HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - AMEND UDC HISTORIC (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT
Agenda Item:
1 I
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
Alex Hernandez
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
August 26, 2008
AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW
Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. City Council conduct the public hearing and introduce and pass to second reading an,
ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA CONSISTING OF MASTER CASE 08-103, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT 08-003 FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW, AND ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION."
2. City Council approve a fee program whereby the Community Development Department pays
for costs to residential property owners that may undergo historic preservation review.
BACKGROUND
In June 2007, the City Council Economic Development/Redevelopment Subcommittee met to
receive information and provide feedback regarding historic preservation. At that meeting, a
temporary review process was discussed to evaluate the demolition and/or inappropriate
alteration of the City's historic resources and potential historic resources.
Since that time, staff has worked toward establishing a phased approach to historic preservation.
The first phase consists of a temporary historic preservation review process to evaluate
demolition or alteration requests to a historic resource or potential historic resource. The second
phase will be a more comprehensive historic preservation ordinance or program to include:
establishment of historic designation criteria; historic survey of sites; and financial incentives for
continued preservation of the City's historic resources. At this time, no funding is available to
begin the second phase. A mid -year budget adjustment would be needed for historic preservation
Ordinance passed to
Second reading
consultant services to complete the project.
On July 15, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
amendments for historic preservation review. The Planning Commission adopted 4-1 the staff
recommendation to forward the amendments to the City Council for approval. The Planning
Commission further recommended that the City Council approve a fee program whereby the
Community Development Department pays for costs to residential property owners that may
undergo historic preservation review. The Commission also recommended that the second phase
of the historic preservation project be shortened to less than three years.
On August 4, 2008, the Newhall Redevelopment Committee voted unanimously to support the
proposed code amendments for Historic Preservation Review. The Committee also voted in
favor of the Planning Commission's recommendations.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
At this time, two lists identify historic resources and potential historic resources in the City of
Santa Clarita. A list of Historic Resources is part of the Open Space and Conservation Element
of the City's General Plan. A second list of sites was identified in the Environmental Impact
Report prepared for the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan (DNSP).
The proposed code amendments would establish a process for Historic Preservation Review and
require approval of a Minor Use Permit prior to the alteration or demolition of an identified
historic resource or potentially historic resource. Exceptions to Historic Preservation Review are
provided for alterations that do not affect the historic integrity of the resource and allow a
property owner more expedient change in tenancy.
The proposed code amendments are intended to be in effect for three years from the date of
approval. The amendments are intended to be an interim solution to protect potentially historic
resources while allowing the City time to explore a more permanent Historic Preservation
Ordinance or Program.
The General Plan List of Historic Resources has thirty-three sites (33) listed. Nine sites would
not be affected by the proposed code amendments because they are not within City limits or the
original buildings are no longer visible. Some of those sites not affected are the Oak of the
Golden Dream, St. Francis Dam Disaster Site, and Mentryville. The DNSP list of histonc and
potential historic resources includes thirty-eight (38) additional sites that are not listed within the
General Plan List of Historic Resources. In total, sixty-two (62) historic and potential historic
resources may be affected by the proposed code amendments for Historic Preservation Review.
Of the sites that may be affected by the proposed amendments six (6) sites are currently occupied
as residences. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council exempt these
residential property owners from the minor use permit fee.
The City's General Plan and DNSP both recommend adoption of a historic preservation
ordinance as a tool to accomplish preservation of historic structures and sites. The proposed
code amendments for Historic Preservation Review fulfill those policy goals to provide
discretionary review of demolition and alteration permits that would affect historic and potential
historic resources. At this time, the City does not have regulatory language that gives discretion
over the issuance of demolition permits. Therefore, none of the resources identified on the City's
list of historic resources (General Plan and DNSP) require review and have no protections in
place prior to demolition.
The code amendments do not obligate a property owner to renovate or conduct alterations to their
properties: Additionally, the code amendments allow for the continued use of the subject
properties.
Staff has conducted three community and stakeholder meetings over the last six months to
receive feedback on the draft code amendments for Historic Preservation Review. Notifications
for each meeting were mailed to affected property owners, interested stakeholders, and the
Newhall Redevelopment Committee. At each meeting, attendees were afforded the opportunity
to comment on the draft code amendments.
Revisions recommended directly from interested stakeholders, including property owners of
identified historic resources, have been incorporated into the proposed code amendments.
Specifically, these include:
• Establishing a specific timeline of 36 months that the proposed code amendments will
remain in effect.
• Adding other acceptable alterations consistent with the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan
that can be exempt from the minor use permit process such as:
• Fixed or moveable cases, racks, shelving, and partitions not exceeding 6 feet in
height;
• Carpeting, hardwood or tile flooring, counters, or countertops and similar finish
work;
• Garage and closet organizers, cabinets or shelving not exceeding 8 feet in height;
and
• Temporary motion picture, television, and theater stage sets and scenery.
Applications for projects affected by the code amendments will be processed by the City's
Planning- Division. Planning will use the existing contract with the City's architectural
consultant and their selected historic preservation expert to review and comment on projects
affecting historic and potential historic resources. The code amendments will use the same
process, timelines, and notification requirements currently being used for Minor Use Permits.
The proposed amendments accomplish the goal of providing discretionary review for alteration
or demolition of historic and potential historic resources. The Historic Preservation Review
process will serve to educate property owners to carry out responsible and effective preservation
and adaptive reuse of our community's limited cultural resources.
The proposed amendments include additions to Chapter 17 of the Unified Development Code.
Specifically, additions to Chapter 17.03 Permits and Applications would establish a Historic
Preservation Review Section and Chapter 17.13 Permitted Use Chart would be changed to
include a Minor Use Permit for Historic Preservation Review.
Staff from various departments including Planning, Building and Safety, Redevelopment, and the,
City Attorney's office have reviewed these amendments and have found them to be in substantial
conformance with City and State regulations. Likewise, the proposed amendments utilize
existing permitting processes to be the least disruptive method for achieving Historic
Preservation Review.
"Exhibit A" contains all of the proposed amendments. Underlined sections within Exhibit A
indicate new wording for the specific sections of the Unified Development Code. The following
is an explanation of selected portions of the proposed amendments to the Unified Development
Code, Chapter 17, found in "Exhibit A:"
17.03145.E Definitions
Definitions were created for "Historic Resource" and "Potential Historic Resource." Properties
and sites identified within the General Plan and EIR of the DNSP were selected based on the
records research and preliminary review, completed by professionals in the field of historic
preservation. Specific language for the Definitions section exempts sites that previously had a
historic resource that are now vacant. The code amendments will apply only to properties within
the City limits. Administratively, a Statement of Proceedings will be filed with the Los Angeles
County Recorder's Office for all 62 properties that could be affected by the code amendments.
The statement will reference the effective dates of the ordinance adopting the historic
preservation code amendments and will be recorded on the property title.
