Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - UDC AMEND ORD (2)PUBLIC HEARING "I M631 SUBJECT: AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: November 23, 1999 AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ORDINANCE NO. 99-15 Planning and Building Services RECOMMENDED ACTION The City Council receive staff presentation, open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing, discuss and approve a resolution to adopt the negative declaration, introduce Ordinance 99-15, and pass to second reading on December 14, 1999. Since the Unified Development Code (UDC) was adopted in 1991, it has been regularly updated. During the implementation of the UDC; staff has periodically noted various portions of the UDC that either require clarification, or do not reflect current City policies. The proposed amendments to the UDC will codify current city policies, director's interpretations and definitions of terms not currently in the Code. ANALYSIS Planning staff coordinated with other departments and divisions, including Traffic and Engineering Services, Geographic Information Systems, and Building and Safety to collect the changes before you tonight. Ordinance 99-15 contains approximately 200 changes to the UDC amending 24 sections of the code will be amended with these changes. The amendments to the code also include new regulations based on comments that planning staff has received from the public, Planning Commission, and City Council. The proposed amendments include changing the Permitted Use Chart to allow auto repair in the CC (Community Commercial) zone with a Minor Use Permit. Currently, auto repair is a permitted use in the CC zone and staff does not have the ability to deny an application based upon its compatibility with surrounding properties. This proposed change is a result of the Planning Commission's concern regarding an auto repair use that was approved earlier this year that was located near residential uses. Also, the Sand Canyon and Placerita Special Standards requirements would be amended to allow fences within the 20 -foot frontyard setback to be constructed as high as 5 feet. Currently the UDC allows fencing within the 20 -foot front yard setback to be no higher P", i e.Y ! ��fp yrs •''��sItem 8;4a ,O than 3 1/2 feet, or 4 feet if it is constructed with none view obscuring material such as wrought iron. Because many residents in these areas have animals that are able to jump over 4 foot fencing, the maximum required height for fencing in the Placenta and Sand Canyon Special Standards Districts would be increased to 5 feet. In order to maintain the rural character of these special standards districts, any fence 5 feet in height, constructed within the 20 -foot front yard setback shall be a split rail fence made of cement of wood. This amendment is a result of concerns raised by the Planning Commission. City staff contacted other cities throughout California regarding commercial parking standards. The eight cities contacted are Palmdale, Lancaster, San Dimas, Pasadena, Rancho Cucamonga, Indio, Palm Desert, and San Bernadino. Palm Desert and Lancaster require standard sized spaces be 9' x 20' in size and San Bernadino and Indio require standard spaces be 9' x 19' in size. Both dimensions are larger than Santa. Clarita's current requirement that standard spaces be 9'x 18' in size. Palm Desert, San Bernadino, Indio, and Rancho Cucamonga do not allow compact spaces, where the City of Santa Clarita allows for up to 20% of a required parking area be compact. Lancaster, Palm Desert, Pasadena and San Dimas require compact spaces be 8' x 16' in size, which is larger than current Santa Clarita standards of 8' x 15'. With this amendment the UDC will require spaces larger than both current City of Santa Clarita requirements and other cities requirements. The proposed requirement for standard spaces is 10'x 20', and compact spaces is 9'x 18': An initial study and negative declaration were prepared and circulated for public review September 17,1999 though October 19, 1999. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Council may choose not to adopt Resolution (a) and Ordinance 99-15 and not pass to second reading on December 14, 1999. 2. Other direction as determined by the City Council FISCAL IMPACT None by this action. ATTACHMENTS Summary of Changes Resolution No. (a) Ordinance No. 99-15 Proposed amendments to the UDC (Exhibit A) COUNCIL READING FILE Planning Commission Resolution P99-024 Staff Report to Planning Commission hearing October 19, 1999 Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Amendments to the UDC s:\pbs\aimee\udcccrpt CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE THE PROJECT LOCATION IS CITYWIDE MASTER CASE 99-155 — UDC AMENDMENT 99-003 ORDINANCE NO. 99-15 THE PROJECT PROPONENT IS THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita regarding the City of Santa Clarita amending various sections of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code. The project location is Citywide. Master Case 99-155 — UDC Amendment 99-003 — Ordinance No. 99-15. The project proponent is the City of Santa Clarita. A Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this proposal and is available for public review at City Hall, Planning and Building Services Department, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite No. 302, Santa Clarita, California. The hearing will be held by the Santa Clarita City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, on the 23`" day of November, 1999, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting Aimee Gerstenberger at the Planning and Building Services Department, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California. The phone number is (661) 255-4330. If you wish to challenge this action 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 Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Dated: October 26,1999 Sharon L. Dawson, CMC City Clerk Publish Date: October 29,1999 \comes\phdevcode SUMMARY OF CHANGES The following is a summary of