HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - ADULT BUSINESS ORD 98 3 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approve
Item to be presented
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: February 10, 1998
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ADULT BUSINESS ORDINANCE
REGARDING PRE-EXISTING LEGAL ADULT BUSINESS USES.
ORDINANCE 98-3
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Building Services Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council adopt Ordinance No. 98-3 regarding an amendment to the Adult Business Ordinance
pertaining to pre-existing legal adult business uses.
At the meeting of January 27, 1998, the City Council approved the amendment to the Adult
Business Ordinance regarding pre-existing adult business uses.
Essentially, the amendment (Exhibit A) provides for an amortization period of two (2) years for
existing businesses or businesses annexed into the City to comply with the Ordinance's performance
standards i.e., all interior areas of the business shall be sufficiently illuminated during all hours
of operation, and no exterior doors or windows on the premises shall be open at any time. This
amendment also provides for an amortization period of five (5) years for existing businesses to
comply with the locational requirements i.e., all adult businesses will be required to have a 1000'
buffer from any religious institution, school, public park, public building, or any properties zoned
or approved for residential use or used for residential purposes, or within another adult business.
In addition, the amendment requires that existing businesses must comply with all business
licensing requirements within two (2) years.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
None by this action.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance 98-3
JJL:JWH:Iep
MMCil\aradlt8.jwh Adopted:. !17-10-12
Agenda Tree: 1
ORDINANCE NO. 98-3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA, CALIFORNIA PROVIDING AN AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO
THE PRE-EXISTING LEGAL ADULT BUSINESS USE SECTIONS OF THE
ADULT BUSINESS ORDINANCE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION ONE. Section 3 PRE-EXISTING LEGAL USE of Chapter 17.17.050
ADULT BUSINESS REGULATIONS of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
3. PRE-EXISTING LEGAL USE
A. All design and performance standards set forth in Chapter 17.17.050 (9)
and locational and distance requirements set forth in Chapter 17.17.050 (4) are deemed to be
necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare and shall be applicable
and govern all existing and proposed Adult Businesses and shall immediately apply to any
proposed Adult Business upon adoption and passage of this Chapter.
B. In the event that there is any Adult Business lawfully in existence prior to
the adoption of this Chapter that is not in compliance with the design and performance
standards of Chapter 17.17.050 (9), any such Adult Business shall be considered a legal
nonconforming use and shall conform to all design and performance standards within two (2)
years of the effective date of this Chapter.
C. In the event that there is any Adult Business lawfully in existence prior to the
adoption of the Chapter that is not in compliance with the locational and distance
requirements of Chapter 17.17.050 (9), any such Adult Business shall be considered a legal
nonconforming use and shall conform to all standards within five (5) years of the effective
date of this Chapter.
D. Any Adult Business which was legal use at the time of annexation of the
Property into the City but which is a nonconforming use after annexation shall be subject to
the same time requirements as indicated in sections (B) and (C) above, starting from the
date of annexation.
E. Any discontinuance or abandonment of the use of any lot or structure as an
Adult Business shall result in a loss of legal nonconforming status. Any nonconforming use
lawfully in existence prior to the adoption of this Chapter may be continued, except as
provided in this Article, provided that the use shall not be increased, enlarged,extendedd, or
altered. Upon the conclusion of the amortization period, any Adult Business which is a non-
conforming use shall cease all business operations and all signs, advertising, and displays
relating to said business shall be removed within (30) days.
F. An application for extension of the amortization period for an Adult Business which is
a nonconforming use shall be made as provided herein.
(1) The owner of the property on which an Adult Business is located or the owner
of the Adult Business who desires to extend the applicable amortization period must
apply for approval of an extension not later than six (6) months prior to expiration of
the amortization period, unless the City Manager or his designee determines that
good cause is shown for late filing of the application. Such application shall be made
in writing on a form as prescribed by the City and shall be accompanied by the
required fee as established by Resolution of the City Council. The party requesting
the extension of the amortization period shall bear the burden of proof in establishing
that the amortization period is unreasonable and that the requested extension is a
reasonable amortization period for the owner to receive a fair rate of return on the
investment in the business. The party applying for the extension shall furthermore
be required in order to meet its burden of proof to submit the documentation set forth
in this Section.