17.03.145.D Actions by the Approving Authority
A new section was created to identify the Director of Community Development for review of
minor use permit requests for renovation or alteration of a historic or potential historic resource.
Demolition requests will require a hearing before the Planning Commission. This distinction
alleviates the Director from being the sole decision -maker for approving or denying a demolition
request. A public hearing before the Planning Commission would allow for public participation
and review of the demolition request.
17 03.145.E Findings
Separate findings for demolition and alteration were created to approve a Minor Use Permit.
Alterations or renovation to a historic or potential historic resource are allowed but cannot
adversely affect the historical significance of the structure, should be consistent with {the
architectural style of the building, and should be compatible with adjacent structures. Findings
for the demolition of a historic resource were written to require submission of plans for a
replacement structure and evidence of financial commitment for the replacement structure. The
merits of the replacement structure will be weighed against the significance of the historic or
potential historic resource.
17.03.145.F Exceptions
Exceptions to the Minor Use Permit were created for certain repair work and interior
modifications. These were specifically requested by property owners wishing to expedite any
review process that might interfere with the rental of property for a new tenant. Any renovation
or alteration not provided in the exceptions section will trigger Historic Preservation Review.
17.03.145.1 Penaltyfor Demolition or Irreversible Alteration
The penalty for the unpermitted demolition of a historic resource or potential historic resource
was created. No building or construction related permits, along with permits for use of the
property, would be issued for a period of ten (10) years from the date of demolition. While this
section was deliberated the most at community meetings, a consensus was reached that an
alternative to financial penalties should be assessed. The time period for punishment is the
median length of time assessed based on a survey of other jurisdictions with similar penalties for
unpermitted demolition of historic and potential historic resources.
17.03.080 Permitted Use Chart — Development Activities/Miscellaneous Use Type
Classifications
A minor use permit is required for the demolition or alteration of a historic resource or potential
historic resource for all zones within the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The Initial Study was posted for public review beginning July 28, 2008, until August
26, 2008. The Initial Study determined that none of the proposed amendments would create a
significant impact on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared in
accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA.
During the public review period before the Planning Commission, one written comment was
submitted by the Queen of Angels Catholic Church located at 24244 Walnut Avenue. The site is
noted within the General Plan and EIR of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan as an identified
historic resource. The comments highlight development constraints if demolition of the existing
building is not allowed. The proposed code amendments establish a process for Historic
Preservation Review and require approval of a Minor Use Permit prior to demolition of an
identified historic resource or potential historic resource.
To date, no written comments have been submitted during the public review period for the public
hearing before the City Council.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts anticipated at this time by the proposed code amendments. Any costs
to residential property owners that may undergo historic preservation review will be paid by the
Community Development Department.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance -
Proposed UDC Amendments for Historic Preservation Review
General Plan Picture Catalog
Downtown Newhall Specific Plan Picture Catalog
Initial Study available in the City Clerk's Reading File
r
b
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 1St Floor, Santa Clarita,
California, on the 26th day of August, 2008, at or after 6:00 p.m. to consider the approval
of amendments to the City's Unified Development Code for Master Case 08-103
establishing a new section for Historic Preservation Review.
The City.of Santa Clarita is preparing amendments to its Unified Development Code that
provides temporary measure to protect historic resources. The proposed code
amendments provided a heightened level of discretion to evaluate the potential
demolition or alteration to the City's list of historic resources and potentially, historic
resources.
A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this project. The
document is available for a public review period, during which the City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department will receive comments, beginning at 12:00 p.m. on
July 28, 2008 and ending at 12:00 p.m. on August 26, 2008. During the public review
period a copy of the draft negative declaration and all supporting documents will be
located at the Planning Division public counter located in the City Hall Building at 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. A copy of the draft negative
declaration (without all supporting documents) will be posted at the Los Angeles County
Library, Valencia Branch during the public review period noted above.
Proponents, opponents and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter
at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Community
Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA
91355; (661) 255-4330, Alex Hernandez, Administrative Analyst.
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: July 28, 2008
Sharon L. Dawson, MMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: July 28, 2008
S \CD\current\20081\08-103\08-103 CC Notice
ORDINANCE NO. 08 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONSISTING OF MASTER CASE 08-103, UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 08-003 FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
REVIEW, AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has stated goals in the City's General Plan to
respect and celebrate the area's heritage;
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department has initiated
a Unified Development Code Amendment (UDC) 08-003 to modify portions of Chapter 17 to
establish historic preservation review;
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were the subject of a duly noticed public hearing
before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission on July 15, 2008;
WHEREAS, after considering the staff report, staff presentation, as well as testimony
from the public, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P08-16 recommending that
the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Master Case No. 08-103 and the
UDC amendments attached as Exhibit "A";
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for this ordinance was prepared, noticed and
circulated for public review in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the City's
Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on August 26, 2008, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355.
Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the aforementioned meeting was duly noticed in
accordance with Government Code 65090. At this meeting, the City Council considered the staff
report, staff presentation, and public testimony on the proposed modifications, introduced the
ordinance, and passed the ordinance to a second reading on September 9, 2008.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The proposed amendments to the UDC are consistent with the City of Santa
Clarita Municipal Code and the City of Santa Clarita General Plan.
SECTION 2. The proposed amendments to the UDC identified in Exhibit A are hereby
adopted.
SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based
upon the foregoing facts and findings in the Initial Study prepared for the project, the City
Council further finds, approves, and determines as follows:
a. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental
agencies and the public and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The
document was posted and advertised on July 28, 2008, in accordance with CEQA. The
public review period was open from July 28, 2008, through August 26, 2008.
C. Staff found that there were no impacts created as a result of the proposed project and a
Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the CEQA.
The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita.
d. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is located with the files of
Master Case 08-103 which is within the Community Development Department and is in
the custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 4. 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 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its
passage and adoption.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
11:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
2
MAYOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance 08- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first
reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2008.
That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council on the day of , 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
X1:1•
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance
and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C.
3
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Ordinance 08- , adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, CA on , 2008, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
, 2008.
Sharon L. Dawson, MMC
City Clerk
By
Susan L. Caputo, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
4
HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW
RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENTS
Chapter 17.03
PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS
Sections:
Permits.
17.03.010
Development Agreements.
17.03.015
Specific Plans.
17.03.020
Zone Changes and Amendments.
17.03.025
Master Plans.
17.03.03,0 Tentative Subdivision Maps.
17.03.040 Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits.
17.03.045 Nonconstruction Conditional Use Permits and Nonconstruction Minor Use
17.03.145. Historic Preservation Review
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the economic and general
welfare of the City of Santa Clarita by preserving and protecting public and private
historic, cultural, and natural resources which are of special historic or aesthetic character
or interest, or relocating such resources where necessary for their preservation and for
their use, education, and view by the general public. Through historic preservation
review, the Director of Community Development shall ensure that the project complies
with all of the provisions of the Unified Development Code, the General Plan, specific
plans and other legislative planning documents.
