HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - DOWNTOWN NEWHALL SP AMEND (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT
Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
June 24, 2008
WrA
/�/f4
Ben Jarvis
ANNUAL AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN NEWHALL
SPECIFIC PLAN
Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council conduct the public,hearing and introduce and pass to second reading the following
ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA CONSISTING OF MASTER CASE 08-049 (UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT 08-002) FOR THE ANNUAL AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN
NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS."
BACKGROUND
The Downtown Newhall Specific Plan (DNSP) was adopted in 2005 to revitalize the Downtown
Newhall area. This year marks the first annual update of the specific plan. The DNSP
amendments are being processed concurrently with the annual Unified Development Code
(UDC) amendments; however, since the DNSP zoning and development code is separate from
the UDC, each code must be presented and approved individually. As with the UDC, periodic
updates are necessary in order to ensure that the DNSP remains consistent with current planning
trends and economic conditions. Since the adoption of the DNSP in 2005, economic conditions
have changed and land values have substantially increased. The City has received requests from
the private sector to revise certain elements of the specific plan in order to reflect these new
economic realities. The proposed amendments will make minor changes to Chapter 4 of the
DNSP, the chapter which contains the development code. No other chapters of the specific plan
will be altered.
On May 20, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
,Ordinance passed to
Second reading
amendments to the DNSP. The Planning Commission adopted the staff recommendation to
forward the amendments to the City Council for approval.
The 2008 DNSP amendments clarify the relationship between the Unified Development Code
and the DNSP, allow for development flexibility that was originally intended as part of the
specific plan, and address sign issues for commercial properties. The proposed amendments do
not increase the total number of dwelling units that were adopted in the original plan, nor do they
allow for an increase in the total commercial square footages. The amendments clarify the
original intent of the DNSP, reflect existing economic conditions, and provide the flexibility to
more efficiently implement projects using the form -based code. The proposed amendments
would allow projects that comply with the City's Mixed Use Ordinance to be developed in
Downtown Newhall. Mixed-use projects are encouraged in Newhall and making the DNSP and
the Mixed Use Ordinance more consistent with each other will simplify the development process
and create more opportunities for mixed-use projects. In certain cases where an entire block is
slated to be developed, greater massing would be permitted within the existing DNSP
development envelope.
Lastly, the amendments would address signage within the commercial zones in Downtown
Newhall, specifically along Railroad Avenue. Should the amendments be adopted, additional
sign options would be available to business owners through a sign program. "Enhanced
Signage" was listed in the original text of the DNSP. The proposed amendments would make the
language in the DNSP consistent with the Citywide sign code, and would clearly refer to the
necessary process of implementing a sign program.
A copy of the proposed amendments has been provided as "Exhibit A". Within "Exhibit A,"
underlined sections indicate new text and strike thfoiigh sections indicate verbiage that will be
removed from the specific plan text. The proposed amendments consist of six components that
are summarized below.
Chapter 1.1.010
It was always assumed that certain provisions of the Unified Development Code, such as
variances, adjustments, conditional use permits, and home occupation permits, would apply to
the DNSP area; however, specific language was never included in the plan to this effect. The
2008 changes will remedy this issue.
Chapter 4.2.020
The DNSP specifically lists what kind of housing types are permitted in each zone (townhomes,
stacked -flats, live/work, etc.). As written, the DNSP offers no flexibility on this issue, which
was never the intent of the plan. As a "form based code," the DNSP, by nature, should have the
flexibility to be sensitive to surrounding land uses and properties. Under the adopted plan, there
are "hard edges" between different zones where housing types are concerned; meaning that there
are instances where one type of housing unit is allowed on one side of the street but not the other.
The amendments would allow for more context -sensitive development, especially where
different zones border each other. This flexibility was envisioned in the original plan, but
specific enabling language was not included.
Urban Center Zone
The amendments would allow for taller buildings in this zone. Currently, the maximum building
height in the Urban Center Zone is 47', permitted by right. Under the proposed amendment, the
maximum height would be increased to 55', permitted by right, to coincide with the City's Mixed
Use Ordinance. The four-story height limit for Commercial Blocks and Liner Buildings would
remain unchanged. Under the proposed amendment, an applicant could request additional height
and additional building stories through the Conditional Use Permit process. A Conditional Use
Permit requires public noticing and approval by the Planning Commission.