(2) Not later than thirty (30) days after submittal of an application to extend the
amortization period, the City Manager or his designee shall notify the applicant, in
writing, if the application is not complete. A complete application shall include:
(a) The applicant's signature;
(b) A written request for an extension of the amortization period which
shall include information relevant to the factors listed in subsection (f)
below and shall identify the term of the requested extension;
(c) The required fees;
(d) A mailing list and a set of gummed labels attached to
envelopes with first-class postage fully paid thereon with the names,
addresses, and taxassessorr parcel numbers of all owners of real
property within a radius of three -hundred (300') from the external
boundaries of the property on which the Adult Business is located; and,
(e) A tax assessor's parcel map identifying the properties to be notified
within the three -hundred foot (300') radius.
If the application is not complete, the City Manager shall specify in writing those
parts which are incomplete and shall identify the manner by which the application
can be made complete. If a written determination is not provided to the applicant
within (30) calendar days after it is submitted, the application shall be deemed
complete.
(G) The Planning Commission shall hold a noticed public hearing on the request for an
extension.
(H) Criteria and Findings. In determining whether to grant an extension of the
amortization period for an Adult -Oriented Business which is a nonconforming use, and in
determining the appropriate length of such an extension, the Planning Commission shall
consider the amount of investment in the business, the opportunities for relocation to a
legally permissible site, the costs of relocation, the effects of the business on the surrounding
area, and the following additional factors:
(1) The present actual and depreciated value of business improvements;
(2) The applicable Internal Revenue Service depreciation schedule or functional
non -confidential equivalents;
(3) The remaining useful life of the business improvements;
(4) The remaining lease term;
(5) The ability of the business and/or land owner to change the use to a
conforming use; and,
(6) The date upon which the property owner and/or business operator received
notice of the non -conforming status of the Adult Business and the
amortization requirements.
(I) The Planning Commission, or City. Council on appeal shall receive and consider
evidence presented by the applicant and any other persons, and shall make findings that the
amortization period it establishes is reasonable in view of the evidence and the criteria set
forth above.
(J) An adult business lawfully operating as a conforming use is not rendered a non-
conforming use by the location, subsequent to the grant or renewal of an Adult Business Use
Permit and/or an Adult Business License, of a church, school, public park, public building,
residential zone, or residential lot within 1000 feet of the adult business. This provision
applies only to the renewal of a valid permit and license and does not apply when an
application for a permit and license is submitted after a -permit and license has expired or
has been revoked.
SECTION TWO. Chapter 11.70.140 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
11.70.140 PRE-EXISTING LEGAL USE
A. Any adult business lawfully operating before the effective date of this ordinance or
lawfully operating before annexation in the City of Santa Clarita that is in violation of this
Chapter shall be deemed a pre-existing legal use. A pre-existing legal use will be permitted
to continue to operate for a period of two (2) years without compliance with this Chapter, as
long as such pre-existing legal use shall not change in ownership, size, or is alternated or
modified in anyway. Any pre-existing legal adult business that ceases operation for a
period of thirty (30) days shall be subject to all the provisions of this Chapter."
B. An adult business lawfully operating as a conforming use is not rendered a non-
conforming use by the location, subsequent to the grant or renewal of an Adult Business Use
Permit and/or an Adult Business License, of a church, school, public park, public building,
residential zone, or residential lot within 1000 feet of the adult business. This provision
applies only to the renewal of a valid permit and license and does not apply when an
application for a permit and license is submitted after a permit and license has expired or
has been revoked.
SECTION THREE. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase,
or portion of this Ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it.would
have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any or more sections, subsections,
subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION FOUR.. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and
shall cause the same to be published as required by law. The complete Ordinance is
available to the public in the City Clerk's office.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 119----.
I��
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No, was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading
at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of ,
19 . That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the day of 119—
by
19
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
:N�IMLNW"t
CURRENT)LADLTORDIES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. Ste. 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact Person & Phone Number: Jeff Hogan (805) 255-4330
Master Case or CIP Number: 97.133
Entitlement Type(s): UDC Amendment 97-002
Case Planner: Jeff Hogan
Project Location (Thomas Bros.): City of Santa Clarita
Project Description and Setting: Modifications to requirements within the City's Unified
Development Code related to Adult Businesses.