B. Definitions. As used in this section, these words have the following meanings:
1. "Historic Resource" shall mean structures or site features on properties listed
on the National Register of Historic Places, or the California Register of
Historic Landmarks, or the list of either California Historical Landmarks or
California Points.of Historical Interest.
Page I of 8
Historic Preservation
Code Amendments
Permits.
17.03.050
Variances and Adjustments.
17.03.060
Development Review.
17.03.070
Lot Line Adjustments.
17.03.080
Temporary Use Permits.
17.03.090
Home Occupation Permits.
17.03.100
Grading Permits.
17.03.110
Administrative Permit.
17.03.120
Hillside Development Review.
17.03.125
Ridgeline Alteration Permit.
17.03.130
Architectural Review.
17.03.140
Oak Tree Permit.
17.03.145
Historic Preservation Review.
17.03.145. Historic Preservation Review
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the economic and general
welfare of the City of Santa Clarita by preserving and protecting public and private
historic, cultural, and natural resources which are of special historic or aesthetic character
or interest, or relocating such resources where necessary for their preservation and for
their use, education, and view by the general public. Through historic preservation
review, the Director of Community Development shall ensure that the project complies
with all of the provisions of the Unified Development Code, the General Plan, specific
plans and other legislative planning documents.
B. Definitions. As used in this section, these words have the following meanings:
1. "Historic Resource" shall mean structures or site features on properties listed
on the National Register of Historic Places, or the California Register of
Historic Landmarks, or the list of either California Historical Landmarks or
California Points.of Historical Interest.
Page I of 8
Historic Preservation
Code Amendments
2. "Potential Historic Resource" shall mean structures and site features of an
property listed in the historic survey documents included in either the
Environmental Impact Report or the text or appendices of either the Santa
Clarita General Plan or the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, except for
properties upon which such previously identified structures and site features
no longer exist as of the effective date of this ordinance. A listing of sites will
be available with the Community Development Department.
C. Permit Required. The requirements of this section shall apply to the renovation,
alteration, or demolition of identified historic resources and potential historic resources
within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. A minor use permit is required for
historic preservation review. The application, fees, public hearing and approval process
for the minor use permit shall be as described in Section 17.03.040 and Section
17.01.100.
D. Actions by the Approving Authority. The Director of Community Development
has the discretion to approve, approve with modifications and/or conditions, refer the
matter to the Planning Commission or deny the minor use permit for renovation or
alteration to a historic resource or potential historic resource. In the instance of
demolition of a historic resource or potential historic resource, a hearing before the
Planning Commission will be required.
E. Findings. The approving authority approve a minor use permit pursuant to this
section, if it is determined that the following findings can be made with regard to the
proposed project:
1. Findings for Renovation or Alteration of a Historic Resource or Potential
Historic Resource:
a. The proposed renovation or alteration will not adversely affect any
significant historical, cultural, architectural or aesthetic feature of the
subject property or of the history of the neighborhood in which it is
located;
b. The proposed change is consistent with the architectural style of the
building;
c. The scale, massing, proportions, materials, colors, textures, fenestration
decorative features and details proposed are consistent with the period
and/or compatible with adjacent structures;
2. Findings for Demolition of a Historic Resource or Potential Historic Resource:
a. After required environmental review is completed, the applicant has
submitted a complete project application to the Community Development
Department for a replacement structure or project for the property
involved and;
b. After required environmental review is completed the applicant has
submitted evidence to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development that a financial commitment has been obtained by the
applicant to assure completion of such replacement structure or proiect.
c. The merits of the proposed replacement structure or project outweigh the
significance of the historic resource or potential historic resource.
Page 2 of 8
Historic Preservation
Code Amendments
F. Exceptions. The Director of Community Development ma,, exempt xempt the minor use
permit as follows if the following actions will not affect the historic integrity of the
historic resource or potential historic resource:
1. Repairing or replacing deteriorated historic materials with applications or use
of exterior materials of the same kind, type and texture already in use for re -
roof, windows, siding materials, chimneys and fireplaces or removal of
additions to retain original historic construction,
2. Fencing,
3. Replacement or deletions of awnings, shutters, canopies and similar incidental
appurtenances that do not affect the integrity of the underlying historic
structure,
4. Fixed or moveable cases, racks, shelving and partitions not exceeding 6 feet
in height;
5. Carpeting, hardwood or tile flooring, counters, or countertops and similar
finish work,
6. Garage and closet organizers, cabinets or shelving not exceeding 8 feet in
height.,
7. Temporary motion picture, television and theatre stage sets and scenery,
G. Expiration and Extension. The expiration period and the extention process of a
minor use permit will apply as desribed in Section 17.03.040 and Section 17.01.160.
H. Final Action. The decision of the approving authority is final and effective within
fifteen (15) calendar days unless an appeal is filed, in writing, in accordance with Section
17.0 1.110 for Director's action and Section 17.01.120 for Planning Commission action.
I. Penalty for Demolition or Irreversible Alteration. If a historic resource or
potential historic resource is demolished without a Minor Use Permit as required by this
section, no building or construction -related permits shall be issued, and no permits or use
of the property shall be allowed, from the date of demolition for a period of ten 0 0)
years.
Page 3 of 8
Historic Preservation
Code Amendments
Chapter 17.13
PERMITTED USE CHART
Sections:
17.13.005 Generally.
17.13.010 Residential Uses
17.13.020
Commercial Use Type Classifications
17.13.030
Industrial Use Type Classifications
17.13.040
Public and Semi -Public Use Type Classifications
17.13.050
Agricultural Use Type Classifications
17.13.060
Temporary Use Type Classifications
17.13.070
Accessory Structures and Uses Use Type classifications
17.13.080
Development Activities/Miscellaneous Use Type Classification
17.13.005 Generally.
Environmental clearance must be obtained prior to the installation, operation or
development of any use. All requirements for protection of significant ecological areas, flood
hazard areas and other areas of environmental concern identified by the Santa Clarita General
Plan shall be met.
This is not a complete list; the Director of Community Development may determine that
a use not listed below is similar to a listed use and process the proposal as the similar use would
be processed.
The following uses shall be permitted where the symbol "P" appears; subject to a
conditional use permit where the symbol "C" appears; subject to a minor use permit where the
symbol "M" appears; and prohibited where the symbol "X" appears. Numbers contained in
parentheses identify applicable notes found at the end of the Chapter.
Page 4 of 8
Historic Preservation
Code Amendments
a
a
a
a
s
a
U
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
U
U
a
U
O
W
F.
a
a
a
a
s
a
U
>C
>C ,
U
0-0
a
a.
