HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - UDC ROADWAYS DRIVEWAYS (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be pre;
Laura Stotler
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: APRIL 23, 1996
SUBJECT: AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGULATING THE GATING OF ROADWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS AND
APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. (MASTER
CASE NO. 96-005, UDC AMENDMENT 96-001)- RESOLUTION NO. 96-
42 AND ORDINANCE NO. 96-14.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
On November 14, 1995, the City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the City's
Unified Development Code to establish standards for gating roadways and an amendment
to the General Plan to add a policy concerning gated roadways. In response staff has
prepared this ordinance. A policy concerning gates on roadways will be added to the
Circulation Element at the time that the Center City Circulation Element Amendment,
presently under preparation by staff, is considered by Council. As part of the project review,
an environmental assessment and mitigated negative declaration were prepared.
The ordinance provides that gates shall not block area -wide through routes or block access
for new development. Gating of public roadways would be prohibited consistent with existing
case law. Gating of private driveways serving one single family residence would remain a
permitted use. A minor use permit would be required to gate private roadways serving
between two and five single family residences or fifteen multi -family units or less. A
conditional use permit would be required for gates on private roadways serving six or more
single family residences or more than fifteen multi -family residences. To address safety
issues, City traffic engineers have requested that gates serving single family residences be
no less than 20 feet from the right-of-way for major and secondary highways. Gates must
meet fire department standards for design and access must be provided for emergency and
safety-related vehicles.. Gate design is also addressed to ensure that gates will not pose a
threat to safety and that they will be privately maintained.
The Planning Commission was concerned that the ordinance originally did not address
existing gates. They modified this ordinance to categorize existing gates into three
categories: pre-existinglegal, legal non -conforming, and illegal. Non -conforming gates are
those which have received an approval from either the City or the County and do not meet
DEA`,--ReT"Ae-bAgenda Item:
Pln�
CAnrn! C, C'o�trt�°s s r onl
the new gate standards. When changes other than maintenance or minor repairs are
proposed to non -conforming gates, they would be required to comply with the new standards
to the greatest extent possible. The Commission added that an economic analysis would be
required where a gate would affect commercial property. Proposed gates would be subject
to expanded public noticing for commercial properties. The Planning Commission adopted
Resolution P96-07 with a vote of 4-1 recommending that the Commission adopt this ordinance
as modified by the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Open a public hearing; discuss the item, and adopt Resolution 96-42, approving the mitigated
negative declaration prepared for the project, with the finding that the project will not have
a significant effect on the environment as mitigated; and introduce Ordinance No. 96-14 to
amend the Unified Development Code to regulate the gating of roadways and driveways,
waive further reading, and pass to a second reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 96-42
Ordinance No. 96-14
Negative Declaration
Initial Study (In Reading file in the City Clerk's Office)
Resolution No. P96-07
Planning Commission Staff Report Dated March 5, 1996
s:\cd\advance\gatecar1.1hs
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 C-FIXITA
DEPARTMENT OF CiDEVELOMMENT
AX
A public hearing on this matter and associated potential environmental impacts, if any, will be
conducted by the City of Santa Clarita City Council on:
DATE: April 23, 1996
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. 96-005, Unified Development Code Amendment 96-001
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes amendments to the City's Unified
Development Code to regulate the gating of private roadways and driveways.
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 April 2. 1996 at:
City Hall
Department of Community Development
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
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 Clerk, City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the City of Santa Clarita
Department of Community Development at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor, Santa Clarita,
CA 91355. Telephone: (805) 255-4330.
Ken Pulskamp
Assistant City Manager
Jeff Lambert
City Planner
Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall, Sheriffs Department and Santa Clarita Post Office
Published: The Newhall Signal April 2, 1996
.dynes\gexo,dp.lhe
RESOLUTION NO. 96-42
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PREPARED FOR THE AMENDMENT
TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGULATING THE GATING OF ROADWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS
(MCN 96-005, UDC AMENDMENT 96-001).
WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare:
A. That an Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program have been prepared
for the project and that said study found that no adverse impact to the existing
and future environmental resources of the area would result from the proposal
with the mitigation measures identified; and
B. That a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on
February 13, 1996 and on April 2, 1996, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
C. That the Initial Study includes the determination that the proposed project would
not impact resources protected by the California Department of Fish and Game,
and that a finding of de minimus impact on such resources was appropriate.