General Plan and Zoning Designation(s): CC, IC, BP
Project Applicant (Name, Address, Phone): City of Santa Clarita
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: NIA
Other public agencies whose approval is required
(e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ J Land Use and Planning
[ ]
Transportation/
[ ]
Public Services
Circulation
[ ] Population and Housing
[ ]
Biological Resources
[ ]
Recreation
[] Geological Problems
[]
Noise
[]
Aesthetics
[ ] Water
[ ]
Hazards
[ ]
Cultural Resources
[ ] Air Quality
[ ]
Mandatory Tests of
[ ]
Utilities and Service
Significance
System
[]
Energy and Mineral
Resources
.1.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[� I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that 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 on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT REPORT, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
Prepared by:
=fi+--'--'--
(Date)
Approved by:
(Jenniferfield, Associate Pla ner) (Date)
.2.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
-3=
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentlaly unless Leas than
Significant Mitigation Significant
No
Impact Incorporated Impact
Impact
I.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
[ ] (] I ]
[xI
(Source # )
b)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
[ ] [ ] [ I
[x]
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
c)
Be Incompatible with existing land use in the city?
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[x]
d)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
[ ] [ I [ I
[x]
established community (Including a low-income or
minority community)?
e)
Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)? ( )
[ ] [ ] I ]
[x]
f)
other ( )
[] [I [I
I]
II.
POPULATION AND HOUSING. would the Proposal:
a)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
[ ] [ ] I I
[xI'
population projections? ( )
b)
Create a not loss of jobs? ( )
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[xI
c)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
[ ] I ] [ ]
[x]
housing? ( )
d)
Other ( )
[] [] []
[]
Ill.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. will the proposal result In:
a)
Unstable earth conditions or in changes In geologic
[ ] [ ] I ]
[xI
substructures? ( )
b)
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[x]
covering of the soil? ( )
c)
Change in topography or ground surface relief
[ ] [ ] [ I
[xI
features? ( )
d)
The destruction, covering or modification of any
[ ] [ ] I ]
[x]
unique geologic or physical features? ( )
e)
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either
[ ] [ ] [ I
[x]
on or off the site? ( )
f)
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[x]
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure, or similar hazards? ( )
g)
Changes In deposition, erosion or siltation? ( )
[ ] [ ] [ I
[xI
h)
Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or
[] [ ] [ ]
[xI
river? ( )
-3=
.4.
Patentlally
Signlflcam
Impact
Potentlally Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
No
-
Impact Incorporated Impact
Impact
1)
Earth movement (cut and/or till) of 10,000 cubic
[ ] [ ] [ 1
[x]
yards or more? ( )
j)
Development and/or grading on a slope greater than
(] [ ] I ]
[x]
25% natural grade? ( )
k)
Development within the Alqulst-PrioloSpecial
I [] [j
[x]
Studies Zone? ( )
1)
Other ( )
[] [] []
[]
IV.
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
[] [] I
[x]
the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b)
Exposure of people or property to water related
[ ] I ] [ ]
[xj
hazards such as flooding? ( )
c)
Discharge Into surface waters or other alteration of
[ ] [ ] [ 1
]xj
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity) ( )
d)
Changes in the amount of surface water In any water
[ ] [ ] I ]
[xj
body? ( )
e)
Changes In currents, or the course of direction of
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[xj
water movements? ( )
f)
Changes In the quantity of ground waters; either
[ ] [ ] I ]
[xj
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
g)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
[ ] [ ] []
[x]
h)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
[ ] [ ] [ 1
[x]
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
[ ] [ ] I ]
[xj
otherwise available for public water supplies? ( )
i)
Other ( )
[1 [] I1
[]
V.