P.
a
s0-4
a
a
a
a
s
a
U
X
U
P64
PQ
a
a
a
a
s
a
U
X
U
U
U
U
Ua
a
a
a
s
a�
U
>C
Q•
U
a
a
a
a
s
a
U
U
a
U
x
p
a
a..
a
a
s
a4
U
U
a
U
H
y
5c
a
a
a
a
s
a
U
U
a
U
a
a
a
a
s
a
V
U
>C
U
o
C
a
U
U
X
U
e�
a
a
a
a
s
a
U
U
X
U
v
a
H
a
a
a
a
s
a
U
U
X
U
a.
a
9,
a
s
a
�
U
U
�
U
...
cn
d
-
o
�
A
.r44-
r4
o
o
Y
" C'sb
opo
o
0
oC�j
°
o
°
b
o°
Ei
as
°
H
.o
U
Cut
d . o
d
uw
A d H
N
rl;
v
I
ro
L
U
x
x
x�
�
a
a
o,
W
a
x
x
x+
G
X
x
x�
a,
d G C
U
C
y
OO
v •[
co
ro
U
x
x
x�
z
U
x
xI
U
x
x
xI
03>
.n
x
x
xI
to
x
x
x
—5I
x
w
N r.
x
x
x
Z
O U
U
o c
x
x'x�
>
w^
a
x
x
x�
x
x
x�
x
x
x�
-0
v,
co
U
•N
U U
-+ it
•�
Pi xi
a�
on
o
ISS^
E�
°
o +
•�
O
d
un
y G c°
U �
cd
O
U
U U O
Q
V �
AdH
b m
w
ool
ro
L
U
� ami
o
o,
G
d G C
U
C
y
OO
v •[
co
ro
G
03>
.n
to
°
w
N r.
O U
U
o c
>
w^
Q)
U
G > (U
-0
co
b
U U
N
cczu
C13
y G c°
c b
cC
a
o o
b m
w
4%
ca
b
c u
4+
E G N y
C13
421,
O
K b U
Ij U
T >w0
U
U
C
U U
cd b
U D
C
U b
O
v y
a
Cl
v, a
on �?
G ca_
G Y v G
d 4+
Vi
U o oo
Q
G y.y
Ud
U o
-
° y o
a�
° "gyp
so "x
',—
II p
G U
w o
U
c w
G U
G°
�-
,�,
7:1 Q aGi
b U G U
.UC,13G.
o
}C
o
o E
O c�i to x aGi
aYUiC
o U
i o COdj
v >d
cd c7
0 d G
w ami U
y
Q' ch
N
U
cn
�•'
co
U T
N
cd �' N U
N
o0o
ate-+ p as+
G
Y d
O cG
0 O O
CD
U t]
U
N b
cull
G
U
"d
p N" O
f3. •= p .b
C G
T 0
O ^b)
N
G
aj C cd
G U cc
,b C
ti
o
o
o c
.c°o
on o
•2 2 ``-'
v�
T fl O bGA
U U U U N0 -0 D
�_ G U O
Q V)
pa
E
o
ox o
�cn
a72
�^� �°aaU
CnV)aa
Z
>
tb
a Z
Z
Ua('JM'IT
Vl�o[--
i.00C-•---
3
r
/
\
ƒ
%
\
\
°
(
\
\
\
Q)
\
}
\
\
/
(
/
\
t
%
)
(
\
0
4
/
5
9
G )
g
2
z
«
CIS
/
u
2;
\\
%
=
a ¥ =
)
k
(7k
2
\
§g
e a
9 c
\
/s
_
=
g {
$d
C13/
\
\
= \\
z Q
t
2
%
2 §
co§
;
<
>
2
8
g
w
»
—
e
-�=
5§
)
\
cJ
S
a
§ c\
=
\//(\\
0
\
)//�\
f
C) C)
\
r
\
§
—
®
C c c Q=
e o
- Cd
-
V) V)
\
§
t4 t,
k / / > k)
/ S 8
/
GQQ/\/fb\\33
/
§
§ ) \ G
\ 7 \ )
�
2
«
» u o g
I Q u u
\
w)
\\\\\/\\\///99
d
rd
52KS�o��rqr#r/�c
@
6
�n��—m
r
Santa Clarita General Plan
Table CO -1: Historical Resources in the
Santa Clarita Valley Planning Area
Identified Sites within the City limits — Proposed code amendments WOULD APPLY
Description
Address
Use
Listing
Photo of Site
Pioneer Oil
23552
N/A
State Historic
Refinery
Pine Street
Landmark
Lyon Station/
23287
Eternal Valley
Sierra
Commercial
State Historic
Cemetery
Highway
Landmark
Jauregui House
I
previously
22621
Residential
City Point of
owned by Frew
13`h Street
Historical Interest
Family
California Star
Oil Company
24148
Residential
City Point of
and Standard Oil
Pine Street
Historical Interest
House
1 of 6
Identified Sites within the City limits — Proposed code amendments WOULD APPLY
Description
Address
Use
Listing
Photo of Site
- City Point of
Historical Interest
The Old Jail
24522
Commercial
- Listed in Specific
Spruce Street
Plan
- SCCIC List
i
Frew Blacksmith
24311-24313
- City Point of
Shop
San Fernando
Commercial
Historical Interest
Road
- SCCIC List
- City Point of
Historical Interest
Newhall Ice
22502-22510
Commercial
- Listed in Specific
Company
Fifth Street
Plan,
- SCCIC List
"
Queen of Angels
24244
- City Point of
Church
Walnut Street
Church
Historical Interest
SCCIC List
24287
City Point of
Erwin Bungalow
Newhall
Residential
Historical Interest
Avenue
2 of 6
Identified Sites within the City limits — Proposed code amendments WOULD APPLY
Description
Address
Use
Listing
Photo of Site
Albert Sewell
22506 6`h
City Point of
building (former
Street
Commercial
Historical Interest
Signal office)
- City Point of
24238
Historical Interest
Sheriff
Substation
San Fernando
Commercial
- Listed in Specific
Road
Plan
- SCCIC List
- City Point of
Masonic Lodge/
24307
Historical Interest
Courthouse
Railroad
Commercial
- Listed in Specific
Avenue
Plan
- SCCIC List
- City Point of
Tom Mix
24247
Historical Interest
BuildingSan
Fernando
Commercial
- Listed in Specific
Road
Plan
I,
- SCCIC List
I' I
- City Point of
24251
Historical Interest
Tom Mix
San Fernando
Commercial
- Listed in Specific
Building
Road
Plan
- SCCIC List
r _
3 of 6
Identified Sites within the City limits — Proposed code amendments WOULD APPLY
Description
Address
Use
Listing
Photo of Site
Saugus Depot
24151
Heritage
San Fernando
Museum
State Point of
Junction Historic
Road
Historical Interest
Park
Pardee House
Heritage
24151
City Point of
Junction Historic
San Fernando
Museum
Historical Interest
Park
Road
Newhall Ranch
House
24151
City Point
Heritage
San Fernando
Museum
Historical Interest
Junction Historic
Road
Park
Mitchell Adobe
—
Schoolhouse
24151
Heritage
San Fernando
Museum
City Point
S
Junction Historic
Road
Historical Interest
Park
Kingsbury House
Heritage
24151
City Point of
ernando
Museum
Junction Historic
Road
Historical Interest
Park
me re
Identified Sites within the City limits - Proposed code amendments WOULD APPLY
Description
Address
Use
Listing
Photo of Site
Callahan's
Schoolhouse
24151
City Point of
Heritage
San Fernando
Museum
Historical Interest
u
Junction Historic
Road
Park
Ramona Chapel
Heritage
24151
City Point of
Junction Historic
San Fernando
Museum
Historical Interest
Road
Park
Edison House
Heritage
24151
City Point of
San Fernando
Museum
Junction Historic
Road
Historical Interest
Park
�r
Beale's Cut
Sierra
Natural
State Point of
Stagecoach Pass
Highway
Feature
Historical Interest
Melody Ranch
Oak Creek
Commercial
City Point of
Canyon Road
Historical Interest
SCCIC List - South Central Coast Information Center search of California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS)
5 of 6
Sources: State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, The Signal, and City of Santa
Clarita
Note: The address for historic resources is the current address listing within the adopted General Plan. The City Council adopted
resolutions 07-68 and 08-16 changing the name of San Fernando Road to Main Street and Newhall Avenue.