Cnrridnr 7nnP
The amendments would allow for taller buildings in this zone. Currently, the maximum building
height in the Corridor Zone is 30', permitted by right. Under the proposed amendment, the
maximum height would be 35' to coincide with the height threshold elsewhere in the City. The
proposed amendments would also allow buildings to be developed under the Mixed Use
Ordinance. This means that buildings could be taller than 35', subject to the issuance of a Minor
Use Permit. Buildings taller than 55' could be allowed subject to the issuance of a Conditional
Use Permit.
Architectural Building Types '
Under the proposed amendments, applicants would be able to develop property in accordance
with the adopted guidelines for building types such as Commercial Blocks and Liner Buildings.
The adopted guidelines were intended to provide development direction while encouraging
creativity. However, the existing plan does not contain language that allows for flexibility or the
ability to include unique design characteristics that fall outside the prescribed building styles and
guidelines. The 2008 amendments would address this situation through the issuance of a Minor
Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit, depending on the nature of the project. Both permits
require public noticing, and a Conditional Use Permit can only be issued subject to a public
hearing and Planning Commission approval. The amendments would codify the flexibility that
was always assumed to be a part of the specific plan but was not specifically mentioned in the
text of the development code.
Signage
The proposed amendments specifically speak to the issue of Master'Sign Programs, also known
as "Enhanced Signage" or a "Sign Program." Flexibility for signs was assumed as part of the
adopted plan. The proposed amendments introduce specific language that references this
flexibility and would allow more options for businesses in the Urban Center and Corridor zones.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance
An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines. The Initial Study
determined that all impacts related to the proposed modifications are considered to be less than
significant. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of
CEQA. Future development in the Downtown Newhall area that exceeds the scope of the
original Environmental Impact Report that was adopted in 2005, would be required to complete
environmental review in compliance with CEQA.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impacts are anticipated with the proposed amendments to the Downtown Newhall
Specific Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance -
Exhibit A (2008 Amendments) \
Vicinity Map
Initial Study available in the City Clerk's Reading File
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, I" Floor, Santa Clarita,
California, on the 24`h day of June, 2008, at or after 6:00 p.m. to consider the approval of
Master Case 08-049, including Unified Development Code Amendment 08-002, to
amend and update the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan.
A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project
and is available for a public review period, during which the City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department will receive comments. The public review period
commenced on April 29, 2008 at 12:00 p.m., and will continue through to the public
hearing. 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, Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner.
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: May 22, 2008
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: May 23, 2008
S \CD\CURRENTV2008\08-049 (DNSP Amendments)\City Council\MC 08-049 City Council Public Notice doc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 05-18 on November 22, 2005,
approving the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan (DNSP);
WHEREAS, the DNSP area is comprised of approximately 50 square blocks generally
bounded by Newhall Creek to the east, 14th Street to the north, Newhall Avenue and William S.
Hart Park to the west, and the intersection of Pine Street and Newhall Avenue to the south;
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division conducts an annual review of the
DNSP, proposing modifications and enhancements as directed by the City Council, and has
initiated a Unified Development Code Amendment 08-002 to modify portions of Chapter 4 of the
DNSP;
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments; were presented to the Newhall Redevelopment
Committee on April 7, 2008, and were the subject of a duly noticed public hearing before the
City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission on May 20, 2008;
WHEREAS, after considering the staff report, staff presentation, as well as testimony
from the public, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P08-11 recommending that
the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Master Case No. 08-049 and its
associated entitlements and exhibits;
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 June 24, 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 July 8, 2008.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The proposed amendments to the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan 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 Downtown Newhall Specific Plan
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 April 29, 2008, in accordance with CEQA. The
public review period was open from April 29, 2008, through May 20, 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 08-049 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 8th day of July, 2008.
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 No. 08- was regularly introduced and placed upon
its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 24th day of June, 2008. That
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
on the 8th day of July, 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No.
and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law
(G.C. 40806).
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 No. 08- , adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Clarita, CA on July 8, 2008, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this 8th day of July, 2008.