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[x]
existing or projected air quality violation? ( )
b)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[xj
c)
Create objectionable odors? ( )
I ] I1 I1
IXI
d)
Other ( )
I] [] I]
[xj
VI.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?( )
[ ] [ ] [ I
[x]
.4.
d) Other ( ) [] [] [] []
DL HAZARDS. Would the proposal Involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [ ] [ ] [ ] 1x]
hazardous substances (Including but not limited to
oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( )
b) Possible Interference with an emergency response [] [] [j [xj
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health (] [ ] [ ] [x]
hazard? ( )
-5-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Unless Less than
significant
Mitigation Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated Impact
Impact
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp [ j
[ ] [ ]
[x]
curves or dangerous intersections) or Incompatible
uses? ( )
c)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[x[
uses? ( )
d)
Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsfte? []
[] []
[x]
e)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ]
(] [ ]
[x]
f)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [ ]
[ ] [ j
[x]
alternative transportation (e.g. bus stops, bicycle
racks) ( )
g)
Disjointed pattern of roadway Improvements ( ) [ ]
[ ] ( ]
[xJ
h)
Other ( ) []
[] I
[]
VII.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. would the proposal result in Impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their []
[J I
[x]
habitats (Including but not limited to plants, fish,
Insects, animals, and birds) ( )
b)
Oak Trees ( ) [ j
[ ] [ J
[x]
c)
Wetland habitat or biueline stream? ( ) [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[x[
d)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) []
I I
[x]
e)
Other ( ) []
I I
I
Vlll.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[x]
b)
Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[x]
inefficient manner? ( )
c)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[x]
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State? ( )
d) Other ( ) [] [] [] []
DL HAZARDS. Would the proposal Involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [ ] [ ] [ ] 1x]
hazardous substances (Including but not limited to
oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( )
b) Possible Interference with an emergency response [] [] [j [xj
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health (] [ ] [ ] [x]
hazard? ( )
-5-
f) Other ( ) [] [] [] []
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: -
a) Increases In existing noise levels? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [ ] [ [ [ ] [x]
vibration? ( )
c)
Potentially
[] []
-
[]
Significant
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
Impact
on, or result In a need for new or altered government
Potentially unless
Less than
services In any of the following areas:
Significant Mitigation
Significant
No
a)
Impact Incorporated
Impact
Impact
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission Imes, gas
[x]
c)
Schools? ( )
lines, oil pipelines)? ( )
[]
[x]
d)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x]
grass, or trees? ( )
Other government services? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
f) Other ( ) [] [] [] []
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: -
a) Increases In existing noise levels? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [ ] [ [ [ ] [x]
vibration? ( )
c)
Other ( )
[] []
I1
[]
XI.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
on, or result In a need for new or altered government
services In any of the following areas:
a)
Fire protection? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x]
b)
Police protection? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x]
c)
Schools? ( )
[] []
[]
[x]
d)
Maintenance of pubic facilities, including roads?
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x]
e)
Other government services? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x]
XII.
UTILITIES. Would the proposal result In a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a)
Power or natural gas? ( }
[] []
[] .
[x]
b)
Communications systems? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x]
c)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x]
facilities? ( )
d)
Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[]
[x]
e)
Storm water drainage? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[]
[x]
f)
Solid waste disposal? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[]
[x]
g)
Local or regional water supplies? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x]
h)
Other ( )
[] []
[]
I
XIII.
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a)
Affect a scenic vista open to public view? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x]
b)
Have a negative aesthetic effect? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x]
c)
Create light or glare? ( )
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[x[
-6-
XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINUMUS" FINDING
-7-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d)
Other ( )
(] [] [] []
XV.
RECREATION. Will the proposal result In an
impact upon the quality or quanity of existing
recreational opportunities?
[ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
XIV.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
Disturb paleontological or archaeological
[ ] [ ] ( ] [x]
resources?
b)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
[ ] [] [] [x]
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( )
c)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
[ ] [] [] [x]
potential Impact area? ( )
d)
Affect a recognized historical site? ( )
[ ] [] [] [xi
e)
Other ( )
[] [] [] (]
XVI.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
(] [] (] (x]
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?
b)
Does the project have the potential to achieve
[ ] [ ] [] [x]
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.)
c)
Does the project have Impacts which are Individually
[ ] [ ] [] (x]
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 an the environment Is significant.)
d)
Does the project have environmental effects which
[ ] (] [] [x]
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINUMUS" FINDING
-7-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) 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."
.g.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless Less than
Mitigation Significant
No
Incorporated Impact
Impact
[ ] ] ]
[X]
XVIII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSES:
Section
Subsection
Evaluation of Impact
I and II.