Other Identified Sites within the General Plan — not within City limits or City jurisdiction
Proposed Code Amendments WOULD NOT APPLY
Description
Address
Comments
William S. Hart Mansion
24151 San Fernando Road
State Point of Historic Interest
Oak of the Golden Dream
Placenta Canyon
State Historic Landmark
National Register of Historic Places
Pico #4
27201 West Pico Canyon
State Historic Landmark
State Historic Landmark
Mentryville
27201 West Pico Canyon
Assistencia Rancho San
Near I-126
State Historic Landmark
Francisco
State Historic Landmark
Lang Station
Near Lang Station Road
St. Francis Dam Disaster Site
San Francisquito Canyon Road
State Historic Landmark
Other Identified Sites within the General Plan — original building
Proposed Code Amendments WOULD NOT APPLY
or site not visible
Description
Address
Comments
Site of Biscailuz House
24427 Chestnut
City Point of Historical Interest
Sterline Borax Superintendent
Residence
22616 9`I' Street
City Point of Historical Interest
6 of 6
Downtown Newhall Specific Plan — EIR
Master List for Identified Eligible or Potentially Eligible Historic Resources
Historic Sites Identified in DNSP Historic Preservation Element — Pages 2:13 — 2:14 in Specific Plan
Proposed Code Amendments WOULD APPLY
Address
Date
Current
Comments
Photo of Site
Use/Descri on
- City Point of
rxi kp k:
Newhall Ice
Historical
22502-22510
1922
Company
Interest
Fifth Street
- SCCIC List
(Commercial)
- Listed in
Specific Plan
- City Point of
Historical
24307 Railroad
Masonic
Interest
-
1932
Lodge/Courthouse
Avenue
(Commercial)
- SCCIC List
11�
- Listed in
Specific Plan
24229 San
Dentist's Office
- SCCIC List
Fernando Road
1961
(Commercial)
- Listed in
Specific Plan
- City Point of
Historical
24238 San
1926
Sheriff Substation
Interest
Fernando Road
(Commercial)
- SCCIC List
- Listed in
Specific Plan
1 of 11
Other Identified Sites within EIR — proposed code amendments WOULD APPLY
San Fernando
Construction
Current
Comments
Photo of Site
Road
Date
Use/Description
LA County
24363 San
1955
Discoteca
Tax Assessor's
Fernando Road
(Commercial)
Office
Research
a�
'
LA County
24367 San
El Mas
Tax Assessor's
Fernando Road
1949
(Commercial)
Office
Research
City Point of
22621 13th St.
1914
Residential
Historical
--
Interest
- SCCIC List
24244 Walnut
1940
Queen of Angels
- City Point of
Street
Church
Historical
Interest
24328 Walnut
1931
Residential
SCCIC List
'
�
Street
7of11
Other Identified Sites within EIR — proposed code amendments WOULD APPLY
San Fernando
Construction
Current
Comments
Photo of Site
Road
Date
Use/Description
Emile Chaix
24338 Walnut
Residence—now
1915
Boy Scouts Service
SCCIC List
Street
Center
(Commercial)
22908 Market
1910
Residential
SCCIC List
Street
24326 Walnut
1925
Residential
SCCIC List
`-
Street
T1
IFr
24362 Walnut
LA County
1943/1946
Residential
Tax Assessor's
Street
Office research
24287 Newhall
Erwin Bungalow
City Point of
Avenue
1910
(Residential)
Historical
Interest
8of11
Other Identified Sites within EIR — proposed code amendments WOULD APPLY
San Fernando
Construction
Current
Comments
Photo of Site
Road
Date
Use/Description
24372 Walnut
1928
Commercial
SCCIC List
Street
Albert Sewall
commercial
City Point of
22506 6'11 Street
1925
building, former
Historical
Newhall Signal
newspaper office
Interest
(Commercial)
24151 San
Saugus Depot
State Point of
Fernando Road
1887
Heritage Junction
Historical
Historic Park
Interest
24151 San
Pardee House
City Point of
Fernando Road
1890
Heritage Junction
Historical
Historic Park
Interest
Newhall Ranch
City Point of
24151 San
1893
House
Historical
Fernando Road
Heritage Junction
Historic Park
Merest
9of11
Other Identified Sites within EIR — proposed code amendments WOULD APPLY
San Fernando
Construction
Current
Photo of Site
Comments
Road
Date
Use/Description
Mitchell Adobe
City Point of
24151 San
1865
Schoolhouse
Historical
Fernando Road
Heritage Junction
Historic Park
Interest
rl�f l
Kingsbury House
City Point of
24151 San
1878
Heritage Junction
Historical
Fernando Road
Historic Park
Interest
Callahan's
City Point of
24151 San
Schoolhouse
Fernando Road
1927
Heritage Junction
Historical
Historic Park
Interest
24151 San
Ramona Chapel
City Point of
Fernando Road
1926
Heritage Junction
Historical
Historic Park
Interest
Edison House
City Point of
24151 San
1919
Heritage Junction
Historical
Fernando Road
Historic Park
Interest
10 of 11
SCCIC List — South Central Coast Information Center search of California Historical Resources Information
System (CHRIS)
Other Identified Sites within EIR — Proposed Code Amendments WOULD NOT APPLY
Address
Construction
Current Use/Description
Comments
Date
24151 San
1910
Museum — not within City's jurisdiction
State Point of Historical
Fernando Road
Interest
22500 Market
1922
Former Patrick J. Coyle Residence not
SCCIC List
Street
visible
24203 San
1927
Building not visible
SCCIC List
Fernando Road
24206 San
1935
Building not visible
SCCIC List
Fernando Road
24209 San
1922
Building not visible
SCCIC List
Fernando Road
24252 Walnut
1927
Building not visible
SCCIC List
Street
24258 Walnut
1923
Building not visible
SCCIC List
Street
24318 Walnut
Original building not visible — new Fine
Street
1911
Professional Building built in 1988
SCCIC List
24320 Walnut
1902
Residence not visible
SCCIC List
Street
a
22616 9 Street
1908
Sterline Borax Works Superintendent
SCCIC List
single family residence not visible
22509 6 Street
1902
Building not visible
I SCCIC List
SCCIC List — South Central Coast Information Center search of California Historical Resources Information
System (CHRIS)
Note: The master list of identified eligible or potentially eligible historic resources is the current address listing
within the adopted Environmental Impact Report of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan. The City Council
adopted resolutions 07-68 and 08-16 changing the name of San Fernando Road to Newhall Avenue and Main
Street.
11 of 11
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title/Master Case Number: Master Case 08-103
City of Santa Clarita Historic Preservation/Unified
Development Code Amendments 08-003
Lead Agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact person and phone number: Alex Hernandez, Administrative Analyst
(661)255-4330
Project location: Citywide, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County,
California
Applicant's name and address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
General Plan designation: N/A
Zoning: N/A
Description of project and setting: The City of Santa Clarita is proposing amendments to
Chapter 17 of the City's Municipal Code (the Unified
Development Code or UDC) that provide temporary
measures to protect historic resources. The proposed
code amendments provide a heightened level of
discretion to evaluate the potential demolition or
alteration to the City's list of historic resources or
potential historic resources. The amendments are not
anticipated to either directly, or indirectly, result in any
future, foreseeable development. All future
development affected by these changes will be
evaluated on a case by case basis to determine their
impacts on the environment pursuant to CEQA.
Therefore, the findings in this Initial Study relate only
to the UDC changes themselves.
The amendments contained in UDC 08-003 consist of
amendments to the procedures for Minor Use Permits
for demolition or alteration of a historic resource or
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 2 of 27
potential historic resources and consist of the following:
17.03.145 Historic Preservation Review
1. A new section is created for Historic Preservation
Review of alterations, renovations, or demolition of
historic resources or potential historic resources.
17.03.145.A Purpose
2. A new section is created describing the intent of the
code amendments for Historic Preservation Review.
17.03145.E Definitions
3. Definitions were created for "Historic Resource" and
"Potential Historic Resource".
17.03.145.0 Permit Required
4. A new section is added requiring a minor use permit
for historic preservation review.
17.03.145.D Actions by the Approving Authority
5. A new section is created to identify the approving
authority for review of renovation or alteration requests
as well as demolition requests.
17.03.145.E Findings
6. New findings were created to approve a Minor Use
Permit that would demolish or alter a historic resource
or potential historic resource.
17.03.145.F Exceptions
7. Exceptions to the Minor Use Permit were created for
certain repair work and interior modifications.
17.03.145.G Expiration and Extension
8. A new section was added to reference the existing
expiration period and extension process for a minor use
permit.
17.03.145.H Final Action
9. A new section was added to reference the appeal
process after a decision by the approving authority.
17.03.145.1 Penalty for Demolition or Irreversible
Alteration
10. The penalty for the unpermitted demolition of a
historic resource or potential historic resource was
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 3 of 27
Surrounding land uses:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
created.
17.03.080 Permitted Use Chart — Development
Activities/Miscellaneous Use Type Classifications
11. Permitted status was created for the demolition or
alteration of a historic resource or potential historic
resource.
N/A
WLAI
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or a "Less than Significant with
Mitigation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Agriculture Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water
Materials Quality
[ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Geology / Soils
[ ] Land Use / Planning
[ ] Population / Housing
[ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation / Traffic
[ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
B. 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 revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 5 of 27
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Darin Seegmiller, Assistant Planner II
Jason Smisko, Senior Planner
IM
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 6 of 27
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 7 of 27
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
d) Other
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [ ]
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air
quality
standard or
contribute
[ ]
substantially to an
existing
or projected
air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
f) Other
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 8 of 27
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
h) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15064.5?
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 9 of 27
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Impact
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to'15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
outside of formal cemeteries?
e)
Other [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ]
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to potential substantial [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 10 of 27
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- [] []
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [ ] [ ]
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Change in topography or ground surface relief [ ] [ ]
features?
g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ ]
yards or more?
h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [ ] [ ]
10% natural grade?
i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ] [ ]
unique geologic or physical feature?
j) Other [ ] [ ]
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ]
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
I [X]
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 11 of 27
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ]
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving explosion or the
release of hazardous materials into the environment
(including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ]
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ]
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ]
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ]
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [ ]
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ]
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 12 of 27
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil pipelines)?
j)Other I I I I
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 13 of 27
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course
and direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river?
1) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the
following ways:
i) Potential impact of project construction and
project post -construction activity on storm water
runoff?
ii) Potential 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?
iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in
the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful
increases in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I I [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] 11 [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] 11 11 [X]
[] [] 11 [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] IN
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] IN
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 14 of 27
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
v) Storm water discharges that would significantly [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
impair or contribute to the impairment of the
beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that
provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian
corridors, wetlands, etc.)
vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials
both during construction and after project
occupancy?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
community (including a low-income or minority
community)?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 15 of 27
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
inefficient manner?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [] [] I IN
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 16 of 27
XIL POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project
result in:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
ii) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
iii) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
iv) Parks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
XIV. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 17 of 27
b) Include recreational facilities or require the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including [ ] [] [] IN
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 18 of 27
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ]
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new stone [ ]
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [ ]
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ]
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ]
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) 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?
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 19 of 27
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 20 of 27
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS
a.) No Impact: The modifications to the Unified Development Code
(UDC) establish procedures for Minor Use Permits for demolition or
alteration of a historic resource. No scenic vistas are identified as a
historic resource or potential historic resource. Therefore, the
proposed UDC amendments would have no impacts on scenic vistas.
b.) No Impact: The proposed UDC amendments will not affect
existing City development standards, codes and ordinances regarding
development of or near Scenic Highways. Therefore, the proposed
amendments would have no impacts on scenic resources within a
state scenic highway.
c.) No Impact: The proposed amendments would apply to a limited
list of identified historic resources or potential historic resources.
Projects based on the proposed amendments would be evaluated to
prevent the inappropriate alteration of a site and its surroundings and
would aim to support and improve the historic character of the City's
planning area. The amendments are not anticipated to either directly,
or indirectly, result in any future, foreseeable development.
Therefore, the proposed amendments would have a have no impacts
on the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings.
d.) No Impact: The proposed amendments do not alter the City
standards for outdoor lighting and would not be a new source of light
or glare. The proposed amendments will have no impact related to
light and glare.
IL AGRICULTURE
a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the UDC establish
RESOURCES
procedures for Minor Use Permits for demolition or alteration of a
historic resource. No farmland or agricultural use is identified as a
historic resource or potential historic resource. Therefore, the
proposed UDC amendments would have no impacts on any farmland
identified by the California Resources Agency, conflict with existing
zoning for farmland designated under a Williamson Act Contract,
and will not convert any farmland to non-agricultural use.