significant changes to the Unified Development Code (UDC), known as Sections 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code. The proposed amendments in their entirety are attached to Ordinance 99-15 (attached). Title 16. Subdivisions • residential access shall not be permitted on any residential street with a project traffic volume of 2,000 trips a day or more • any highway or street shall intersect as nearly a right angle as practicable • bus stops shall be installed that include turnouts, shelters/benches, trash receptacles and signage to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation and Engineering Services • a developer shall pay street maintenance fees to cover the cost of one time slurry seal of all pavements constructed as public streets within a development Title 17. Zonin • notification for Minor Use Permits for alcohol service shall be a 250 -foot radius around the subject property • require Minor Use Permits for auto repair uses in the Community Commercial zones • increase the height of fences to 5 feet in the front yard setback area for Placerita Canyon and Sand Canyon Special Standards Districts • alcohol, retail and firearm sales, food preparation, on-site massage therapists, hairdressers, and vehicle storage, sales and repair shall not be permitted to operate as home occupations • the terms "Assisted Living Facility, "Homeless Shelter, "Extended Stay Motel shall be added to the Definitions and Permitted Use Chart sections • relocate definitions related to oak trees to the Oak Tree Ordinance •' modify cross-section diagram to illustrate a landscape parkway, 5 feet in width, located between the curb and sidewalk • all legal residential parcels shall be permitted to have one driveway point • all new and existing utilities shall be installed underground, including along project street frontage • small animals shall be defined as an animal weighing less than 300 pounds • at a minimum, 15 -gallon trees are required for parking lot landscaping • tree species that will achieve a 50% parking lot coverage canopy within five years • standard parking spaces shall be 10'x 20' • compact parking spaces shall be 9'x 18' • a stormwater prevention plan and a grading plan shall be prepared and a copy available for review on-site • grading work cannot start until the City has been notified of the pregrading meeting at least 48 hours in advance s:/pbs/aimee/udcsmry NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting held November 23, 1999, continued a public hearing on certain sections of 20. AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE — Since the Unified Development Code (UDC) was adopted in 1991, it has been regularly updated. During the implementation of the UDC, staff has periodically noted various portions of the UDC that either require clarification, or do not reflect current City policies. The proposed amendments to the UDC will codify current City policies, director's interpretations, and definitions of terms not currently in the Code. to January 11, 2000. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. Dated this 24' day of November, 1999. SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING 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 on November 24, 1999, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. SHARON L- DAWSON, CITY CLERK Santa Clarita, California -contph CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 99-155 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-003 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE: TO: FROM: CASE PLANNER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: BACKGROUND October 19, 1999 Ch ' erson Kellar and Members of the Planning Commission Jeff Lambert, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Services Aime Gerstenberger, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita Citywide Amend and clarify various sections of the Unified Development Code. Since the Unified Development Code (UDC) was written and implemented, it has been periodically updated. Staff has noted various portions of the UDC that require clarification, and do not reflect current City policies. There are also areas of the UDC that need to be amended to more adequately implement the General Plan, as well as to allow staff review the various applications submitted. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Attached are the items that will be incorporated into the Unified Development Code. These items range from Title 16, "Subdivisions" to Title 17, "Zoning." The amendments to these sections are policies that have been established by staff, including the Director of Planning and Building Services interpretations. Other amendments include, but are not limited to, small changes to the UDC related to animal keeping, home occupation permits, and definitions. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING This application is citywide. The application is consistent with and will implement the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS As a part of this project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts of the project. It was determined there were no adverse environmental impacts as a result of the project. Subsequently, a Draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The Negative Declaration was available for public review and comment on Friday, September 17, 1999 through, Tuesday, October 19, 1999. Staff has not received any comments from the public regarding the proposed changes and the subsequent environmental review. ANALYSIS Various sections of the UDC will be amended. They are: Title 16 Subdivisions Design Standards Local Streets and Ways Subdivision Improvements Bonds and Deposits Tentative Tracts and Parcel Maps Final Maps and Parcel Maps Mapping Specifications Modifications to Tentative and Recorded Maps Title 17 General Provisions Permits and Applications Definitions Title 17 Zonine Permitted Use Chart Property Development Standards Special Zones and Standards Special Uses and Standards Parking Title 17 