There are no significant permanent or temporary impacts in the areas
Land Use
of Land Use, Planning/Housing. and Population with the proposed
Planning/
policy changes to the Development Code. The proposed amendments
Housing
provide more restrictions on these uses which in turn will reduce any
Population
impacts associated with land use and planning.
III, IV, V,
There are no significant permanent or temporary impacts in the areas
VII, XHI,
of Geology, Water, Air Quality, Biology, Recreation, and Cultural
XV, and
Resources with the proposed changes to the Development Code.
XIV
Individual proposals governed by these code sections will be required
Geologic
to comply with applicable environmental review upon submittal.
Problems/
Water/Air
Quality/
Biological
Resources/
Recreation/
Cultural
Resources
VI, XI, XII
There are no significant permanent or temporary impacts in the areas
Circulation/
of Circulation, Public Services, and Utilities with the proposed policy
Public
changes to the Development Code.
Services/
Utilities
VIII
There are no significant permanent or temporary impacts in the areas
Energy and
of Energy and Mineral Resources with the proposed changes to the
Mineral
Development Code.
Resources
IX and X
There are no significant permanent or temporary impacts in the areas
Hazards
of Hazards and Noise with the proposed changes to the Development
and Noise
Code.
currenttiwdItl.jwh
a
MINUTES OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday,
September 2, 1997
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order by
Chairperson Hoback at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First
Floor, Santa Clarita, California.
11W4Tf&_K liy_"
The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was led by Commissioner Killmeyer.
ROLL CALL
The secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairperson Hoback and Commissioners,
Brathwaite, and Killmeyer. Commissioner Berger had an excused absence. Also present were
Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager, Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager; Laura Stotler,
Associate Planner; Conal McNamara, Assistant Planner II; Jeffrey Hogan, Planning Technician;
Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engineer; Rabie $ahmanie, Associate Traffic Engineer; Chris
Cheleden, Assistant City. Attorney; and Lori Powell, secretary.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 1 PROPOSED OPTIONS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA'S RECENTLY ADOPTED ADULT BUSINESS ORDINANCE
REGARDING PRE-EXISTING LEGAL ADULT BUSINESS USES AND THE
REDUCTION OF ALLOWABLE SITES FOR ADULT RELATED USES
The staff report was given by Planning Technician, Jeffrey Hogan. Questions from
Commissioner Killmeyer and Chairperson Hoback were answered by Mr. Hogan and Chris
Cheledan, Assistant City Attorney.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m.
Those speaking in favor of the item were: Sandra Pierce; 20401-402 Soledad Canyon Road,
Santa Clarita; Mike Lomont, 20331 Lakemore, Santa Clarita; and Gregg and Janice Gentry,
27611 Cherry Creek Drive, Santa Clarita.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked what would happen if an adult business came in to the City
by way of an annexation. Mr. Hogan explained that an amendment could be drafted stating that
any business that annexes into the City would have to comply with all of the current
regulations.
Commissioner Killmeyer made a motion recommending option 2, the City Attorney's 215 year
amortization amendment. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite and a
discussion of the motion was had by the Commission. Commissioner Killmeyer restated his
motion. The motion on the floor was to recommend option 2, leaving the proposed sites as is and
continuing this item to September 16, 1997. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Brathwaite. The motion passed by a vote of 3-0.
ITEM 2 MASTER CASE NUMBER 97-111 (PREVIOUS CASE NUMBER 93-198),
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT SCH #96112028
The staff report was given by Laura Stotler, Associate Planner.
Joe Power from Rincon Consultants, presented an overview of the Final EIR's Responses to
Comments. Mr. Power said a total of 39 letters were received. He said most of the letters did
not focus on the EIR but on the project itself.
Ms. Stotler reviewed the two draft Resolutions that were included in the Agenda Packet: Staff'
is recommending that an amendment be made to change four links from 6 lanes to S lanes. The
other roadways would remain the same designations.
Chairperson Hoback asked if the EIR would have to be redone if the changes were made. Mr.
Lambert said no.
Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engineer, answered questions posed to him by the Commission.
Public participation was opened at 8:18 p.m.