III. AIR QUALITY
a. -d.) No Impact: Santa Clarita is located in the South Coast Air
Basin of California (SCAB), a 6,600 -square -mile area encompassing
Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside,
and San Bernardino Counties. The City is under jurisdiction of the
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 21 of 27
South Coast Air Basin Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
SCAQMD has adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
for the SCAB, which includes transportation management measures,
strict controls on automobile emissions, new industrial controls,
extension of controls to very small sources, and restrictions on the
use of various types of products, such as paints and coatings, in order
to manage the Basin's air quality. The proposed changes to the
Unified Development Code will not alter any of the aforementioned
measures. Furthermore, the proposed project would not entitle any
new development and, as such, would not result in the emission of
any air pollutants. As such, the project would not cause or contribute
to any air quality violation and would not adversely affect any
sensitive receptors. Therefore, no air quality impacts are anticipated.
e.) No Impact: The proposed UDC amendments will not locate any
land use adjacent to an odor producing facility or use. The proposed
amendments are regulatory in nature and all future land uses must
comply with all applicable regulations of the SCAQMD and the City
of Santa Clarita General Plan and UDC. Therefore, the proposed
amendments would have no odor -related impacts.
IV. BIOLOGICAL a. -d.) No Impact — The proposed changes to the UDC do not include
RESOURCES the modification of any habitat and would not otherwise affect any
candidate, sensitive or special status species identified by the
Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Further, the proposed UDC changes will not have any adverse affect
on any riparian habitat or wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. The proposed UDC changes will help to guide
development within the City and would not remove environmental
review requirements for any future developments. hi addition, there
is no proposed alteration to any wildlife corridor or migratory fish
corridor proposed and no change to any regulation or code protecting
such resources. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments would
cause no impacts to sensitive species, sensitive natural community,
riparian habitat, or wetlands.
e.) No Impact — The City of Santa Clarita has an Oak Tree
Preservation Ordinance that regulates the development adjacent to
and under oak trees. No additional modifications to the Oak Tree
Preservation Ordinance are proposed with these UDC amendments.
Therefore, no significant impact to oak trees is anticipated with the
proposed amendments.
f. -g.) No Impact — The proposed UDC modifications propose no
alterations to any local or regional habitat conservation plan. In
addition, the proposed UDC modifications will not affect any
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 22 of 27
property designated as an SEA (Significant Ecological Area) or SNA
(Significant Natural Area) on the City's ESA (Environmentally
Sensitive Area) Delineation Map. Therefore, no impact is anticipated
with respect to any SEA or SNA as identified on the City's ESA map.
V. CULTURAL
a -d.) Less Than Significant Impact — The proposed modifications
RESOURCES
will not alter any unique geological feature, paleontological resource,
any human remains or affect any historical or archeological resource.
The proposed amendments will govern subsequent development
activity, which may impact cultural resources. The proposed changes
to the UDC will require the issuance of a Minor Use Permit prior to
the demolition or alteration of a historic resource or potential historic
resource. However, the proposed amendments to the UDC do not
include any development activities and are regulatory in nature.
There are a number of buildings and sites within the City of Santa
Clarita that are greater than fifty (50) years old that may have
historical value, however, the significance of the structures has yet to
be determined. The potential impact of future development is too
speculative to evaluate at this time; and all future development
activity within the established areas would be required to comply
with Goal 10 of the City's Open Space and Conservation Element, to
protect the historical and culturally significant resources, which
contribute to community identity and a sense of history. Therefore,
a less than significant impact to archeological, historical or cultural
resource would be caused by the proposed UDC amendments.
VI. GEOLOGY AND
a. i -iv) No Impact — Southern California has numerous active and
SOILS
potentially active faults that could affect the City. As stated in the
City's General Plan, the City is susceptible to geologic hazards in the
event of a major earthquake (magnitude 8.3) along the San Andreas
Fault. This could result in ground failure and liquefaction. However,
the proposed modifications to the UDC would not change any land
use entitlements, and would not change the requirements of future
development to follow all state and City building codes/regulations.
Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments would have a less than
significant impact related to exposure of people or structures to any
adverse effects of seismic activity.
bA.) No Impact — The proposed UDC modifications will not result
in any erosion or location of structures on or near unstable soil,
expansive or otherwise. No modifications to the UDC will be made
with respect to the impact to any topographical features, movement
of earth, development on slopes with greater than 10% natural grade,
or any over -covering of any physical or geological feature.
Furthermore, the proposal would not affect requirements of future
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 23 of 27
developments to comply with all state and city building
codes/regulations. Therefore, the proposal will have no impact with
respect to erosion, unstable or expansive soil, or any topographical
features.
VII. HAZARDS AND
a. -d.) No Impact — The proposed changes to the UDC would not
HAZARDOUS
expose people to health hazards or hazardous materials and would not
MATERIALS
interfere with any emergency response plans. Future developments in
the city would be required to comply with the City's General Plan
and development codes and federal, state, and local hazardous
material regulations. The proposed amendment does not alter the any
regulations in the City's General Plan, development codes, or federal,
state, or local regulations pertaining to hazardous materials.
Therefore, no impact due to hazardous materials is anticipated with
the proposed UDC modifications.
e. -f.) No Impact — The proposed amendments includes no change to
land use or development standards for land within 2 miles of an
airport and airfield or otherwise within an airport land use plan.
Further, no airport of airfield is located within 2 miles of the City
boundaries. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments would not
affect the risks of land uses adjacent to airports or airfields and the
proposal would have no related impacts.
g.) No Impact — The proposed UDC amendments establish
procedures for Minor Use Permits for demolition or alteration of a
historic resource. The amendments would not affect the
implementation of emergency response plans, and would have no
impact.
h.) No Impact — The proposed UDC amendments would not increase
the risks of wildland fires, and would not change the regulations or
development standards governing development adjacent to wildlands.
Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments would have no impact.
i.) No Impact — The proposed UDC amendments would not expose
people to existing sources of potential health hazards. Therefore, the
proposed UDC amendments would have no impact.
VIII. HYDROLOGY
a. -b.) No Impact — The proposed project would not impact water
AND WATER
quality standards, nor affect groundwater supplies. The proposed
QUALITY
project is an amendment for a land use provision, and is not
anticipated to either directly, or indirectly, result in any future,
foreseeable development. However, subsequent development
projects would be required to comply with the development impact
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 24 of 27
standards put forth in the City's General Plan and all Clean Water
Act Requirements, including the National Pollutant discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). Therefore, the project will have a no
impact to water quality or ground water supplies.
c.-1.) No Impact — The proposed changes to the UDC are anticipated
to have no impact on any 100 -year flood hazard area, tsunami,
drainage pattern, or runoff of Stormwater Management systems. As
mentioned previously, the proposed project is an amendment for a
land use provision, and is not anticipated to either directly, or
indirectly, result in any future, foreseeable development. However,
subsequent development projects in the revised UDC areas would be
required to comply with the standards put forth in the City's General
Plan and all Clean Water Act Requirements, including the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Furthermore, the
proposed UDC amendments would not change any hydrology or
water quality -related codes, laws, permits, or regulations. Therefore,
the project will have a less than significant impact.