D. That the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public
hearing on March 5, 1996, pursuant to applicable law, to consider an amendment
to the City's Unified Development Code, and adopted Resolution No. P96-07, with
the finding that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommending that the City
Council approve Ordinance No. 96-014 and the Negative Declaration prepared
for the project.
E. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, the Council further finds
and determines that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is consistent
with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration complies with all other applicable requirements of state law
and local guidelines.
F. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is in compliance with CEQA and that
the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
SECTION 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the project, and by this reference incorporated herein, are hereby approved. The Director
of Community Development is hereby directed to file the Mitigated Negative Declaration with
RESOLUTION NO. 96-42
Page 2
the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
19_.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I, Donnn 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: COLNCILMEM3ERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEM13ERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEM 3ERS:
CITY CLERK
s:\cd\advance\gateenvr.1hs
ORDINANCE NO. 96-14
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
REGULATE GATING OF ROADWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed establishment of a policy on gated
communities at their regularly scheduled meeting of October 17, 1995, and made a
recommendation for City Council consideration;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendation at
their regular meeting of November 14, 1995, and directed staff to prepare amendments to the
General Plan Land Use Element and Circulation Element to include specific policies regulating
the establishment of gated communities and directed staff to prepare an amendment to the
Unified Development Code to establish specific development criteria for establishment of gated
communities;
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Circulation Element encourages improvement of
circulation facilities to provide improved levels of service and standards of safety over current
traffic operations with a priority to improve local traffic patterns (Circulation Element policy
1:1) and seeks to maximize and improve the operating efficiency and safety of the existing
roadway system wherever possible (Circulation Element policy 1.9);
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Land Use Element Goal Four ensures that
development in the City is consistent with the overall community character and that it
contributes in a positive way toward the City's image;
WHEREAS, this ordinance amending the City's zoning and general procedures codes is
consistent with the General Plan including the Land Use and Circulation Elements
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, 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 the City Council direction and in accordance with Government
Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 5,
1996. This public hearing was noticed in accordance with Government Code Section 65091. The
Commission recommended the following UDC amendment to the City Council to establish
development criteria for gated communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Section 17.07. 117 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development
Code shall be amended to add Section 17.07.117.5 to read as follows:
"117.5 GATE shall mean any barrier across a roadway that restricts the access of
vehicles. For purposes of gating, a roadway shall also mean driveways."
SECTION 2. That Section 17.17.040 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development
Code shall be amended to add new Section 17.17.040(M) as follows:
"M. Gating of _R_oadways. All proposed permanent gates in residential areas shall be
subject to the following requirements. Temporary barriers erected for emergency
response, repair or special event purposes are not subject to these requirements.
Driveways are considered roadways for the purpose of these gating requirements.
1. Public roadways. Gating of public roadways is prohibited.
2. Private roadways serving one single familyr circ. Gating for this use
is permitted subject to the criteria set forth in paragraph 6 of this section.
3. Private roadways serving two to five single family residential units.
Gating for these uses is subject to a Minor Use Permit and the criteria set
forth in paragraph 6 of this section.
4. Private roadways serving fifteen multi -family units or less. Gating for
these uses is subject to a Minor Use Permit and the criteria set forth in
paragraph 5 of this section,
5. Private roadways serving more than five single family units or more than
fifteen multi -family unitc. Gating for these uses is subject to a
Conditional Use Permit and the following criteria:
a. The gate shall not block area -wide through routes or block access
for roadways to serve future development.
b. All property owners within the area to be gated shall agree to be
part of the application.
C. Adequate stacking distance, turnaround areas, public safety
elements and signing shall be included in the gate design. All
gates shall meet fire department requirements and provide
passage with unobstructed vertical clearance.
d. Access shall be provided at all times for police, fire, city inspection,
dial -a -ride, utility, and other health and safety-related vehicles.
e. A homeowners association and/or other appropriate entity shall
provide for on-going, private maintenance of internal streets, gate
equipment, walls and landscaping. No public resources shall be
allocated for maintaining private property.
f. The gate design and implementation shall be such that it does not
pose a threat to public health, safety or welfare..
g. Where the gate is to serve only single family residences, the
criteria of paragraph 6 of this section shall apply.
6. Gates serving single-family residence(s). In no instance shall a gate be
less than 20 feet from the public right-of-way for major and secondary
highways."