Those supporting the item were: Tom Villos, 28220 Industry Drive, Santa Clarita; Louis
Grarassi, 26737 Granaldo Lane, Santa Clarita; Connie Worden Roberts, 27075 Littlefield, Santa
Clarita; Tim Burkhardt, 24601 Wayman Street, Santa Clarita and Frank Ferry, 25768 Miquel
Court, Santa Clarita.
Issues discussed were roadway strategies for the future, road deficits, connection of major roads
to the freeways; road improvements; and service levels of roadways.
RECESS
Chairperson Hoback called a recess at 8:30 p.m.
MINUTES OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
October 7, 1997
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order by
Chairperson Hoback at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First
Floor, Santa Clarita, California.
FLAG SALUTE
The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was led by Commissioner Berger.
ROLL CALL
The secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairperson Hoback and Commissioners
Brathwaite, Berger, Kellar and Killmeyer. Also present were Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City
Manager, Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager, Fred Follstad, Associate Planner; Laura Stotler,
Associate Planner; Jennifer Reid, Associate Planner; Conal McNamara, Assistant Planner II;
Jeffrey Hogan, Planning Technician; Lawrence Cushman, Supervising Civil Engineer; Thomas
Altmayer, Assistant City Attorney; and Lori Powell, secretary.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Brathwaite and seconded by Commissioner Berger to
approve the Agenda. Said motion was passed by a vote of 5-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Brathwaite requested that Item 3 be pulled from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
ITEM 1 .APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 13,1997
ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 19,1997
A motion was made by Commissioner Berger and seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite to
approve Items 1 and 2 of the Consent Calendar. Said motion was passed by a vote of 4-1 with
Commissioner Kellar abstaining.
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 25,1997
_ Commissioner Brathwaite requested that more information be added to the minutes regarding
comments made by Chairperson Hoback with reference to the Bridge and Thoroughfare District.
A motion was made by Commissioner Brathwaite and seconded by Commissioner Killmeyer to
approve Item 3 as modified. Said motion was passed by vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Kellar
abstaining.
ITEM 4 PROPOSED OPTIONS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA'S RECENTLY ADOPTED ADULT BUSINESS ORDINANCE
REGARDING PRE-EXISTING LEGAL ADULT BUSINESS USES AND THE
REDUCTION OF ALLOWABLE SITES FOR ADULT RELATED USES
The staff report was given by Jeffrey Hogan, Planning Technician.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:0.8 p.m.
Those speaking in opposition to this matter were: Laurie Kendall, 27945 Oakgale Avenue, Santa
Clarita; Kim Wynn, 25769 Covala Court, Santa Clarita; Greg Sudbury, 22616 Barbacoa Drive,
Santa Clarita; Mike Lomont, 20331 Lakemore Drive, Santa Clarita; Len Clapp, 25647 Alicante
Drive, Santa Clarita; Gregg Gentry, 27611 Cherry Creek Drive, Santa Clarita; Janice Gentry,
27611 Cherry Creek Drive, Santa Clarita; Kurt Jurado, 28367 Sand Canyon Road, #63, Santa
Clarita; Bill Prange, 28271 Enderly St., Santa Clarita; Pat O Kelley, 26821 Bungelow Court
Drive, Santa Clarita; and Richard W. Siler, 27245 Rosemont Lane, Santa Clarita.
Ms. Kendall presented the Commission with a petition with 335 signatures. The petition asked
the Commission to amend the proposed ordinance and require all pre-existing businesses to
comply with all provisions of the adult business ordinance within a two year period (a 2/2
amortization instead of the proposed 2/5 amortization).
Some of the other issues brought up by the speakers included increased crime because of adult
businesses, the affects of adult businesses with schools, decreases in property values, keeping
a family oriented community, safety issues, and speakers not being required to give addresses
when speaking on controversial issues. All of the speakers preferred a 2/2 amortization.
Thomas Altmayer, Assistant City Attorney, gave an overview of the 2/2 amortization versus a
2/5 amortization. Mr. Altmayer said research that has been done indicates that a 2/5
amortization has been affirmatively approved as a reasonable time period and is a defensible
ordinance.