IX. LAND USE AND
a.) No Impact: No established community would be disrupted or
PLANNING
physically divided due to the proposed amendments, and therefore,
no impact would occur.
b.) No Impact: The purpose of these amendments is to establish
procedures for Minor Use Permits for demolition or alteration of a
historic resource or potential historic resource. The proposed
amendments will guide future development in the City. However, the
amendments will not result either directly, or indirectly, in any future,
foreseeable development. Therefore, no impact related to land use
and planning is anticipated with the proposed amendments to the
UDC.
c.) No Impact: The proposed amendments do not affect current City
standards regarding habitat conservation plans, natural community
preservation plans, and/ or the policies of agencies with jurisdiction
over resources and resource areas within the City. Any future
development project under these amendments would be subject to the
standards and regulations established by the City and other agencies.
Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments would have no impact on
conservation plans.
X. MINERAL AND
a. -c.) No Impact — The City of Santa Clarita is rich in mineral
ENERGY
resources. Gold mining and oil production historically have been the
RESOURCES
principal mineral extraction activities in and around the Santa Clarita
Valley. Other minerals found in the planning area include
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 25 of 27
construction aggregate, titanium, and tuff. Mineral resources and
extraction areas are shown in Exhibit OS -5 of the City's General
Plan. The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code
would not result in an increased removal or use of any mineral and
energy resources. As such, the proposed modifications will not
impact any known mineral resources or energy resources in the City.
XI. NOISE
a. -d.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the UDC will not
expose persons to the generation of excess noise levels, groundborne
vibration, or increase ambient noise in the City of Santa Clarita. The
proposed UDC amendments do not propose any development and
therefore, there would be no impact to noise levels in the city. The
proposed amendments may apply to future development projects
within the City. The proposed amendments do not remove any noise -
related regulations and would not foreseeably lead to a change in the
generation of noise at this time. Therefore, no impact is anticipated
with relation to noise.
e. -f) No Impact — There are no airports, airfields, or airport land use
plans within the City. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments
would cause no impacts related to airport noise.
XII. POPULATION
a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the UDC do not
AND HOUSING
induce substantial population growth in the City, either directly or
indirectly, nor would any of the proposed activities cause
displacement of existing homes or people. The proposed
amendments are regulatory and do not include any development
activity at this time. The proposed UDC modifications would not
alter the City's population projections and are consistent with the
City's General Plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact to
population and housing.
XIII. PUBLIC
a)i. No Impact — The proposed project will not increase the need for
SERVICES
fire protection services. However, any future development would be
subject to development fees, which are established to compensate for
growth. Since, the proposed UDC amendments are not anticipated to
have an impact on fire protection services, and future development
would remain subject to development fees, the project would have no
impact to fire services.
a)ii. No Impact — The proposed amendments are not anticipated to
increase the need for police services. However, any future
development would be subject to development fees, which are
established to compensate for growth. Since, the proposed UDC
amendments would have no immediate impact on police services,
and future development would remain subject to development fees,
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 26 of 27
the project would have no impact to police services.
a)iii. No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC will not
increase the population of the City of Santa Clarita. However, any
future residential development would be subject to school
development fees, which are established to compensate for growth.
Since, the proposed change UDC amendments would have no
immediate impact on school services, and future development would
be subject to school development fees, the project is anticipated to
have no impact to school services.
a)iv. No Impact — The proposed project will not increase number of
persons using public parks. However, any future development would
be subject to park impact fees, which are established to compensate
for residential growth. Since, the proposed UDC amendments would
have no impact on parks, and future development would remain
subject to park impact fees, the amendments are anticipated to have
no impact to parks.
XIV. RECREATION
a. -b.) No Impact — The proposed changes to the UDC will not have
any impact on recreational amenities within the City of Santa Clarita.
The proposed amendments do not include any development activities.
Any subsequent development would be required to comply with the
Parks and Recreation Element in the City's General Plan and would
be subject to the City's park impact fees. Therefore, no impact to
recreation is anticipated with the proposed UDC modifications.
XV.
a. -b.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC are
TRANSPORTATION /
regulatory in nature and are not anticipated to have immediate
TRAFFIC
developmental impacts that alter traffic load or capacity on street
systems. Future development activity in the city would be regulated
by the City's UDC, General Plan, and transportation policies. Future
projects would be subject to additional CEQA review to determine
project related impacts and potential mitigation measures. However,
at this time, since no development is being proposed, no impact to
traffic is anticipated as a result of the proposed UDC amendments.
c. -h.) No Impact: The proposed amendments to the UDC do not
include any development activities. Therefore, the proposed
amendments would have no impacts on City traffic systems including
emergency routes, parking capacity, pedestrian or bicycle routes, air
traffic patterns, or increase hazards due to a design feature or
incompatible use. Future development projects would be required to
comply with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, the
City's roadway design and parkway standards, and all adopted
Master Case 08-103
UDC 08-003
Page 27 of 27
S:\CD\CURRENT\!2008\08-103 (Historic Preservation)\Historic Preservation Initial Study.doc
policies, plans, and programs supporting alternative transportation.
Therefore, the proposed amendments would have a no impact on
traffic.
XVI. UTILITIES AND
a. -g.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the City's Unified
SERVICE SYSTEMS
Development Code do not include any development at this time.
Therefore, the project would not result in the construction of new
water facilities, expansion of existing facilities, affect drainage
patterns, water treatment services, and furthermore, no impacts to the
City's landfill capacity would occur. Any subsequent development
would be required to comply with the City's General Plan and the
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and all
applicable utility purveyors. Compliance with these requirements
would ensure all federal, state and local statutes and imposed
regulations are met. Therefore, a no impact to utilities or service
systems will result from the proposed amendments.
XVII. MANDATORY
a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC are not
FINDINGS OF
anticipated to have a significant impact on the environment that
SIGNIFICANCE
would lead to a substantial reduction in habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, or reduce or restrict the number of rare, threatened or
endangered species. The proposal does not involve any physical
development. The proposed UDC amendments may apply to future
development projects within the City. However, the proposed
amendments do not remove any established City regulations that
protect any plant and animal species. Due to the nature of the
proposed UDC amendments, the proposal would not contribute to
any cumulative impacts and would not cause environmental effects
that would adversely affect humans. Rather, the proposed UDC
amendments are intended to guide future development throughout the
city. Therefore, the proposed project would have no significant
impact that could result in a Mandatory Findings of Significance.
S:\CD\CURRENT\!2008\08-103 (Historic Preservation)\Historic Preservation Initial Study.doc