SECTION 3. That any gate as defined by this Ordinance existing at the time of adoption
of this Ordinance shall be subject to gating standards as follows:
1. Pre-existing Legal Gate- A gate which has received an approval from
either the City or the County and meets the standards of this Ordinance
is considered to be pre-existing legal and is deemed to have satisfied the
requirements set forth in this Ordinance and shall not be required to
obtain a minor or conditional use permit..
2. Legal Non -conforming Gate- A gate which has received an approval from
either the City or the County and does not meet the standards of this
Ordinance is deemed to have satisfied the requirements set forth in this
Ordinance provided no changes are made to the gate other than
maintenance or minor repair. Any legal non -conforming gate shall meet
the standards of this Ordinance to the greatest extent possible should any
significant changes be proposed to the gate.
3. Illegal Gate- A gate which has not received an approval from either the
City or the County and does not meet the standards of this Ordinance is
deemed to be illegal.
4 The Community Development Director shall determine if a change
proposed to an existing gate, such as replacement, shall be considered
significant.
SECTION 4. Where commercial property may be affected by a proposed gate subject to
a Minor Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant(s) shall submit an economic
analysis as part of the application submittal to address the economic impacts of the gate upon
affected commercial properties.
SECTION55. That the Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Negative
Declaration for this project have 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 and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for this
project.
SECTION 6. 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 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall
cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
, 19_:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
day of
I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at
a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 19_ by
the following vote of Council:
AYES; COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
a\cd\advance\gaword.lhe
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[] Proposed []Final
—----------------------------------------------------------------------
MASTER CASE NO. -N/A
PERMIT/PROJECT: Gate Ordinance
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide, City of Santa Clarita
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Ordinance amending the Unified Development Code for the
purpose of regulating the placement of gates on private streets and driveways.
------------------------------- --------------------------------
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
[ ] Are Not Required [X] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
KEN PULSKAMP
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LOPMENT
i
Prepared by. Laura Stotler. Associate Planner
(Signatu (Name/Title)
Approved by: 04��2 Fred Follstad Associate Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
Public Review Period Fro V To 3 a
Public Notice Given On! By:
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
Page 18:\CMMVA CE\G TWnN.L S
RESOLUTION NO. P96-07
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 TO REGULATE
GATING OF ROADWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS
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 Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita has determined
that the public health and welfare requires that gating of roadways and driveways be
regulated; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan requires that gating design elements be
considered, including location, number and types of units served, setback and stacking
distance, height, emergency vehicle access, maintenance, and type of gate so that new gates
do not conflict with the character of neighborhoods or pose a threat to public safety; and
WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance to amend the City's zoning code provides that
area -wide through routes and access to future development not be blocked consistent with
the General Plan Circulation Element and the State Subdivision Map Act;
WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance to amend the City's zoning code provides that
adequate setback and stacking distance be provided from major and secondary arterials for
traffic safety reasons;
WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance to amend the City's Zoning Code and General
Procedures Code is consistent with the City Council policy concerning gates as stated through
minute action on November 14, 1995;
WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance to amend the City's zoning code is consistent with
the City's General Plan including the Circulation and Land Use Elements;
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 June 27, 1995 and November 14, 1995
and in accordance with Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing on March 5, 1996, receiving staff reports and public testimony
on this project. The project was noticed in accordance with Government Code Section 65091.
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 that the City Council
act upon the amendments to the Unified Development Code to regulate the gating of
roadways and driveways and adopt proposed Ordinance No. 96-14.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of
March 19 96.
LIN A TOWNSLEY, CHAIRWO
P NING COMMISSION
SECRETARY, PLAT (DdNG 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 thegrh day of March
19--% by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brathwaite, Cherrington, Doughman and Modugno
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Townsley
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
2
pianwm4cs 7.I
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 96-005
UDC AMENDMENT 96-001
DATE: March 5, 1996
TO: XeTo ley and Members of Tanning Commission
FROM: en p, As is i y Manager
CASE PLANNER: Laura Stotler, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: Citywide
REQUEST:. Proposed amendment to the City's Unified Development Code to regulate
the gating of roadways and driveways.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On June 27, 1995, the Council directed staff to research and report back to the Planning
Commission and the Council about the effects of gated communities. Staff presented this
information to the Planning Commission on October 17, 1995, where the Commission
recommended that the Council adopt specific gating policy by minute action and also that new
policy language be added to the General Plan.