Chairperson Hoback asked if other cities had the 2/5 amortization program. Mr. Altmayer said
there were a number of cities in the Southern California area that had this program and he did
not know of any cities that had been challenged on this issue.
Commissioner Killmeyer asked if any reports had been received from the Sheriffs Department
regarding crime statistics for the existing adult business in Santa Clarita. Mr. Hogan stated
no problems had been reported.
2
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:06 p.m.
A motion was made by Commissioner Killmeyer and seconded by Commissioner Berger to adopt
Resolution P97-17 recommending approval of the Adult Business Amendment, with the 2/5
amortization, pertaining to pre-existing adult business uses and the Negative Declaration to the
City Council. A roll call vote was taken. Commissioners Killmeyer, Brathwaite, Berger,. Kellar
and Hoback voted yes. Said motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
ITEM 5 MASTER CASE NUMBER 96-228 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER
52276; RESOLUTION P97.18)
The staff report and slide presentation was given by Conal McNamara, Assistant Planner IL
Mr..McNamara said changes have been made to conditions 45, 46 and 47. On condition 45, the
grades on A street should be 8 1/2%, not 7; on conditions 46 and 47 the right of way width should
be -57 feet, not 58 feet.
Commissioner Kellar inquired about condition 46. He said the plans for the Tentative Tract
map indicated the sidewalk for proposed street "A" was 6 feet while the condition stated it was
5 feet. He asked what was correct. Lawrence Cushman, Supervising Civil Engineer said the
correct measurement was 5'.
Commissioner Killmeyer asked if an agreement had been reached with the school district for
a certain amount of monies. Mr. McNamara said it was his understanding that there had been
an agreement.
Chairperson Hoback asked about slope maintenance. She wanted to know if the developer could
be responsible for the slope maintenance. Mr. Cushman said if slopes are adjacent to a public
right of way, if there is no HOA, they are included in the Landscape Maintenance District.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m.
The representative for the applicant Pacific Bay Homes, Glen Yamamoto, 23770 Valencia
Boulevard, Suite 200, Santa Clarita, was the first speaker. He clarified the slope maintenance
issue. He said thele is an agreement with the adjoining development, California Summit, to
install the landscaping and irrigation in that area and they would take over the maintenance.
There was one speakerin opposition to.this project, Tim Tyo, 26508 North Kinglet Place, Santa
Clarita. He said when he purchased his home he was told he would have a view out across the
valley and he had been assured that this area would never be developed. He brought this up
with his HOA but he was told that because the entire development was not impacted, they could
not do anything about him losing his view. He did not know the development was taking place
until two weeks ago.
Mr. Lambert said changes would be made to the conditions to clarify the maintenance of the
slope areas. One slope would be maintained by the Landscape Maintenance District and the
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SANTA
CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE IN REGARD TO THE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO
PRE-EXISTING LEGAL ADULT BUSINESS USES AND ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita regarding
an amendment to the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code and Santa Clarita Municipal
Code in regard to the regulations pertaining to pre-existing legal adult business uses and
adopting the negative declaration for these amendments. The Project location is citywide.
Master Case 97-133, UDC Amendment 97-002.
The hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 27th day of January,
1998, at or after 6:30 p.m.
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
Clerks office at (805) 255-4391, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite
301, 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.
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
Dated: December 11, 1997
Publish Date: December 29, 1998
current\notadamJwb
IU010.)11WZraY(1)1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on February 10, 1998, the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita adopted Ordinance 98-3 entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA , CALIFORNIA
PROVIDING AN AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THE PRE-EXISTING LEGAL
ADULT BUSINESS USE SECTIONS OF THE ADULT BUSINESS ORDINANCE.
by the following vote:
AYES: Darcy, Smyth,.Majic,
NOES: Boyer, Heidt
ABSENT: None
A certified copy of the complete text of the ordinance is posted and may be read in the City
Clerk's Office, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 301, Santa Clarita, and/or a copy may be
obtained from that office.
Dated this 12th day of February, 1998.
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
Sharon L. Dawson, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly
appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that by Thursday,
February 12, 1998, she caused a certified copy of the subject ordinance to be posted and
made available for public review in the City Clerk's office and a copy of the ordinance
summary to be published as required by law.
P� x
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita