HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 95 020 UDC AMEND 95 02 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
Rich Henderson
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: March 14, 1995
SUBJECT: MASTER CASE NO. 95-020, UDC AMENDMENT 95-02 TO ADOPT
PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-4 TO MODIFY DENSITY BONUS
PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO COMPLY WITH
STATE PLANNING LAW.
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND
Staff has been working with the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) to bring the City's Housing Element into compliance with state planning law. To
satisfy HCD and achieve a compliance finding, it will be necessary for the City to make minor
amendments not only to the Housing Element itself, but also to its main implementation tool,
the UDC. Both of these documents must be consistent with state housing laws for HCD
compliance,
The purpose of this item is to amend sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC)
relating to affordable housing density bonus which are in direct violation of state planning
law and leave the City vulnerable to challenge from the state and other interested parties.
With adoption of these amendments, the City's UDC will be in conformance with state
density bonus law which will provide a degree of protection against housing related lawsuits
and continue implementation of Council's existing affordable housing policies of the Housing
Element (Community Strategic Plan- Action Item #12). Similar amendments are proposed
to the General Plan Housing Element itself and will be considered as a separate item.
On January 17, 1995 and on February 7, 1995, the Planning Commission held public
hearings to consider this item. Following much discussion, the Planning Commission voted
3-2 to narrowly recommend Council approval of this item, noting concerns that the state
interpretation of the affordable housing density bonus is different from 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.
Continued To: --.-3 s- -°
Agenda Item: "3
1. Receive staff report, open public hearing, take testimony, introduce
Ordinance No. 95-4, waive further reading and pass to second reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Letter of February 16, 1995 from the Planning Commission Transmitting its
Recommendation to Council
Ordinance No 95-4
Planning Commission Staff Reports of January 17,
Planning Commission Minutes of January 17, 1995
Planning Commission Resolution P95-05
Negative Declaration
READING FILE
1995 and February 7, 1995
and February 7, 1995
Environmental Initial Study
Strike -out version of UDC with proposed amendments
.\e1.dc952.1he
Public Hearing Procedure
1. Mayor opens hearing
*States purpose of hearing
2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice
3. Staff report
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent)
• Proponent
7. Mayor closes public testimony
8. Discussion by Council
9. Council decision
10. Mayor announces decision
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ORDINANCE NO. 95-4 OF THE CITY
OF SANTA CLARITA AMENDING CHAPTER 17, DIVISION 2 (ZONING) OF THE
SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MODIFICATIONS
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENTS
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. 95-020, UDC Amendment 95-02
Ordinance 95-4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes amendments to the City's Unified
Development Code including modifications to the requirements for receiving density bonuses
for affordable housing projects. The amendment would clarify the existing City Unified
Development Code to align it with State of California requirements for density bonuses. The
amendment would identify ".significant community benefits" and require a finding that an
affordable housing density bonus project provides a significant community benefit in order
to qualify for a development fee waiver or fee reduction. Furthermore, the amendment would
require that developers maintain the affordable housing status for which they were granted
the density bonus for a period of at least ten (10) years in non -redevelopment project areas
and in accordance withredevelopment law within designated redevelopment project areas.
The amendment also allows density bonuses based upon the maximum allowable density of
the zone of the project as required by State Planning Law.
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
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Darcy and Members of the City Council
FROM: Chairman Modugno and Members of the Planning Commission
r
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 thatbasean 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.
Planum\denb,[L.lhs
ORDINANCE NO. 95-4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR DENSITY BONUS
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan encourages projects which provide significant
community benefits including those projects providing affordable housing opportunities;
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan identifies the City's regional housing needs for
affordable housing;
WHEREAS, this ordinance clarifies significant community benefits findings for
receiving density bonus for affordable housing and assists in providing incentives for
affordable housing development and maintaining affordable housing opportunities as
permitted by Government Code Sections 65915 (c) and (d), and consistent with state
redevelopment law;
WHEREAS, this ordinance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the City's
Affordable Housing policy number I-8 issued March 23, 1993;
WHEREAS, the City desires to meet its regional housing need as determined by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and has considered the effect of this
ordinance upon regional housing opportunities as required by Government Code Section
65863.6;
WHEREAS, this ordinance amending the City's zoning and general procedures codes
is consistent with the General Plan including the Housing Element;
WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of
1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21774, require the evaluation of the
Negative Declaration for projects such as amendments to the Unified Development Code;
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for these Unified Development Code amendments
was prepared, noticed, and circulated for public review in compliance with the provisions of
CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines;
WHEREAS, following City Council direction on December 13, 1994 and in accordance
with Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public
hearings on January 17, 1995 and on February 7, 1995, and recommended the City Council
adopt the proposed amendments to the UDC.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Section 17.16.030(C)(lxf) be amended to add the following
sentence immediately after the first paragraph:
"Where a density bonus pursuant to Section 17.17.070(A) is requested, the maximum
residential density on any individual site shall be based upon the maximum density
of the specific plan zone designation for that site."
SECTION 2. That Section 17.17.070(A) shall be amended to add Section
17.17.070(A)(5) to the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code to read as follows:
"5. Findings for significant community benefit. Where the developer is requesting
fee waiver/reduction incentives for a rdable housing under Section
17.17.070(A)(4)(c) the approving body must identify and make a finding that
the project provides a significant community benefit in addition to the
minimum affordability standards identified in Section 17.17.070 (A)(2)(a).
Examples of such significant community benefits include, but are not limited
to, those identified in Section 17.17.070(Bx2xa-f)."
SECTION 3. That Section 17.01.070(A)(4)(b) of the Santa Clarita Unified
Development Code shall be amended to replace the word "midpoint" with the phrase
"maximum density of the zone."
SECTION 4. That Section 17.17.070(Ax4xc) of the Santa Clarita Unified Development
Code shall be amended to delete the following:
"Development incentives granted by the City to a developer utilizing these
requirements are predicated upon the long term availability of the affordable
housing. In order to ensure that the units remain available and affordable, the
developer will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City
per California Government Code Section 65864 through 65869.5."
SECTION 5. That Section 17.17.070(A) of the Santa Clarita Unified Development
Code shall be amended to add Section 17.17.070(A)(6) to read as follows:
"6. Long term availability of affordable housing. Development incentives
granted by the City to a developer utilizing these requirements are
predicated upon the long term availability of the affordable housing.
a. _Projects outside a designated redevelopment proiect area. The
developer will be required to enter into a development
agreement with the City per California Government Code
Sections 65864 through 65869.5 to ensure that units will remain
available and affordable.
b. Projects within a designated redevelopment area. The developer
will be required to enter into a development agreement with the
City per California Government Code Sections 65864 through
65869.5, and as required by State redevelopment law, and in
accordance with the housing plans and policies of the
redevelopment agency to ensure that units will remain available
and affordable."
-2-
SECTION 6. That the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this project has been
prepared, reviewed, considered, and found complete in accordance with the provisions of
CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines and the City Council adopts the Negative
Declaration prepared for this project.
SECTION 7. That if any portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid that portion.
shall be stricken and severed, and the remaining portions shall be unaffected and remain in
full force and effect.
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and
shall cause it to be published inthe manner prescribed by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ------- day of
, 19_
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
19_ by the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
LSWder\Coo iko M95 -4.1h
-3-
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 17, 1995
TO: Chairman Modugno and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager, Community Develihent
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
REQUEST: Proposed amendments to the City's Unified Development Code to
modify property development standards for all agricultural and
residential zones concerning single family and manufactured housing
and to modify density bonus provision for affordable housing to conform
to state planning law..
