presently, three nonprofit housing corporations have contacted the City expressing interest to
participate in affordable housing projects:
Mr. Barry J. Kamel
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
(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 Proorams
Community Development Block Grant
20
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).
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.
Program 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.
21
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 orderto achieve the goals of the General Plan. The implementation program identifies
the following as high priority items: a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map; zoning
22
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
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. The Cjty recognizes affordable housing as:a housing oriority The
23
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
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.
1.f Mixed Use
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.
24
1.g Infill Loan Program
Work and facilitate negotiations with
foster the development of infill project
1.h Specialty Housing Zone
institutions to offer low interest loans to
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.
IJ 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.
1.j 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.
2.c Periodic Review
Periodically the City shall review and revise planning, zoning, and development
regulations to ensure an adequate supply fora variety of housing types and programs.
2.e Air Rights
Study the use of air rights above City owned and other publicly owned land for
3.a Increasing Affordable Housing Opportunities Through Incentives
25
Offer incentives such as expedited permit processing, fee reductions, waivers to
development standards or, use of CDBG funds for public improvements for
development proposals that include a minimum desired percentage of units for very
low, low or moderate income levels.
3.1b State and Federal Programs
Participate in state and federal housing assistance programs such as State Rental
Housing Construction Program, Federal Public Housing Funds, and Sections 8, 202,
811, and a first time buyer program. Develop programs that increase the amount of
affordable housing and retain housing affordability for successive buyers and renters
through grants, low cost loans, equity sharing, and deed restrictions.
3.c 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.
3.e Density Bonuses
26
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.
3.g 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.
3.i 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.
4.a 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.
4.c 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.
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.
27
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:
UVAIatxYAOrk#1r_U[Wil
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.
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
Tar et: 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
28
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
Fundin : 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
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
APPENDIX A
TABLE A-1: INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
VACANT - NO PENDING DEVELOPMENT
Si. IIo. 2'AiR C4flprf DWAm Aar
_ u..n,.c lea t+o..rr
R� W14� awe Mwtoim
1
RR -2
0.0
- 0.S
0.3
45
0 -
33
16
2
RE -1
0.s
- 0.3
0.3
109
O -
SS
27
3
R6-2
0.R
- 0.5
OJ
IM
0 -
12
41
4
RR -2
0.f
- as
0.3
179
O -
90
4S
WA"
SO
729
S
RVI.
O.S
- IA
0.9
129
6S -
1.29
97
6
RVL
as
- 1.0
0.!
43
22 -
43
32
7
AVL
43
- 1.0
0.i
71
16 -
31
23
t
RVL
0.5
- 1.0
0.t
M
91 -
195
1"
9
RVI.
LS
- t.0
0.•
24
12 -
24
11
10
AVL
0.S
- 1.0
0.l
p
44 -
U
K
11
RVL
03
- IA
0.4
M
44 -
U
K
Ri1�Yi
Sm
440
12
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
32
35 -
106
70
13
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
is
33 -
99
K
14
RL
I.1
- 3.3
2.2
254
279 -
$34
S59
IS
RL
1.1
- 7.3
2.2
19
21 -
U
42
16
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
K
SS -
I6S
110
17
RL
1.1
- 3.3
LZ
36
40 -
119
79
Is
RL
1.1
- 3.3
2.2
16
1/ -
57
35
19
RL
1.1 -
3.3
2.2
9i
106 -
717
211
20
RL
1.1 -
3.3
2.2
79
47 -
261
174
21
RL
1.1 -
3.3
2.2
/7
96 -
2t7
191
22
RL
1.1 -
7.3
2.2
74
77 -
112
75
Se6k1e1
737
1,617
23
Its
3.4
- 6.6
5.0
6
20
-
24
f3
3.4
_ 6.6
s.0
4
40
30
3.4
- s i
s.0
SS
14
- 26
20
26
ILS It3
3.4
- 6.6
SA
117
- 367
275
27
Its
3.4
- 6.6
S.0
4
2
14
- 26
20
7
- 13
IO
71
35s
n
am
10
- 15.0
10.9
12
Ip -
29
Rlrl
L7
- 13.0
119
21730
1,722 -
Ip
3ASS
130
2,7U
31
RH
6.7
6.7
- 15.0
11.f
7
47 -
106
76
32
IN
6.7
- I5.0
- ISA
1"
11 f
41
271 -
615
445
21
RN
6.7
- 15.0
16.9
S34
11
_
121
54
R1/
6.7
- IS.o
IRf
7
-
2�
193
35
36
3w
6.7
- 15.0
11.9
n -
670 -
103
1,500
76
1.015
t11/
>�Ir
6.7
- 15.0
1
144
94 -
210
IS2 152
461
5,002
77
>a
RAIN
ILL
- 25.0
21.1
1
121 -
200
160
R141
1A IWA
15.1
- 23.0
21.1
4
60 -
100
10
12
Z41
SUnWA"
2.312
4,617 -
N.9
7JU
0
PROPOS®
Nib p6h
qa o■mss
N
4
40
jks 2
36
RwkI,V
42
41
RVL
1
42
RVI.
4
43
RVL
6
44
AVL
947
sabW
167
45
RL
2
46
RL
46
fddow
49
47
Its
47
42
as
4
d
Its
3•
Rs
3
SI
Rf
3.= •
32
Rs
IS
sobb"d
3,303
53
w
jd= 1
SUMMAI. 4.674
Wdod" 706 N,Yi hml* u4b. 314 Woo,&.ib •.ik
0
"PROVEDAMU LT
silo No. Zo ioz cAftem1
34 RE -2
SS
2AGIM
RVL .
56
RYL
57
RVL
K
RVL
>�N
39 RL
69 RL
it RL
61 RL
67 RL
M RL
u RL
K ° RL
61 RL
6/ RL
Ito. Dwd1i" Ih`
10
10
140
17
70
271
w
291
16
Ii
161
2"
20
u
161
2"
171
m
U-�
69
RS
70
RS
71
RS
72
RS
73
RS
71
RS
75
RS
.. 76
RS
77
RS
72
RS
79
RS
swWo4l
b
RLI
81
RLI
12
RLI
subloW
SLgrMAL
11
119
113
Is
90
s
u
10
101
29
103
696
21
12
92
M
2,332
(AMENDMENT: TO HOUSIWELEMENTAPPENDIX A)
VACANT :LAND .ZONr=D:RM
Site No:
Acres
#'Of Units afthe
# of::Units :at the
#:of:Units Wlth
Total Potential
Mdpoihf'Denslty
M&imum:Oksity
Dondtvaonua
Dwelllwunit
2$
12
130
180
45
225
29
257
2J883,850,
N13
4,81$
30
7
76
105
26
131
a
41445
60
163
M
1
75
18
93
33
i8
195
270
67
337
7
76
105
2f
131'
35
100
3m5
1,540
875
1,875
36
14 S
152.1
210
52".':262
Subtotal RM
401
MW
6,915
11725
8*640
VAICANTLANDIONEURMH
SboWo-
Aareg
# of Uhits: attllo
of Units at the
#:bf:inns with
Tofa3-TiAb3ifi4i
MboinfDefiMty
Max mum Density
Density Bonny
Dwelling lJnits
37
8
160
200
50
250
3$,
4:
80
loo
25
125
SubtoLal RMH
12
240
300
75
375
TOTAV
;.
473
—
10 5
= —I—
advance�gpag5ldl.ths
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MASTER CASE NO: 95-015, General Plan Amendment: 95-001
Case Planner: Laura Stotler, Assistant Planner
Project Location: Citywide
Project Description/Setting:
The project proposes amendments to the City's General Plan Housing Element. These
amendments are being made as a response to State Housing and Community Development
comments on the previous amendment to the Housing Element which was adopted by the
City Council on October 5, 1992. The amendments include 1) clarification of density bonus
provisions for affordable and senior housing projects based on maximum zone density, rather
than midpoint density, to comply with state law, 2) estimates of the new dwelling unit
capacity or potential in the City based on density bonus provisions, 3) an identification of
significant community benefits for fee waivers/reductions for density bonus projects, and 4)
expanded descriptions of some housing element implementation programs, particularly those
dealing with affordable housing issues.
General Plan Designation: Citywide
Zoning: A, RE, RVL, RL; RS, RM, RMI; 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? .. , ...... - . , ..... _ .. [ I [ 1 1X1
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? .................... [ 1 [ 1 1X1
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? .......... ........... . .. . .. [ 1 I 1 [X]
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features? [ 1 [ 1 [XI
-1-
516
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? . . . . ......... ( 1 [ 1 1X1
f Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? [ ] [ 1 [XI
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? [ 1 [ 1 [X]
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? .... .......... , :: ( 1 [ 1 [X1
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ................ . .... . . . [ 1
[ 1 1X1
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25% natural grade? ...... . . . :. . . . . [ ]
[ ] [X]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ....... .