On November 14, 1995, -the Council considered the staff report and Planning Commission
recommendations. At that meeting, the City Attorney mentioned that standards to regulate the
gating of roadways could be implemented by including such standards in the City's Unified
Development Code (UDC). Following the City Attorney's suggestion, the City Council directed
staff to prepare an amendment to the UDC to establish standards for gating of roadways and
an amendment to the General Plan to add a policy concerning gated roadways. In response,
staff has prepared this draft ordinance. A policy concerning gates on roadways will be added
to the Circulation Element at the time that the Center City Circulation Element Amendment,
presently under preparation by staff, is considered by Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts
of the project. After reviewing the project's effects upon the environment, staff has prepared
a mitigated negative declaration for the Planning Commission's review.
A draft ordinance was distributed to the affected City departments and agencies for comments
Subsequently, the Community Development Department revised the ordinance to address these
comments. The main concern expressed was the need to provide emergency access.
Staff drafted the proposed gating ordinance to meet the following City Council and Planning
Commission objectives: protect area -wide through routes, protect access for roadways to serve
future development, provide for fire department, police, city inspection and other health and
safety-related vehicles, provide for safe gate design, and provide for review of all new gates.
During Council and Planning Commission discussion of gates, it became apparent that concerns
centered around those gates blocking access to and through residential areas. Additionally, the
UDC already provides for review of commercial and industrial developments, including gates.
For these reasons, the draft ordinance specifically addresses standards for new gates in
residential areas.
Organizationally, this amendment would fall under "Specific Development Requirements" in the
Zoning Code and the definition for the word "gate" would be added to the General Procedures
Code of the UDC. A driveway would be considered a roadway for the purpose of gating
requirements so that all gates would be subject to a review. The gating standards would be
applied in addition to the existing setback and height limits. Within residential areas, the
height limit is 3.5 -feet high within the 20 -foot front setback.
The ordinance differentiates between public and private roadways and between number and
type of residential units to be served. Gating of public roadways would be prohibited consistent
with existing case law. Gating of private driveways serving one single family residence would
remain a permitted use. A minor use permit would be required to gate private roadways serving
between two and five single family residences or fifteen multi -family units or less. A conditional
use permit would be required for gates on private roadways serving six or more single family
residences or more than fifteen multi -family residences. Distinguishing between minor and
conditional uses will limit entitlement costs for gatesbenefiting fewer units, yet still ensure
public review, including public hearings, for gates serving larger residential areas.
Council and the Planning Commission circulation and safety concerns with gates are addressed.
The ordinance provides that gates shall not block area -wide through routes or block access for
future development. To address safety issues, City traffic engineers have requested that gates
serving single family residences be no less than 20 feet from the right-of-way for major and
secondary highways. This 20 feet would allow a car to clear the street while waiting for a gate
to open, thereby minimizing traffic flow impacts and risk of collision on heavily traveled streets.
The ordinance allows flexibility to provide for a greater stacking distance, if necessary, for multi-
family developments through the minor and conditional use permit process. The ordinance
provides that gates must meet fire department standards for design and access. Access would
also be provided for other emergency and health and safety-related vehicles including city
inspectors, utilities, and dial -a -ride. Gate design is also addressed to ensure that gates will not
pose a threat to safety and that they will be privately maintained.
All gates legally existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance would be considered to have
satisfied the requirements of this ordinance and would not be required to obtain a permit to
remain in operation.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Receive staffs presentation;
2) Take public testimony;
3) Direct staff to include policies for gating of roadways in the Center City
Circulation Element Amendment that is under study; and,
4) Adopt Resolution P96-07 which recommends that the City Council 1) adopt a
mitigated negative declaration finding that the project, with mitigation, will not
have a significant effect upon the environment, and 2) adopt proposed Ordinance
No. 96-14 to regulate the gating of roadways.
ping.mAgwq .lht
•sluaunuoo zo; saloua2u pus sluou 4xsdep S1SO pelagfis mp} of palugP3sip ssm aousalpzo 1}uxp y
C
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
and MPPIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MASTER CASE NO:96-005,UDC Amend 96-001
Case Planner:Laura Stotler/Jeff Hogan
Project Location:Citywide
Project Description and Setting:Ordinance Amending UDC for regulating the gating of roadways
and driveways
General Plan Designation:n/a
Zoning:n/a
Applicant:City of Santa Claria
Environmental Constraint Areas:n/a
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? ....... ..... , .......... [ ] [ ] [x]
-1-
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ............................... [ ] [ l [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? [ ] [ ] [xI
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? .. [ ] [ ] [x]
n
g.
Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ........ [ ]
[ 1 [x]
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ............................... []
[] [x]
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? .......................... [ 1
[ l [x]
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25% natural grade? ................. [ l
[ ] [xJ
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? .......................... [ ]
[ l [XI
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? ..... [ ]
[ 7 [x]
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? ................ [ ] [7 [xl
d. Other? ..................................... [] 11 1x1
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................... [ l [ l [x]
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................••. [J I [xl
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ............................ [ ] C 1 [x]
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? .......... .. .
.2.
e. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? .............. , ........... [ ]
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? [ J
g. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? .............................. [)
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ................ [ ]
i.
Other? ...................................... [1
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? . • ..... I l
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ............. [ ]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ................. [ ]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? .................:...................... []
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)? ........................ [ ]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ............. [ ]
c.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ........... ( ]
.3_
[x]
0
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? .................. [ 1 [ 1 [x]
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ............... [ J [ ] [x]
b. Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ...................... [ ]
[ 1 [x]
C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? .. .. . [ ]
[ ] [x]
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ..................... . . . (]
[ 1 [x]
S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? ........................... (]
[ 1 (xl
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? .................... (]
[ ] 1x1
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ................................. [ 1
[ ] [x]
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? .......................... [ ]
[ ] [x]
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ......... ... ...... [ ] [ ] [x]
b. Substantial depletion .of any nonrenewable
naturalresources? ............................ []
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? ............................
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
-4-
/V
0
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? .................................. [J
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ....................................... [x]
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? .................................... [x]
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? [ 1
b. Other? ............. ...... ............... [J
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................... [x]
b. Other? ...................................... [] [l
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ....................... [ )
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .................... [ ]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? .............................. CI
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ................... [x]
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? [ ]
-5-
J
14.
15.
16.
f A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ...............................
[1 [] [xl
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? ...............................
[xl [ 1 [ 1
b. Police protection? ........ .. , .
[x] [ 1 I 1
C. Schools? ....................................
[x] L1 I
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .............
[x] [ I [ ]
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ..............................
Lx] LI L]
f. Other governmental services? ...................
[x] [ 1 [ 1
Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy? .....................................
[] 11 [x]
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? .........
[ 1 [ 1 [xl
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? .........................
[ I [ 1 [xl
b. Communications systems? ......................
(I [ ] 1x1
C. Water systems? ..............................
[ 1 [ 1 1x1
d. Sanitary sewer systems? .......................
L ] 11 [x]
e. Storm drainage systems? .......................
[ l 11 [xl
f.., Solid waste and disposal systems? ...............
[I [ 1 [xl
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
-6-
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? [ ]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? .......... [ I
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ... .... ..... []
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? [ ]
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? [ l
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? ........... ( ]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ........................... [ l
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? ( ]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ( ]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ................... [ ]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ............... ( ]
-7-
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND ( MF "DF, MINIMUS" FINDIN
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......................................................................... [ l [ ] LX]
Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation Monitoring Program
1. EARTH
Discussion of Impacts
The results from gating roadways and driveways will have no physical impacts
on the earth.
2. AIR
Discussion of Impacts
The results from gating roadways and driveways will have no significant
impacts on the air
quality.
3. Water
Discussion of Impacts
The results from gating roadways and driveways will have no significant
impacts on the water
quality.
4. Plant Life
Discussion of Impacts
The results from gating roadways and driveways will have no signficant
impacts on plant life.
5. Animal Life
Discussion of Impacts
ME
NOISE
Discussion of Impacts
The results from gating roadways and driveways will have no significant impacts on the
noise level (Community Development).
LIGHT AND GLARE
Discussion of Impacts
Gates would be lit for safety. No significant impacts are anticipated because the
safety lighting required would be consistent with the urban development of the area.
Impacts from lighting can further be reduced with the following mitigation measure
(Community Development).
Mitigation Measures
Lights shall be pointed downward and not interfere with, traffic circulation or
neighboring properties. All lighting equipment shall be maintained by the homeowner's
association or by other organizations that own the gates.
8. LAND USE
Discussion of Impacts
Gating of roadways and driveways can be exclusionary and have a minor effect on
property values. There are no significant impacts anticipated. The ordinance requires
that gates not block access to through roads or to undeveloped properties. Therefore, it
will not affect the access which would limit the possible uses of neighboring land.
(Community Development).
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
Discussion of Impacts
No significant impacts are anticipated to natural resources due to the gating of roadways
and driveways. (Community Development).
10. RISK OF UPSETIMAN-MADE HAZARDS
Discussion of Impacts
Gated roadways and driveways will possibly delay emergency vehicle response times and
cause potential safety hazards within gated communities. The ordinance provides that
access be maintained at all times for emergency vehicles. Therefore, with the following
mitigation measure no significant impacts are anticipated (Community Development).
ME
Mitigation Measures
All gates shall comply with Los Angeles County Sheriff and Fire Department codes and
requirements. This will be implemented by building permit review.
11. POPULATION
Discussion of Impacts
The results of gated roadways and driveways will not have a significant impact
on the population (Community Development).
12. HOUSING
Discussion of Impacts
Gating of roadways and driveways may be exclusionary and have a minor effect on
property values. These changes to property values are not anticipated to have a
significant effect upon the values of housing outside the gate. Therefore, there are no
significant impacts anticipated (Community Development).
13.. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Discussion of Impacts
The gating of roadways and driveways will have a minor effect on circulation paterns and
the movement of people since areas to be gated will not restrict through access to
neighboring communities. Gate standards will prevent stacking in roadways fronting
a gate. No significant impacts are anticipated with the addition of the following
mitigation measures.(Community Development).
Mitigation Measures
All gates will be out of the public right of way which includes streets, intersections and
paseos. This will be monitored by the Community Development Department during gate
approval.
Gated roadways and driveways shall comply with all zoning ordinances and homeowner's
association regulations. This will be monitored by the Community Development
Department during gate approval and by the HOA's in gated areas.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Discussion of Impacts
The gating of roadways and driveways will not significantly alter fire or police response
times because gate access will be required for emergency vehicles. In addition, there are
-10-
no significant impacts anticipated regarding the accessibility of gated roadways and
driveways for the following governmental services that are also guaranteed access: city
inspectors, school buses, utility companies, and trash service (Community Development).
Mitigation Measures
All homeowner's associations and property owners with gated roadways and driveways
shall comply with all applicable regulations, requirements and zoning ordinances. Gate
maintenance will be monitored by Code Enforcement following gate construction.
15. ENERGY
Discussion of Impacts
The gating of roadways and driveways is not of a size or nature to result in a substantial
increase in the use of existing energy resources. No significant impact is anticipated
(Community Development).
16. UTILITIES
Discussion of impacts
The gating of roadways and driveways is not of a size and character to affect existing
utility systems. No significant impact is anticipated (Community Development).
17. HUMAN HEAL'T'H
Discussion of Impacts
The gating of roadways and driveways will not create any kind of health hazard.
No significant impact is anticipated (Community Development).
18. AESTHETICS
Discussion of Impacts
The gating of roadways and driveways may obstruct the public's view of the gated area,
however, this visual impact is anticipated to be minor and no significant impact is
anticipated. The visual characteristics of gates can be improved through adherence to
the zoning code that requires landscaping and on going maintenance. (Community
Development).
Mitigation Measures
All homeowner's associations and property owners with gated roadways and driveways
shall comply with all applicable regulations, requirements, and zoning ordinances,
Compliance with the code is monitored by Code Enforcement.
i\
19. RECREATION
Discussion of Impacts
The results of gating roadways and driveways will not have a significant impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities (Community
Development).
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Discussion of Impacts
The gating of roadways and driveways will not have any historical, religious, and
cultural significance. No significant impact is anticipated (Community Development).
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Section 15065 of the'California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the
following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the
environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared.
,YES MAYBE NO
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory? C ] C ] Cx]
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.)
........................................... Cl I [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.) ........................................... C] C] Cx]
4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? C ] C ] Cx]
-12-
D. DETERKWATION
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [X]
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this Initial
Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
[]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ]
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prepare'I By;
( i tore)
.teff Hogan/Planning T c ni i n January 25, 1996
(NameMtle) (Date)
App .Wved By:
Laura 4tntl .r/ ssociate Plan n er January 25, 1996
Signature) (Name/Title) (Date)
cdfo=q\initialb.fim
-13-