Gradine Scope Permits Permit Application Security Precautions Import and Export Excavations and Fills Drainage and Terracing Dust Prevention and Control Some of these changes include, but are not limited to, defining terms that are not currently in the 'Definitions" section of the UDC, including, "Extended Stay Hotel", "Assisted Living Facility" and "Homeless Shelter." The Permitted Use Chart would be amended to include uses that are not currently in the section, for example; 'Day Care Center" will be permitted with a conditional use permit in the Agricultural and Residential zones, and permitted with a minor use permit in the non-residential zones. Standards for split rail fences would be added to both the "Sand Canyon Special Standards District" and the "Placerita Special Standards District." A "Dust Control Compliance Statement" will be required to be signed by the property owner and submitted to the Department of Transportation and Engineering Services. All sections that refer to the 'Director of Community Development" should be changed to say 'Director of Planning and Building Services." Staff has determined that these amendments are consistent with and will implement the City's General Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Adopt Resolution No. P99-024, which recommends approval to the City Council of Ordinance No. 99-15, the subsequent list of amendments, and the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, finding that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. P99-024 List of amendments to the Unified Development Code Negative Declaration Initial Study s: \ pbs \ pingcom \ 99155sr CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [XI Proposed [ I Final ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- MASTER CASE NO: 99-155 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Unified Development Code Amendment 99-003 APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The proposed amendment consists of a "clean-up" of the City's Unified Development Code. Various sections of the UDC will be amended, including the permitted use chart, grading ordinance, development standards and the parking ordinance. These amendments are considered to .be non -controversial items, and therefore, can be included into one amendment. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [XI City Council [ I Planning Commission [ I Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [XI Are Not Required [ I Are Attached [ I Are Not Attached JEFF LAMBERT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETY Prepared by: (Name/Mtle) Approved by`: Lisa Hardy, AICP, Associate Planner (, gnature) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From September 17.1999 To October 19, 1999. Public Notice Given On September 17, 1999 By: [XI Legal Advertisement [ I Posting .of Properties [ I written Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFICATION DATE: current\nd99155 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Lead Agency: Contact Person & Phone Number: Master Case or CIP Number: Entitlement Type(s): Project Location: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation(s): Project Applicant: (Name, Address, Phone) City of Santa Clarita Aimee Gerstenberger, Assistant Planner it City of Santa Clarita (661)255-4330 Master Case No. 99-155 UDC Amendment 99-003 Citywide N/A N/A City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 (661)255-4330 Project Description/Setting: The City of Santa Clarita is proposing a "clean-up" of the Unified Development Code (UDC). This "clean-up" consists of amendments to various sections of the UDC. These amendments primarily are considered non -controversial items, and therefore can be combined into one amendment. The proposed amendment, known as Ordinance No. 99-15, consists of amending various chapters and standards of the City's Unified Development Code regarding, but not limited to permitted uses, home occupation permits, fence height, grading permits and definitions. Surrounding Land Uses/Setting: N/A Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None 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. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Transportation/ [ ] Public Services Circulation [ ] . Population and Housing [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Noise [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Water [ ] Hazards [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Stormwater Management [ ] Energy and Mineral [ ] Utilities and Service & Recycling Resources System [ ] Air Quality (] Mandatory Tests of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] 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. 2 Prepared By: Aimee Gerstenberger 9/17/99 Assistant lanner II Anv"X C 4u� (Signature) (Name/Title) (Date) Lisa Hardy, AICP 9/17/99 Associate Planner i � p (Signature) (Name/1'itie) (Date) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impart Potentially Unless Less 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 [X] b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Se incompatible with existing land use in the city? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an [ ] [ ] [ I [X] established community (including a low-income or minority community)? e) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [XI f) other [l [] [I [X] II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [ ] [ ] . [ ] [X] population projections? b) Create a net loss of jobs? [ ] [ ] [ I [X'I c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] housing? d) Other [ ] [ ] [ I [XI III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in [ ] [ ] [ ] [XI geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [ ] [ ] [ I [X] 3 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? g) Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? h) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? 1) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? j) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25% natural grade? k) Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? 1) Other IV. WATER. would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in. any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements? f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either 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? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact [l [] II IX] [l [] II [X] [l [] II [X] [] [I II IXI [] [] II IXI [] [] LI IX] I] I] II IXI [] I] II [X] [] [] II IXI [] [] II IX] [] [] II IXI [] [] II IX] [] [] II [XI [] [1 [] [X] [] [l [] [X]' [] [I [I [XI [] [1 [] [X] [] [l [] [X]' [] L] II [XI j) Other V. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING. Would the proposal result in: a) Would the proposed project result in storm water system discharges from areas for materials, storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? b) Would the proposed project result in a significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow rate or volume of the project site or surrounding areas? c) Would the proposed project result in storm water discharges that would significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? d) Would the proposed project cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? e) Does the proposed project include provisions for the separation and reuse of materials? VI. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Create objectionable odors? d) Other VII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wouldthe proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus stops, bicycle racks)? Potentially [I Significant [XI Impact II Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Il I1 II 5 No Impact [XI [I [I 11 [X1 I [l 11 [Xl I1 II 11 [Xl 11 Il [l VI 11 [l Il [Xl [1 [I [] [XI [] II II IXI [] [I [I IXI [] [] 11 [XI [} [] 11 [XI [] [l 11 [XI [I [] 11 [XI [] [} 11 [XI [I [I 11 [Xl, [I [} 11 [XI d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] e) Other [ ] IX. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ ] inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ] resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? d) Other [] X. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [ ] hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response [ ] plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential [ ] health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ] health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable [ ] brush, grass, or trees? f) Other [ ] XI. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [ ] vibration? c) Other [] a No Impact [X1 [X1 [X] [X] [XI [] [] [XI [ ] [] Potentially [l [] [Xl [ ] [] significant [] [] (X] (] (1 Impact [ ] [] [X] . Potentially Unless Leas than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact g) Disjointed pattern of roadway improvements [ ] [ ] [ ] h) Other (] [] [] VIII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their [] [] [] habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Oak trees? [ ] [ ] ( ] c) Wetland habitat or blueline stream? [ ] [ ] [ ] d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] e) Other [ ] IX. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ ] inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ] resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? d) Other [] X. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [ ] hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response [ ] plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential [ ] health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ] health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable [ ] brush, grass, or trees? f) Other [ ] XI. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [ ] vibration? c) Other [] a No Impact [X1 [X1 [X] [X] [XI [] [] [XI [ ] [] [X] [l [] [Xl [ ] [] [X] [] [] (X] (] (1 [X] [ ] [] [X] . [ l [ ] [X] Section and Evaluation of Impact Subsections III, IV, V, VI,VIII,XV The proposed amendment, which consists of minor additions and changes to GEOLOGIC/ portions of the UDC, also known as a "clean-up", will not result in any significant WATER/STORM- impacts on geology, water stormwater management and recycling, air quality, WATER AND biological resources, and cultural resources. The proposal is consistent with and RECYCLING/ will implement the goals and policies of the City s General Plan. AIR QUALITY/ BIOLOGICAL/ CULTURAL RESOURCES VII,XII,XIIIXVI The proposed amendment which is considered a non -controversial "clean-up" of the UDC will not result in any significant impacts on transportation and TRANSPORTATION circulation, public services, utilities, and recreation. The proposal is consistent AND with and will implement the goals and polices of the City's General Plan. CIRCULATION/ PUBLIC SERVICES/ UTILITIES/ RECREATION IX The proposed amendment; which is a "clean-up" of the UDC, will not result in ENERGY AND . any significant impact on energy and mineral resources. The proposal is consistent with and will implement the goals and policies of the City s General MINERAL Plan. RESOURCES X, X1, XIV The proposed amendment, which is considered a non -controversial general "clean-up" of the Unified Development Code, will not result in any significant. HAZARDS/ impact on the public's health, safety or general welfare. The proposal is NOISE/ consistent with and will implement the goals and policies of the City's General AESTHETICS Plan. s:\pbs\currentVs99155 9 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on November 23, 1999, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita introduced Ordinance 99-15 entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 17.16.080.3.a and 17.16.080.B.2 OF THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE 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 24th day of November, 1999. J � 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 Wednesday, November 24, 1999, 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. Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk City of Santa Clarita