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 1994, the City Council directed the staff to hold a Planning Commission
hearing to consider an ordinance that would amend the City's Unified Development Code
(UDC) to regulate the placement of manufactured housing on residential lots to the extent
allowable under state law. Staff has also been working with the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) to bring the City's Housing Element into
compliance with state law. To achieve compliance, in part, an amendment of the affordable
housing density bonus provisions of the UDC is necessary. All of these amendments to the
UDC have been combined into one ordinance for expediency.
ANALYSIS
Manufactured Housing in Residential Zones
The State heavily regulates mobilehomes and manufactured housing which limits the
authority of the City to create standards for such housing. A city may prohibit the placement
of manufactured housing which was constructed more than ten years prior on residential lots
and require manufactured housing to have 16 -inch eaves. Beyond that, the City may only
impose the same standards upon manufactured homes that apply to other single family
residences. The proposed ordinance prohibits placement of manufactured homes greater than
ten years old and requires 16 -inch eaves.
Standards for Single Family Residences
Additionally, the draft ordinance would regulate materials used in exterior siding on all
residences and required parking structures in the City and require all roofs on new
construction to have a minimum incline of 2:12 feet. The siding provision would prohibit
metallic siding throughout the City, thereby assuring a degree of compatibility with the
existing community, as envisioned in the General Plan. The sloped roof provision would
apply to the primary roof of any new single family dwelling. New additions which would
Agenda Item:.
change the roofline of existing single family residences would be required to have sloped roofs
where consistent with the existing design of the house and the surrounding neighborhood.
The sloped roof requirement would not apply to patio covers.
Density Bonus Provisions
State law specifies that an affordable housing density bonus shall be based upon the highest
allowable density of the zone, whereas the City's UDC grants such based on the midpoint
density. The draft ordinance would amend the UDC to comply with state law and provide
an affordable housing density bonus based on the highest density of the zone. The State
HCD has also stated that clarification upon this point will need to be made to the Housing
Element. A draft amendment to the Housing Element is presently under informal review
with the State HCD and is to be considered by the Planning Commission as soon as informal
HCD approval is received.
State law allows a city to grant development fee waivers/reductions for affordable housing
projects as a development incentive where a finding can be made that a project provides
significant community benefits. The City's Housing Element, Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS), and Council's Affordable Housing Policy encourage the use
of incentives to provide affordable housing opportunities within the City. Of particular need
as identified in the CHAS, is affordable housing for families. The draft ordinance requires
a finding of significant community benefit to receive fee waivers.
Long Term Maintenance of Affordability
The proposed ordinance provides clarification to the UDC sections concerning maintaining
long term availability of affordable housing. State law allows a city to require the affordable
housing developer to enter into a development agreement to ensure that units will retain
their affordable housing status per the conditions of project approval. Since adoption of the
UDC, the City has identified a redevelopment project area which is subject to its own
affordability requirements based on state redevelopment law. The City's UDC section
covering long term affordability provisions has been rewritten to clarify and be consistent
with both state planning and state redevelopment laws concerning maintenance of
affordability status.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution P95-01 recommending approval of the ordinance amending the City's
Unified Development Code to the City Council.
LHS & NH: pingcom/srudc951.ihs
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 7, 1995
TO: Chairman Modugno and Members of the Planning CoSm�miission/�j
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager, Community D'evelop�ent ato
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
REQUEST: Proposed amendments to the City's Unified Development Code (UDC)
to modify the density bonus provisions for affordable housing to comply
with state planning law.
BACKGROUND
The City Council and the Community Development Department have adopted goals to have
a certified General Plan Housing Element. On December 13, 1994, the Council reaffirmed
their support of affordable housing by adopting a new strategic plan which includes
implementation of the affordable housing policies of the Housing Element (Action Item #12).
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 not only to the Housing Element itself, but also to its main
implementation tool, the UDC.
The purpose of this item is limited to amending the sections of the UDC relating to affordable
housing density bonus which are in direct violation of state planning law and leave the City
vulnerable to challenge from the state and other interested parties. The purpose of adopting
these amendments is to bring the City's UDC into conformance with state density bonus law
to protect the City from possible lawsuits, preserve as much local control over affordable
housing projects as permitted by state law, and carry out the Council's existing affordable
housing policy,
On January 17, 1995, the proposed UDC affordable housing density bonus amendment was
brought before the Planning Commission and considered as part of a larger UDC amendment
proposal that, in addition to state affordable housing density bonus, addressed manufactured
housing in single family residential zones and provided standards for single family residential
zones prohibiting metal siding and requiring sloped roofs on new single family developments.
The Commission directed staff to divide the larger UDC amendment into two separate
proposals-- one addressing manufactured housing issues and the other addressing affordable
housing density bonus requirements. Per the Commission's request, this separate UDC
amendment has been drafted to specifically address the issue of affordable housing density
bonus. This item has also been publicly noticed as a separate hearing item at the
Commission's direction.
At the previous hearing, members of the Commission also requested that staff provide an
analysis of housing options and a discussion of possibly lowering densities_ This information
Agenda item:
is appropriate for consideration of a comprehensive housing element revision which the City
will undertake next year as required by state law. This amendment to the UDC is
essentially non -discretionary due to preemption by state law on the issue of affordable
housing density bonus.
ANALYSIS
Housing Element Deficiencies to be Addressed in the UDC
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 bonus, in the City.
While all of these issues are to be addressed in the Housing Element revision itself,
clarification on the issue of midpoint density and significant community benefits must also
be made in the UDC. Since the City's implementation of density bonus is under HCD
scrutiny and our previous arguments for certifying the Housing Element have been based,
in part, on the City's claim that we are implementing the state law correctly, it is imperative
that the UDC wording be consistent with state law in order to convince HCD that the City
is actually implementing state affordable housing laws correctly.
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
Community Development gives the City's Housing Element a presumption 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 a measure 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
One of the deficiencies in the City's Housing Element rests in. the wording of the portion of
the Housing Element concerning affordable housing density bonus requirements. 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.
Finding of Significant 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. In fact, the City is required to grant an affordable housing
developer at least one direct non-financial development incentive unrelated to density such
as reduced setbacks, greater height, reduction in required parking, etc... Where the
minimum state density bonus affordability requirements are exceeded, the City is required
by State law to grant at least two direct non-financial development incentives.
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. Direct financial incentives for affordable
housing projects are solely discretionary on the part of the City. The city already has policies
in place to allow incentives to encourage affordable housing opportunities in City's Housing
Element, 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
11 significant community benefits", is to require a significant community benefit finding where
direct financial incentives are requested. The draft amendment includes provisions for
making a finding of significant community benefit to receive fee waivers at the discretion of
3
the decision-making body.
In order for HCD to accept a "significant community benefit" finding requirement, there must
be an identification or example of what items may be considered "significant community
benefits' either in the UDC or the Housing Element. Since required findings for other
entitlements are outlined in the UDC, City staff feels that the UDC would be the appropriate
location for them, rather than in the Housing Element. The draft amendment gives examples
of items which may be found to be "significant community benefits' which already exist in
the UDC under the amenities density bonus section.
Long Term Maintenance of Affordability
Additionally, state density bonus law requires provisions for development agreements to
assure long-term affordability. Wording in the UDC regarding long-term affordability has
been modified for the purpose of alerting the public and staff that long-term affordability
restrictions are different between designated redevelopment project areas and non -
redevelopment project areas. The actual terms of affordability vary within each area
depending on the type of project, the population targeted, the percentage of affordable units,
and funding sources. Generally, the minimum affordability restriction in either area is
10 years. Since long-term affordability terms are established through state planning law and
redevelopment law, there is no requirement that the long-term affordability section of the
UDC be modified; however, the proposed modification is meant for clarity and to eliminate
the potential for unanticipated requirements once case processing begins..
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution P95-05 recommending approval of the ordinance amending the City's
Unified Development Code affordable housing density bonus section to the City
Council.
LHS:. pingcom/sludc952.1hv
Li
MINUTES OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
January 17, 1995
7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 3: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE (RESOLUTION P95-01)
Rich Henderson introduced the item. He said the City Council directed staff to come back
with an ordinance that would implement architectural and other regulations where cities
allow mobile homes to be placed on single family lots. The most recent version of the
Mobilehome Park Act allows a city to disallow the placement of a mobilehome on a lot if that
mobilehome is more than ten years old. It also allows a city to put a requirement on
mobilehomes to have 16" eaves even if there isnot a requirement for single family homes.
It also goes on to say that you may place restrictions on types of siding. The three proposals
would affect mobilehomes while one would affect all homes. Another proposal that would
affect all homes is that you have a sloping roof. From now on any single family residence or
any mobile home would have to have a minimal incline if the Commission adopted the
ordinance as written.
The other provisions relate to completely separate issues - the density bonus provisions and
the long term maintenance of affordability, or affordable housing. Mr. Henderson stated that
the Redevelopment Agency would not be able to enact itself because you couldn't get any tax
increment because the City does not have a Certified 'Housing Element. The HCD
Department at the State certifies housing elements. He said Laura Stotler has been working
with the HCD. HCD has informed staff that certain elements must be placed in the housing
element and that those elements must be clearly written in our Zoning Code. Mr. Henderson
said that HCD has verbally agreed that they will certify our housing element.
Mr. Henderson also gave information regarding the density bonus provision. Under State
law, if someone has affordable housing, 10% very low income or 20% low income or 50% for
seniors, or a combination of these three, then by that condition, you have an affordable
housing project and you must grant a density beyond the zoning.. State law requires you
must grant the bonus beyond the top end of your range.
Commissioner Doughman asked if manufactured housing was just mobilehomes. Mr.
Henderson said anything built off site and assembled on site is manufactured housing.
Commissioner Doughman also had a question regarding the requirement of parking
structures. Mr. Henderson explained that when you build a home you have to build a two -car
enclosed garage.
Commissioner Cherrington asked if Planning Commission review should be part of the
ordinance. Mr. Henderson said that language could be added. Commissioner Cherrington
also wanted the sloped roof provision explained. Mr. Henderson explained the background
of how staff came up with the sloping roof requirement. Commissioner Cherrington asked
if the ordinance would preclude someone who chose to build a custom home in the Spanish
style with a typically flat roof and buttress. Mr. Henderson said he thought the Commission
would want to discuss this matter.
Commissioner Cherrington also had questions regarding the density. He asked if the
Commission would be empowered to award higher density than the zoned density range. Mr.
Henderson said you can award a higher density, it is even in the General Plan.
Commissioner Cherrington said perhaps one way of dealing with this would be to alter the
ranges for the existing zones. Commissioner Cherrington wanted the zone densities changed
before approval of the ordinance. Mr. Henderson said if this is done, we may have to start
all over again,
Commissioner Brathwaite said it was his understanding that a local Planning Commission
could not set ordinances so as to circumvent the requirements of the State law.
Commissioner Brathwaite wanted clarification regarding the age of the mobilehome. Mr.
Henderson answered that the State is very clears You can only restrict a mobilehome not be
older than 10 years. You cannot restrict it to 9 or 2, only that it cannot be older than 10.
Chairman Modugno wanted to know that if a mobilehome was put on a permanent
foundation if it was taxable as fixed real property. Mr. Henderson said that it was. When
the building official finals the permit the County Assessor assesses the value of the property
and it then goes on the property tax roll.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:37 p.m.
Mark Subbotin, 23823 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita. Mr. Subbotin is a representative of
Valencia Company. He said he understood the intent of the Commission regarding the
mobilehome changes however he was concerned with the repercussions to the single family
provisions of the code. He had comments regarding sloped roofs. Mr. Subbotin also made
comments regarding the density bonus.
James Robinson, 28504 Sand Canyon Road, #129, Santa Clarita. Mr. Robinson spoke in
opposition to the item. He is the president of the Santa Clarita Area Mobilehomes Council..
He said what is happening is that mobilehome owners are being discriminated against. He
feels the City does not want mobilehomes in the City.
Kim Kurowski, 22164 Barbacoa, Santa Clarita. She lives on a residential street that has a
mobilehome on it. She feels it has ruined the site of her neighborhood. She would like help
from the City so that mobilehomes would not be allowed in residential neighborhoods.
Commissioner Brathwaite commented that he has visited the site and spoke to some of the
neighbors concerning the mobilehome on Barbacoa. He said he would be happy to share what
he saw with the Commissioners.
Jeff Miller, 22263 Barbacoa Drive, Santa Clarita. He wanted to make a couple of
suggestions. He felt a public hearing should be held prior to the issuance of any permits for
the relocation of mobilehomes. He said the sloped roof issue should be taken on a case-by-
case basis
Connie Clift, 22133 Barbacoa, Santa Clarita. She lives directly across the street from the
mobilehome on Barbacoa. She says it looks very bad. She felt the Commissioners should
take a look at it before a decision is made. She feels the property values have declined
because of the mobilehome. She suggested that something be done so this will not happen
again.
Commissioner Brathwaite gave a brief commentary on what he saw when he visited the site.
He said the workmen were doing good work. He said when the mobilehome work is
completed it would not match the other homes in the area. He said the home that is being
put in does not compare to the newer model mobilehomes. The newer models have pitched
roofs, they are longer, they have a better facade and it looks more like a house.
Commissioner Doughman asked if wording could be used to specify the roofs should be
similar to adjacent roofs. Mary Gayle said if you don't set a minimum pitch you will not be
able to enforce the pitched roof on either kind of structure. If there are flat roofs on million
dollar houses you could then have flat roofs on $50,000.00 houses in the same neighborhood.
Rich Henderson said he was concerned with how staff can regulate this. He said perhaps
there could be a review process. Mary Gayle said this was a very good point.
Commissioner Brathwaite suggested staff prepare language that would cover the ideas put
forward concerning the roof lines.
Chairman Modugno asked if there was a way to maintain some square footage level of the
property that would vary no more than 10 to 20 % from the average home in the
neighborhood. Mr. Henderson said it would get complicated if staff has to review every house
that comes in.
Mary Gayle said what you do for mobilehomes you have to do for all housing. Any formula
you work out for mobilehomes has to be applicable to single family houses.
Chairman Modugno said he was troubled by certain items in the ordinance. The roof line
and the siding were two items that caused him concern.
Commissioner Cherrington asked if it would be appropriate to break the ordinance into pieces
and treat the mobilehome issue as a single issue detached from the standards for single
family residences and also separate from the density bonus provisions. He also recommended
that the Commission look at the enactment of architectural design standards for the entire
community. He also suggested the density bonus provision be put on the shelf.
Mr. Henderson stated staff has been directed to get the housing element certified and has
been working very hard to do so.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked Ms. Gayle's view on the action that the Commission would
be taking.
She said staff could be directed to revise the proposed ordinance and resolution in a way the
Commission could agree upon. She said it would be best to recommend staff amend them
and bring it back for the Commission to take a second look at. Ms. Gayle advised that the
Public Hearing be continued to a date and time certain. She said that as it stands right now,
the City is not complying with the housing requirements and it could be construed that we
are being discriminatory in that regard.
Chairman Modugno is concerned that there is not enough public input on something that has
major public significance. He would prefer to see the issues separated.
Commissioner Cherrington made a motion that staff be directed to return to the Commission
a revised resolution addressing the issue of mobilehomes on residential lots, amending the
Unified Development Code, particularly Section G with the elimination of items 6 and 7.
Said motion was seconded by Chairman Modugno and carried on a vote of 3-1 with
Commissioner Brathwaite dissenting.
Commissioner Cherrington made a motion that staff be directed to return with
recommendations for architectural design standards for single family residential units within
the City. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite and carried on a vote of
4-0.
A discussion was had regarding the issue of affordable housing.
Commissioner Cherrington said he hoped staff would give more detailed information with
reference to the relationship between the circulation element and the housing element. He
stated the ordinance should not be rushed into just so that the City could get its
Redevelopment Agency on track sooner.
Chairman Modugno stated he would like to have someone present at the meeting that
understood the mechanics of the issue over a long period of time and not just muddled in
with the other ordinances. He stated he would like to have some public participation if
possible.
Commissioner Doughman had a concern that someone could purchase a home under the
affordability program and at some time down the line turn it over for a quick profit.
Rich Henderson said there is usually no "windfall profit" issue with affordable housing.
Affordable housing is not offered at the market rate. When the owner of a home sells, he has
to sell to a person who often qualifies for affordable housing.
Commissioner Cherrington made a motion to continue the issue of affordable housing until
the next scheduled meeting on February 7, 1995, and that it be renoticed as a separate item
and that provisions of the State law be included in the discussion. Said motion was seconded
by Commissioner Doughman and carried on a vote of 4-0.
MINUTES OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
February 7, 1995
7:00 p.m.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM.4 MASTER CASE 95-020, UDC AMENDMENT 95-02 (RESOLUTION
P95.05)
Rich Henderson introduced the item, proposing amendments to the City's Unified
Development Code to modify density bonus provisions for affordable housing to conform to
State planning law. If these changes are made, we would be in compliance with State law
and have a certified Housing Element. We would also be able to enforce the requirement for
a Conditional Use Permit for affordable housing projects.
Commissioner Townsley asked Mr. Henderson to clarify the geographic boundaries for the
"Valley Center", Mr. Henderson said he believed it started at City Hall and encompassed the
mall, K -Mart, the future City Hall property, some of the Porta Bella site and the train
station.
Commissioner Cherrington asked about the State Home program and the grant monies
available. Mr. Henderson said the grant money was available state wide for first-time home
buyers. If a City went after the grant money aggressively, it could get a large share of the
money.
Chairman Modugno wanted Mr. Henderson to explain and give some examples of long term
maintenance of affordability. Mr. Henderson explained this is a chance for the City to ensure
through a development agreement that whatever is built will stay in the hands of qualified
people. You can set the affordability and it must be for a specific period of time. You could
set it for 10 years, 20 years, or more. There is also a deed restriction. There is a lien on the
property for the life of affordability as determined by the City. There is really no cost to the
City.
Commissioner Townsley had a question regarding an item on page 16 with regards to the
density around the Valley Center. She asked if the figure was mandated by the State. Mr.
Henderson said the City chose that number.
Mr. Henderson also wanted to point out something else regarding the same paragraph He
said that when the Housing Element is redone next year for the five year up -date, the figure
of 35 units to the acre would probably jump to 40. He said 40 is the highest density you
would be required to give a project if it was in our very highest zone and if it qualified for the
bonuses.
Commissioner Townsley said she could not support as high a density for this area because
the seismic integrity of the area is questionable.
Commissioner Brathwaite said that if an area is found to be seismically unsound, the project
probably would not be approved.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.
Commissioner Cherrington said this was an example of the State relieving us of our
responsibility to be sensible and sensitive planners.
Commissioner Brathwaite thought this particular issue is a question of does the City comply
and have a housing element that is certifiable by the State. He said the Commission has
been given the opportunity to review it and make comments and corrections. If the
Commission fails to adopt the Resolution, after a certain length of time, it would pass
automatically.
Chairman Modugno had a concern that after going through the lengthy process of coming up
with a General Plan and looking at how to best build and design a city, suddenly the City is
being told that we can potentially have twice as much development as originally planned.
He felt this could box the City into a worse situation. He felt this is very contrary to all the
effort that the Commission has put in to come up with reasonable planning for the City.
Commissioner Doughman stated he shared Chairman Modugno's frustration. He said the
reason for his support was that at least the Commission would have the Conditional Use
Permit which is a chance to do something.
Commissioner Brathwaite said we have other ordinances, such as the Hillside Ordinance,
that can be used to restrict how many units can be placed in an area.
Commissioner Townsley said maybe some mistakes were made with the General Plan. She
said there are some areas that are flat with low densities that were actually down zoned.
Rich Henderson said that the changes being made in the ordinance only relate to multiple
family zones, not single family housing zones. Also, two large projects in the City, Porta
Bella and North Hills, did not want to get into the bonus situation. They did not want to
advertise their project as an affordable housing project and they did not want the burden of
verifying the incomes of the potential buyers and renters.
Lynn Harris said we have tried three times to get the State to sign off on our housing
element without getting as explicit as the State has demanded. She said the developer that
wants the density bonus knows how to do these types of projects and knows what has to be
done administratively. The majority of the market rate developers don't want the headaches.
Mary Gayle said the State has threatened to impose sanctions when people do not comply
with housing elements or requirements. You must comply with the State law now.
Commissioner Modugno stated that as the Commission went through the General Plan
process, information was not provided to them and the consequences were not revealed. He
said had that information been given, they might have had different thoughts while going
through the zoning ordinances,
Mary Gayle said this is not a city-wide application. It is applicable only to certain specified
zones.
Commissioner Doughman made a motion for adoption of Resolution P95-05, Said motion was
seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite and carried on a vote of 3-2 with Commissioners
Townsley and Cherrington dissenting.
Chairman Modugno stated he would like staff to prepare a letter for his signature to the City
Council conveying the Commission's concerns regarding this item.
RESOLUTION NO. P95-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING
DENSITY BONUSES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita General Plan requires the implementation of
a City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code to be in compliance with the Governmental
Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan identifies the City's regional housing needs for
affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 65915-65918 preempts regulation by local
governmental entities and establishes density bonus standards for affordable housing projects
with certain exceptions; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan encourages projects which provide significant
community benefits including those projects providing affordable housing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance to amend the City's zoning and general
procedures codes is consistent with the General Plan including the Housing Element;
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments clarify significant community benefits findings
for receiving density bonus for affordable housing and assist in providing incentives for
affordable housing development and maintaining affordable housing opportunities as
permitted by Government Code Sections 65915(c) and (d), and consistent with state
redevelopment law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the purpose and intent of
the City's Affordable Housing policy statement issued March 23, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to meet its regional housing need as determined by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and has considered the effect of
these amendments upon regional housing opportunities as required by Government Code
Section 65863.6; and
WHEREAS; the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of
1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21774, require the evaluation of the
Negative Declaration for projects such as amendments to the Unified Development Code; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for these Unified Development Code amendments
was prepared, noticed and circulated for public review in compliance with the provisions of
CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, following City Council direction on December 13, 1994 and in accordance
with Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public
hearings on January 17, 1995 and February 7, 1995, receiving staff reports and public
testimony on this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The proposed amendments to the Santa Clarita Unified Development
Code are consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and meet the requirements
of the Government Code of the State of California.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study
and Negative Declaration prepared for this project and recommends that the City Council
adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the amendments to the Unified Development
Code as complete and in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the City's
Environmental Guidelines.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the City Council
approve the amendments to the Unified Development Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _________ day of
'19
PAT MODUPf4O,,,CfiAIRMAW
PLANNING-COMMISSION
ATTEST:
LYNN . 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:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
piancom\res955.1hs
Modugno, Brathwaite and Doughman
Cherrington and Townsley
None d
CITY CLERK
c-
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[ ] Proposed P(FInal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MASTER CASE NOS: 95-001 and 95-020, UDC Amendments 95-01 and 95-02
PERMIT/PROJECT: Amendments to the City's Unified Development Code relating to standards
for manufactured housing In single family areas and affordable housing density bonus.
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Amendments to the City's Unified Development Code relating
to standards for manufactured housing In single family areas and affordable housing density
bonus.
Based on the Information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant
to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the
environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of
CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are. Not Attached
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared b Laura Stotler/Assistant Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Review Period From December 28, 1994 To March 14,1995.
Public Notice Given On December 28, 1994 and February 22, 1995 By:
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE: March 14, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MASTER CASE NOS: 95-001 and 95-020
UDC Amendment: 95-01 and 95-02
Case Planners: Laura Stotler, Assistant Planner
Nicole Howard, Planning Technician
Project Location: Citywide
Project Description/Setting:
The project proposes amendments to the City's Unified Development Code including
modifications to property development standards for all Agricultural and Residential zones
and modifications to the requirements for receiving density bonuses for affordable housing
projects.
The amendment regarding property development standards would eliminate the use of metal
siding as an exterior finish on all dwellings and required parking structures in the City's
Agricultural and Residential zones and would require that such homes possess sloped roofs.
As permitted by state legislation governing mobile -/manufactured homes, the amendment
would also establish a maximum structure age of ten years for manufactured homes being
placed on residential lots and would require that such mobilehomes possess overhangs of at
least sixteen (16) inches. The amendment would not require that structures already
permitted be replaced and/or refinished and would apply to new construction and non -
permitted (pre-existing illegal) structures only..
The amendment regarding requirements for density bonus eligibility would clarify the
existing Unified Development Code to align it with State of California requirements. The
amendment would identify "significant community benefits" and require a finding that a
project provides a significant community benefit in order for density bonus projects to qualify
for an alteration in development standards. Furthermore, the amendment would require that
developers maintain the affordable housing status for which they were granted the density
bonus for a period of at least twenty (20) years in non -redevelopment areas and in accordance
with redevelopment law within designated redevelopment project areas. The amendment also
allows density bonuses based upon the highest allowable density of the zone of the project
as required by State Planning Law.
General Plan Designation: Citywide
Zoning: A, RE, RVL, RL, RS, RM, RMH, RH, CTC, SP Overlay
Applicant; City of Santa Clarita
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? ...... _ - I ........... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ........... .......... [ ]
[ ] 1X1
C.
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ....... [ ]
[ ] [X]
d:
The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features? , . [ ]
[ ] [X]
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils,, either on or off the site? ................. [ ]
[ ] [X]
f.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ . [ ]
[ ] [X]
g.
Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ....... [ ]
[ ] [X]
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? _ .................. . . ..... • . [ ]
[ ] [Xl
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? .....................:. . [l
[] [X1
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25% natural grade? ............... [ ]
[ ] [X]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? .............. . . . ...:.: [ ]
[ ] [X]
1.
Other? .... ........ .::........ ....... ..... [1
(] [X]
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? ...... . ................. [ ]
[ 1 [X]
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? .... , .... _ .. [ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
-2-
0
-3-
a/
either locally or regionally? .. , .. ...... [ ]
( [ [XI
d.
Other?.................... ,_.,........... (1
[ I [Xl
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ........ ...... .... . . ...... [ ]
[ l [XJ
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? , ..... , [ 1
( ] [Xl
c.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ... . . . . . ........... [ l
[ ] [Xl
d.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? .... . ............ [ ]
[ I [X]
e.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? .. , . , .: . . ........ . .... [ 1
[) [Xl
f.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ . .. [ ]
[ ] [X]
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? .. , ...... .. .. . [ ]
( ] [Xl
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? .............. [ ]
[ ] [X]
i.
Other?................................... [l
[l [Xl
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? .......... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? [ j
( 1 [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
-3-
a/
replenishment of existing species? .. , ...... , .... [ ]
[ ] [X]
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? .... ....... ......... .::.......... ... (]
(] [X]
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? ..... _ .:........ :.:... [ ]
[ ] [X]
L Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? , ..... , .. , [ ]
1 ] 1X]
C. Introduction of new species of animals
I
nto an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ... [ ]
[ ] [X]
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ............... [ ]
[ ] [X]
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in -
a. Increases in existing noise levels? .......... . :.. [ ]
( ] [X]
b. Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? :. (]
[ ] [X]
C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ........ (]
[ ] 1X]
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? .... ............ ...... . . [ ] [ ] [Xl
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? [ ] [ ] [X]
c. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............ :.:.............. [] I [X]
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ., .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [X] [ ] [ ]
a �. 4
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? .. I ...... . ... . ... [ ] [
1 [X]
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ................ [] []
[X1
10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a; Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? ......... :...:............. [ 1 [
1 [Xl
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous
or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?........................:....... [1 [l
[X]
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? .......................
[X1
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards?..............................••• L
I [XI
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..... . .. . ............. • •. [ 1 [
1 [X1
b. Other?................................... [1 I
[X1
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ......... . .. . . . ...... . .. [XI [
1 [ 1
b. Other? ..... [ l [
] [Xl
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? .. _...... , .... , .... ; . , . , , [ 1 [
1 [Xl
-5-
a.�
b.. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? . , . , „ , , . _ _ . [� [ ] TX]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? [ ] ( ] [Xl
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .. ; ..... ..........
I [X]
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
] [X]
f. A, disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ....... ....,... ........:..: [1
C1 [X]
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? ....... , .. ..
l [X]
b. Police protection? ... . . , [ ] [
] fX)
C. Schools? , . . , , [ 1 [
l [X]
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ...... t 1 C
l [Xl
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ...... ; ...... _,... [ ] C.]
[X]
f. Other governmental services? ,, , , , , , , , , ,,, , , , , [X) [
] [ 1
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy? ........... .................:..... fl [)
[X]
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? ....... [ ] [j
(X]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? .: _ :... , , , _ l 1 [
1 [Xl
b. Communications systems? ....:.: (1
[ l [X]
C. Water systems? , , , .. ......... _ . . [ 1
[ l [XT
d. Sanitary sewer systems? .... , ...... I [ ]
I [X]
e. Storm drainage systems? ...... . ......:...: . . [ 1
[ 1 1X1
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? ... [ ]
[ ] 1X1
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? [ 1
[ l [X]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ........ [ I
[ ] (X]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ........................ ......... U
C1 [Xl
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:.
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ... . .... . . ............ [ ]
[ 1 [Xl
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ............... . .......... [ I
[ I [Xl
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? [ ]
[ I [X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ............... < . , , . , .: ; . [ ]
[1 [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .......... ...... . . [ ]
[1 [X]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ............ L 1
[] [X]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
-7-
a5
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [I [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ............. . ...... [ ] [ J [X]
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" FINDING
Will the project have an adverse effect either individually or cumulatively, on fish and
wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild
animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability."
Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code , , , ... , .. ........ . [ J [ ] [ X ]
In
EARTH
Discussion of Impacts
There are no significant permanent or temporary soil or geological impacts associated
with the proposed policy change (Community Development),
AIR
Discussion of Impacts
There are no significant permanent or temporary air quality impacts associated with
the proposed policy change (Community Development).
3, WATER
Discussion of Impacts
There are no significant permanent or temporary water quality or water, quantity
impacts associated with the proposed policy change (Community Development).
4. PLANT LIFE
Discussion of Impacts
There are no significant permanent or temporary impacts on the diversity or quantity
of plant species associated with the proposed policy change (Community Development).
5. ANIMAL LIFE
Discussion of Impacts
There are no significant permanent or temporary impacts on the diversity or quantity
of animal species associated with the proposed policy. change (Community
Development).
6. NOISE
Discussion of Impacts
There is no permanent or temporary increase in the noise level associated with the
proposed policy change (Community Development).
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
Discussion of Impacts
There are no increases in light and glare associated with the proposed policy change
(Community Development).
8, LAND USE
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code will not alter the land
use designations of the City's General Plan. The checklist states that the
amendments may result in a use which does not adhere to existing development
criteria: this is solely because the amendment is a change to the development criteria
itself. The new residential development standards and density bonus eligibility
requirements will not significantly change land use in the City, but will clarify the
existing Unified Development Code, aligning it with State of California requirements
(Community Development),.
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 UPSEVAAN-MADE HAZARDS
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed policy change will not expose people to safety hazards nor will it upset
man-made hazards (Community Development).
11. POPULATION
Discussion of Impacts
The proposal is of a character which will not incrementally increase nor decrease the
population of the City. The policy changes merely modify existing, allowed uses and
bring the City's Unified Development Code into conformance with existing state law.
No significant impact upon the distribution or density of the population is anticipated
(Community Development).
12. HOUSING
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed policy changes will not result in a decrease in the amount of designated
residential land uses and/or residential dwelling units. The study above states that
the existing housing stock may be affected: this is because the policy changes
proposed relate to development standards for residential dwelling units and/or
residential developments. The Unified Development Code amendments will modify
property development standards for single-family homes (including
-10-
�g
manufactured/mobilehomes), but will not significantly alter their use.
The modifications regarding affordable housing density bonuses are merely
clarifications of the City's Unified Development Code which are required to adhere to
existing State Planning Law. It is anticipated that the proposed policy changes will
not create a significant demand for additional housing units; however, with the
changes in effect, there is a potential for construction of a greater number of
affordable housing units (Community Development).
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed policy changes will not significantly affect the amount or distribution
of pedestrian traffic, vehicular traffic, or parking facilities (Community Development).
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed amendments will not have a significant effect upon fire protection, police
protection, schools, parks, public facilities, or roads. However, one governmental
service may be affected as a result of the amendment to the City's density bonus
policy. As required by the State of California, developers will be obligated to record
their affordable housing units with the County of Los Angeles Community
Development Commission and the State Office of Housing and Community
Development. These agencies will monitor the density bonus projects to ensure that
the affordable status of the approved units is maintained over a specified period of
time, which will vary on a project -by -project basis.
15, ENERGY
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed amendments will not result in an increased demand for energy sources
(Community Development).
16. UTILITIES
Discussion of Impacts
There will be no need for new utility systems or expansion of existing systems
associated with the proposed policy changes (Community Development).
17. HUMAN HEALTH
Discussion of Impacts
The proposal will not significantly impact human health. There will be no exposure
to health hazards associated with the policy changes (Community Development).
18. AESTHETICS
Discussion of Impacts
The proposed amendments will not result in aesthetically offensive or view -obstructing
developments. Conversely, the purpose of amending the single-family property
development standards is to improve the aesthetics of new construction, ensuring
cohesiveness with the materials and design of existing single-family dwellings.
19. RECREATION
Discussion of Impacts
The policy changes are not of the type or scale to significantly affect recreational
opportunities within the City. No significant impact is anticipated (Community
Development).
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Discussion of Impacts
There are no cultural resource impacts directly associated with this policy change.
However, for any future construction of housing, builders shall abide by the standard
precautions for archaeological resource protection.
Department of Fish and Game "De Minimus" Finding
The property in question has been recently graded in order to create a level project site. All
utilities and infrastructure are available on-site. The City has found that no evidence exists
to demonstrate that the project has the potential to adversely affect wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which wildlife depends. No significant impact is anticipated with this project
(Community Development).
-12-
O
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.) [ ] [ ] [X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? [ ] [ ] [X]
13- 3
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that;
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [X]
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT he 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. [ l
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ]
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
(Signature) (NameMtle)
(Name/Title)
«wd�m nwnm
�` -14-
(Datew
Z Z � -,i y
(Date)
STRIKE -OUT DRAFT
PROPOSED UDC AMENDMENTS
RE: MANUFACTURED HOUSING STANDARDS
MC 95-001, UDC AMEND 95-01
February 7, 1995
DIVISION 1
GENERAL PROCEDURES
CHAPTER 17.07
DEFINITIONS
92. DWELLING UNIT shall mean one or more rooms and a single kitchen in a single
family dwelling, apartment house or hotel designed as a unit for occupancy by one
family for living and sleeping purposes.
93. EARTH MATERIAL shall mean any rock, natural soil, or fill, and/or any combination
thereof.
93.5 EAVES shall mean the lower border of a raof that overhangs the wall.
94. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS shall mean public and other non-profit institutions
conducting regular academic instruction at kindergarten, elementary, secondary,
collegiate levels, and including graduate school, universities, non-profit research
institutions and religious institutions.
95. EFFICIENCY APARTMENT shall mean a dwelling unit of not more than one room
in addition to a kitchen and bathroom and containing no separately walled -in bedroom
area.
96. ENCROACHMENT shall mean any intrusion into the protected zone of an oak tree
which includes, but is not limited to, pruning,. grading, excavating, trenching, dumping
of materials, parking of vehicles, placement of incompatible landscaping or animal
corrals, storage of materials or equipment, or the construction of structures, paving or
other improvements. For purposes of this section, encroachment shall not include the
action of a person physically entering the protected zone of an oak tree
97. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC REPORT shall mean a report prepared under the
supervision of an engineering geologist providing a geologic map of a site, information
on geologic measurements and exploration performed on the site and surrounding area
and, providing recommendation for remedial measures necessary to provide a
geologically stable site for its intended use.
1-53
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 2/7/95
I
182. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE shall mean a motorhome, travel trailer, truck camper or
camping trailer, with or without motive power, designed for human habitation for
recreational or emergency occupancy, with a living area less than 220 square feet,
excluding built-in equipment such as.wardrobes, closets, cabinets, kitchen units or
fixtures, bath and toilet rooms.
183. REFERENCES. Unless indicated otherwise, references in this code to civil engineer,
soil engineer, geologist, landscape architect, and engineering geologist refer to the
professional person(s) preparing, signing, or approving the project plans and
specifications which comprise the approved grading or landscape-irrigation plan, or his
successor appearing pursuant to Section 16.46.150.
184. REMOVAL shall mean the physical removal of a tree or causing the death of a tree
through damaging, poisoning or other direct or indirect action.
185. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT shall mean the construction or installation of one or
more multiple-family dwelling units pursuant to a building permit or residential
planned development permit.
18X5 ROOF, SLOPED shallzt can a roof that has a mim um slant or inclination of 2:12
186. RESTAURANT, FAST FOOD shall mean an establishment which is engaged
primarily in the business of preparing food and purveying it on a self serve or semi -
self serve basis. Customer orders and/or service may be by means of a walk-up
counter or window designed to accommodate automobile traffic. Consumption may be
either on or off the premises.
187. RESTAURANT, FULL SERVICE shall mean an establishment which is engaged
primarily in the business of preparing and serving meals for consumption on the
premises. Such restaurants employ help to fully accommodate customer orders at the
table.
188. RETAINING WALL shall mean a wall designed to resist the lateral displacement of
soil or other materials.
189. ROUGH GRADE shall mean the elevation of the ground surface established by
grading that approximates the final elevation shown on the approved design -
1 -63
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 217195
/V
192. SETBACK, FRONT YARD shall mean the area which defines the depth of the
required front yard. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate street right-of-
way or the line established by the General Plan, whichever is greater, and be removed
therefrom by the perpendicular distance prescribed for the front yard setback of the
zone in which the property is located. Where the location of the required yards is not
clear as herein defined, they shall be determined by the Director of Community
Development.
193. SETBACK, REAR YARD OR SIDE YARD shall mean the area which defines the
width or depth of the required rear or side yard setbacks. Said setbacks shall be
measured from ,the property line, removed therefrom by the perpendicular distance
prescribed for the yard setback in the zone. Where the side or rear yard abuts a street,
the distance shall be measured as set forth in the "Setback Front Yard Where the
location of the required yards is not clear as herein defined, they shall be determined
by the Director of Community Development.
194. SEXUAL ENCOUNTER ESTABLISHMENT shall mean an establishment, other than
a hotel, motel, or similar establishment offering public accommodations, which, for
any form of consideration, provides a place where two or more persons may
congregate, associate, or consort in connection with specified sexual activities or the
exposure of specified anatomical area. This definition does not include and
establishment where a medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or similar
professional person licensed by the State of California engages in sexual therapy. For
the purposes of these regulations, sexual encounter establishment shall include massage
or rap parlor and other similar establishments.
195. SHALL will mean mandatory; "may" will mean permissive.
195P5
196. SIGN shall mean any name, figure, character, outline, spectacle, display delineation,
announcement, advertising, billboard, signboard, device, appliance or any other thing
of siinilar nature to attract attention outdoors or on the face, wall or window of any
building, and shall include all parts, portions, units and materials composing the same,
together with the frame, background and support of anchorage therefor, as the case
may be.
1-64
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 217195
DIVISION'2
ZONING
CHAPTER 17.13
PERMITTED USE CIiARTS
Environmental clearance must be obtained prior to the installation, operation or development
of any use. All requirements for protection of significant ecological areas, flood hazard areas
and other areas of environmental concern identified by the Santa Clarita General Plan shall be
met. The following uses shall be permitted where the symbol "P" appears; subject to a
conditional use permit where the symbol "C" appears; subject to a minor use permit where
the symbol "M" appears; and prohibited where the symbol "X" appears. This is not a
complete list; the Director of Community Development may determine that a use not listed
below is similar to a listed use and process the proposal as the similar use would be
processed. When, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, a permitted use
or a use subject to a minor use permit has the potential for major public controversy or major
environmental impact, a conditional use permit may be required.
P . Permitted, M = Minor Use Permlt, C = Conditional Use Permlt, X = Prohibited
1213.010 Reslden11a1 Uses A RE RVL. RL RS RM RMH RH CTC CC CN CO VSR BP IC I
1._ S.,J, fasnily dwellings
2. Two futurity dwellings.
'J. Mobilehomea on totiu cWsl luu; and permweN
fouMaiioru which ase amid under the Nmioosl
Mobdeli. C—t. and Safety Sunduda Aa of 1974
�W74 ss provided for in_
Sce oo 17J 5iQ7A C). u-1 are m .,Jl ee
will, setback and pahiog aequuenente of Ihia Code
4. Mobilcbomea used as a empuru, resihna.
dint¢ wutrvciion for kas Nan - year
u, ccordaocc. wiN the p,.voi. of Nu Code
5. Mobdehoanes used as a angarary meuie—
derinR .uuniou for muse Nan aie you
6. MohAehome parka
i. Multiple dwelling units w accordnre will, the
provisions of U' Ccde
8. Hone occupaootu w accardavoe wiN Ne poovuions
of Nu Code
9. )ONI living and working Wixtem
10. Temgxary ..J eataie vett offms fo, Ilx
sole of lou m aie o -aa upw which IM office
is loealed for riot more Nan iwo leers
p. P
p
P
P
P
p
P
X
%
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X.
X
P
P
P
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
P P
p
P
P
P
p
X
X
X
X
X
k
X
X %
P p
P
p
P
P'
p
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X. X
C C
C
C
C
X.
%
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
C X
X
X'
C
C.
C
C
C'
'C
C
C
X
R
X X
X X
x
A
X
p
P
P
C
X
X
X
X
X
% X
P p
p
p
p
1.1
M
M
X
X
X
X.
X
$
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C
X
X
X
X
C C
p P
p
P
P
X.
X
X
X,
X
X
X
X
X
X X
2-5
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 217195
/M
17.15.020 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A and R ZONES (continued)
5. All light sources shall be directed downward and shielded from streets or adjoining
properties. Illuminators should be integrated within the architecture of the building.
E. LOT CONFIGURATION/COVERAGE
L Flag lots. The flag portion of a flag lot, if permitted, shall not be counted toward the
minimum lot area requirement. Flag strips shall have a minimum width of 20 feet
except where they form a common driveway (not less than 20 feet in width) with
other such access strips.
2. Lot coverage shall include all buildings and structures. Patio covers, open on at least
two sides, pools, spas, temporary structures, and freestanding open air gazebos and
patios shall not count toward the lot coverage requirement.
F. MOBILEHOMES AS TEMPORARY RESIDENCES
Mobilehomes may be used as a temporary residence during the construction of a permanent
single family residence as follows:
1. It shall be occupied only by the owner of such residence and his family,
2. It shall be occupied only while a building permit for the construction of such residence
is in full force and effect.
3. It may be used as a residence for up to one year with plot plan approval or for an
extended period with a minor use permit.
G MOBILEHOMES ON RESIDENTIAL LU'I'S
Mobilehomes' as provided for in Section 17'.13.010(3) shall meet the following requirements;
1'i
2'
3� Tnstalledionpermanent foundations on individual lots:
2-21
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 2/7/95
13
II SINGLE FAMILY RESIAENTIA.L
.1
2.
GI. MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
1. Setbacks. Required front and street side yards shall be landscaped. All plant material
shall be irrigated by automatic sprinklers or drip irrigation systems. Patios, seating
areas, parking and circulation spaces can be included in the setback areas to help
buffer adjoining parcels from one another. However, parking areas shall not be
permitted within the required front setback.
2-21a
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 217195
/Ll
17.15.020 PROPF,RTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A and R ZONES (continued)
2. Masonry walls six feet in height, from the highest finished grade, shall be required on
the rear and side property lines. No walls are required on street side yards unless
needed for noise attenuation and/or privacy, as determined by the Director of
Community Development.
3. Multiple frontages. Where a lot fronts on more than one street it shall be considered
to have multiple frontages and be required to meet the front yard setback requirement
on all street frontages.
4. Open space. A minimum of 200 square feet of open area per ground floor unit shall
be provided and a minimum of 150 square feet of open space for units contained
wholly on the second story or above shall be provided. Land required for setbacks or
occupied by buildings; streets, driveways, or parking spaces may not be counted in
satisfying this open space requirement; however, land occupied by any recreational
buildings and structures may be counted as required open space,
5. Storage space. If a fully enclosed garage is not provided, a minimum of 250 cubic
feet of lockable, enclosed storage per unit shall be provided in the garage or carport
area; substitutions may be approved by the Community Development Director.
6. Recreation facilities. The following recreation facilities shall be provided at a
minimum unless waived by the Community Development Director;
a. Landscaped park like quiet area;
b. Children's play area;
c. Family picnic area; and
d. Swimming pool with cabana or patio cover.
7. Recreation vehicle parking areas shall be provided; fully screened from public view, or
the development shall prohibit all parking of recreation vehicles.
8. Trash areas shall be provided for each multi -family residential building. All trash
areas not located inside a building shall be paved and located in the rear yard. Such
area shall have minimum inside dimensions of eight feet by five feet, shall
accommodate source separation of recyclable materials in accordance with State
requirements, and shall be screened from view by a five foot high masonry wall and
solid gates. One trash area shall be provided for the first 10 residential units, and one
trash area for each additional 10 units, or major fraction thereof.
2-22
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarila, California 2/7/95
is
17.15.020 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A and R ZONES (continued)
9. Landscaping. A minimum of 50 trees per gross acre shall be required as part of the
landscaping requirements; 20% shall be 24 inch box size or larger, 70% shall be 15
gallon size and 10% shall be five gallon size. Drought tolerant species with low
maintenance requirements shall be utilized, where possible. Irrigation shall be on
automatic systems. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a California
licensed landscape architect.
10. The conversion of any project to condominium ownership shall meet all requirements
of the zone to the maximum extent possible within the constraints of the existing
development. In no case shall the requirements of the Fire Code, Sign Ordinance,
outdoor storage/sales, or screening standards be waived. Specific Planning
Commission waiver shall be required where the zone requirements, except as noted
herein, cannot be reasonably met..
-Hj. DEVELOPMENT IN A SEA (SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA)
1. Any development proposal in a SEA (significant ecological areal as identified on the
Land Use Map of the Santa Clarita General Plan, shall include a detailed biota study.
The study shall identify any and all potential impacts which the development may
have upon the SEA.
2. The development shall be designed in accordance with the following criteria:
a. The development shall be designed to be highly compatible with the biotic
resources present, including the setting aside of appropriate and sufficient
undisturbed areas, and
b. The development shall be designed to maintain water bodies, watercourses, and
their tributaries in a natural state, and
C. The development shall be designed so that wildlife movement corridors
(migratory paths) are left in an undisturbed and natural state, and
d. The development shall retain sufficient natural vegetative cover and/or open
spaces to buffer critical resource areas from said requested development, and
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 2/7/95
16
17.15.020 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A and R ZONES (continued)
e. Where necessary, fences or walls shall be provided to buffer important habitat
areas from development, and
Roads and utilities serving the development shall be located and designed so as
not to conflict with critical resources, habitat areas or migratory paths.
IIG HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
Any development proposal in a hillside or ridgeline area shall demonstrate compliance with
the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines on the
site plans and supporting documents.
3L. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
1. Modifications of garages. Conversions of existing required garages into habitable
space is permitted only following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a new
garage consistent with the current parking requirements. Modifications shall not be
permitted which reduce the interior dimensions to less than 20 feet by 20 feet.
2. All oak trees, in accordance with the. City's oak tree preservation requirements, shall
be identified on the site plan and are subject to an oak tree permit in accordance with
the requirements of this Code.
1 All historical points of interest, as identified in the Open Space/Conservation Element
of the Santa Clarita General Plan, shall be shown on the site plan. Any development
which would detrimentally affect the historical point of interest shall comply with the
requirements of city, state, and federal law,
4: Development within a floodplain shall, at a minimum, comply with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and be subject to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
LITS: AdvvKekid�udc.dh
2-24
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
City of Santa Clarita, California 2/7/95
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO: 95-001, UDC Amendment 95-01
PERMIT/PROJECT: Amendments to the City's Unified Development Code
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Amendments to the City of Santa Clarita Unified Development
Code including modifications to property development standards for all Agricultural and
Residential zones for manufactured housing.
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
[ ] City Council [X] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the
environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of
CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEV LOPMENT
Prepared b Laura Stotler/Assistant Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
----------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Public Review Period From December 28, 1994 To January 17, 1995.
Public Notice Given On December 28, 1994 By:
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
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, Com4fiuni jDdvelopmCzh en
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
REQUEST: Proposed amendments to the City's Unified Development Code to
modify property development standards for all agricultural and
residential zones concerning manufactured housing in single family
residential areas.
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 1994, the City Council directed the staff to hold a Planning Commission
hearing to consider an ordinance that would amend the City's Unified Development Code
(UDC) to regulate the placement of manufactured housing on residential lots to the extent
allowable under state law. On January 17, 1995, the Planning Commission considered
proposed amendments to the UDC that address manufactured housing in residential zones,
provide standards for single family residential zones prohibiting metal siding and requiring
sloped roofs on new single family developments, and modify the organization and wording of
the affordable housing density bonus section to conform to state density bonus law.
The Commission directed staff to divide the UDC amendment into two separate ordinances --
one addressing manufactured housing issues and the other addressing affordable housing
density bonus requirements. For the issue of manufactured housing, the Commission
recommended adoption of the provisions requiring that a manufactured home be no more
than 10 years old upon placement and have a minimum of 16 -inch eaves. The Commission
recommended against prohibiting metal siding on single family residences and against
requiring sloped roofs for new single family development. It was also recommended that
design standards for single family residential areas be considered during future discussions
of architectural review, not as part of this ordinance.
The public hearing was continued and staff was directed to return with a resolution with
these recommendations for the City Council on February 7, 1995. Per Commission direction,
the issue of affordable housing density bonus will be considered as a separate item on
February 7, 1995.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution P95-01
amendments to the City's
housing as identified in the
LHS: d.,.mm.m.n—
recommending that the City Council approve certain
Unified Development Code relating to manufactured
above staff report.
Agenda Item: 3
RESOLUTION NO. P95-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING
DENSITY BONUSES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita General Plan requires the implementation of
a City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code to be incompliance with the Governmental
Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan identifies the City's regional housing needs for
affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 65915-65918 preempts regulation by local
governmental entities and establishes density bonus standards for affordable housing projects
with certain exceptions; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan encourages projects which provide significant
community benefits including those projects providing affordable housing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance to amend the City's zoning and general
procedures codes is consistent with the General Plan including the Housing Element;
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments clarify significant community benefits findings
for receiving density bonus for affordable housing and assist in providing incentives for
affordable housing development and maintaining affordable housing opportunities as
permitted by Government Code Sections 65915(c) and (d), and consistent with state
redevelopment law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the purpose and intent of
the City's Affordable Housing policy statement issued March 23, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to meet its regional housing need as determined by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and has considered the effect of
these amendments upon regional housing opportunities as required by Government Code
Section 65863,6; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of
1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21774, require the evaluation of the
Negative Declaration for projects such as amendments to the Unified Development Code; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for these Unified Development Code amendments
was prepared; noticed and circulated for public review in compliance with the provisions of
CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, following City Council direction on December 13, 1994 and in accordance
with Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public
hearings on January 17, 1995 and February 7, 1995, receiving staff reports and public
testimony on this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The proposed amendments to the Santa Clarita Unified Development
Code are consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and meet the requirements
of the Government Code of the State of California.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study
and Negative Declaration prepared for this project and recommends that the City Council
adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the amendments to the Unified Development
Code as complete and in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the City's
Environmental Guidelines,
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the City Council
approve the amendments to the Unified Development Code.
PASSED, APPROVED _ AND ADOPTED this _________ day of
PAT MODU 0, AIRM
PLANNIN OMMISSION
ATTEST:
-
LYNN,4 L 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, Brathwaite and Doughman
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Cherrington and Townsley
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
CITY CLERK
plancom\res95 5.1hs