1.
Other? .... , . .... [ l
[ 1 1X1
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? ...... . .:::.. ...... .... , .. [ 1
[ 1 [X1
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? ........... , [ 1
[ 1 1X1
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? ................ , .. [ ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Other? ................. ................. [1
I 1X1
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ........... .. . . C l [ 1 [Xl
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ..........................
..........
C., Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? . ......... ::..
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
-2-
[ 1 [X]
1 [Xl
7
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? [ I [ I [XI
e. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? [ I [ I [XI
f.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?.... . .......... [ I
[ I [XI
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? .. _ . , ........... [ I -
[ I [XI
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ...... . . . ..... [ I
[ I [XI
i.
Other? ....... [I
[I [X]
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)? .......... [ I
[ I [XI
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ... . [ I
[ I [XI
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? .............. . [ I
[ I [XI
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ............. ............... ........ [I [I [XI
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)? . .......... ... ........ [ I [ I [XI
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? [ I [ I [XI
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
3 cv�
the migration or movement of animals? [ ] [ 1 1X]
d, Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? .:........... : . l 1 [
1 [X]
G. 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? ..... ........ : .. . . .. : . ( ] (
] [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] (
] [ ]
C, A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? .... ... , [ l 11
1X'l
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ....................... [ ] [
] [Xl
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ...... :......................... [ l [. l [Xl
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [l [] [X]
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 [X]
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous
11.
12.
13.
or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? .. _ . , :. ................. . . .. [ I [
1 1X1
c. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ........................... ....... [1 [l
1X1
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? .....,............ ............. [1 11
1X1
Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ........ : ..... .. . .. . . . ... [I [I
[Xl
b. Other? .......... :...... ................. [1 11
[X1
Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? .. ..:. : ............. . . . . [XI [
1 [ 1
b. Other? ......... ............ [1 [l
[Xl
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? . . , . , .. [ ] [
1 [Xl
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .................. [ 1 [
1 [Xl
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ......... [ ] [
1 [XI
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ...... . ..:..... ......: . .. . :: [ 1 [
1 [XI
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? . ... . . . ...... [ 1 [
1 [Xl
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? _........................... [] 11
[Xl
-5-
60
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 (
1 [X1
b. Police protection? ......... [ 1 [
7 1X1
c. Schools? ... ............ ................. [1 [1
[X1
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ........... [ 1 [
1 1X1
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? .. . . . . ... . ................ - [ 1 [
1 1X1
f. Other governmental services? ................. [X1 [
1 [ 1
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy? ...... ................ ............ [1 11
(Xl
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? (] [
1 1X1
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? ....... . .. . ......... [I [I
1X1
b. Communications systems? ...................... [I [I
[X1
C. Water systems? ............................ ..... [ 1 [
1 1X1
d. Sanitary sewer systems? ..................... [ ] [
1 1X1
e. Storm drainage systems? ....... [ 1 [
1 1X1
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? , .. ... [I [I
1X1
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ........... [ 1 [
1 1X1
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ........ [ ] [ ] [XI
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ........... . . . . . . . [ ] [ ] [Xl
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? : ... : ........... . [ ] [ ] [XI
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? . : .......... . . . .. . . . ... [ 1 [ ] [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? ................ : ........ [ ] [ ] [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? ...:.......... .. . :. [ ]
[ ] [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? .................._. , ... [ ]
[ ] [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 ]
1. 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
'dJ
(Community Development).
8, LAND USE
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed amendments to the General Plan Housing Element will not alter the
existing land use designations. The amendments will clarify existing statements in
the Housing Element relating to midpoint densities and result in calculations for
density bonus based upon the maximum density of the zone, rather than the midpoint.
This change in density bonus eligibility requirements will not significantly change
land use in the City, but will align statements in our Housing Element with State
Government Code 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/MAN-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 General Plan Housing Element 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 change in the density
bonus interpretation will bring the Housing Element into conformance with state law,
Itis 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. This increase in duties of the
LACDC are anticipated to be incremental and are not anticipated to create a
significant impact (Community Development).
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. No significant impact upon aesthetics is anticipated as a result of this
project (Community Development).
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 City has found that no evidence exists to demonstrate that this policy change 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).
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? [ ] [ ] [X]
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? [ ] [ ] [X]
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;
ramanlWype9511s.9is
-13.
Planner January 18, 1995
(Name/Title) (Date)