Sharon.L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
By
Susan Caputo
Deputy City Clerk
Gl
EXHIBIT A
2008 Downtown Newhall Specific Plan Amendments
The following paragraphs contain the proposed changes to Chapter 4 of the Downtown
Newhall Specific Plan. No other changes will be made to the specific plan text, other
than what is listed below:
Development Code Amendments
4.1.010
D. Relationship to Unified Development Code. This Downtown Code is intended to
supplement, and in some cases replace the requirements of the City's Unified
Development Code, Titles 16 and 17 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. The
provisions of this Downtown Code supersede regulations in the Unified
Development Code on the same topic (for example, the requirements for numbers
of parking spaces in Chapter 4.2 supersede the parking space requirements of the
Unified Development Code), but otherwise applicable requirements of the Unified
Development Code that are not covered by this Downtown Code apply to
development within the Specific Plan area, as noted in this Cod . While the
Downtown Code supersedes certain sections of the Unified Development Code
(UDC), where not expressly superseded, the reviewing_ provision of other sections
of the UDC remain in effect, including but not limited to § 17.03.050 Variances
and Adjustments, Conditional Use Permits for height, Home Occupation Permits,
etc. if a ,,f let eeeurs hetwee., e e nt of this Downtown (`o. -le and the
Unified Development Code, the pro thiss Downtown Code shall eentr-el.
4.2.020 Allowed Land Uses, Permit Requirements
A. Allowable land uses. A parcel or building within the specific plan area shall be
occupied by only the land uses allowed by Table 4-1 within the zone applied to
the site by the Regulating Plan. Each land use listed in the table is defined in
Unified Development Code Chapter 17.12 (Use Type Classifications).
1. Multiple uses. Any one or more land uses identified by Table 4-1 as being
allowable within a specific zone may be established on any parcel within that
zone, subject to the planning permit requirement listed in the table, and in
compliance with all applicable requirements of this Code.
2. Use not listed. A land use not listed in Table 4-1 is not allowed allowed
within the specific plan area, except as otherwise provided in following
Subsection A.3. A land use that is listed in the table, but not within a
particular zone, is not allowed within that zone.
3. Similar and compatible use may be allowed. The Director may determine that
a proposed use not listed in Table 4-1 is allowable through the process
described in Chapter 17.13 (Permitted Use Charts of the Unified Development
Code). Housing types and residential uses that are not allowed in a particular
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT A
zone but are allowed on differently -zoned parcels immediately adjacent (such
as across an alley or street), and that are deemed compatible by the Director of
Community Development, may be allowed subject to the issuance of a Minor
I Ne. Permit
4. Temporary Uses. Temporary uses are allowed within the specific plan area in
compliance with the Temporary Use Permit requirements of the Unified
Development Code.
B. Permit requirements. Table 4-1 provides for land uses that are:
Permitted subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this
Downtown Code, and Development Review in compliance with Unified
Development Code Section 17.03.060. These are shown as "P" uses in the
tables;
2. Allowed subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit, and shown as "MUP"
uses in the tables;
3. Allowed subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and shown as
"CUP" uses in the tables; and
4. Not allowed in the particular zones, and shown as and "x" in the tables.
C. Standards for specific land uses. Where the last column in Table 4-1 ("Specific
Use Regulations") includes a section number, the regulations in the references
section of this Downtown Code or the Unified Development Code apply to the
use. Provisions in other sections of this Downtown Code may also apply. The
term "Use Standards" refers to the Unified Development Code.
Urban Center Zone
4.2.060
D. Building Profile and Type
Building Height
(a) Maximum height: 2.5 stories or 35'
(b) Towers/Penthouses : an area equal to 10% not exceeding 25% of the
building's ground floor footprint may exceed the height limit by 1 story or
12'.
(c) Where an entire block is to be developed, the maximum height of the
development/structures shall not exceed 55', permitted by right, not
including architectural features.
(d) Where feasible, property owners have the option to develop projects that
conform to the City's Mixed -Use Ordinance at the stated building heights
in the City's Mixed Use Ordinance, subject to the issuance of a Minor Use
Permit if the project exceeds the height listed in (a) above, or a
Conditional Use Permit if the project exceeds the height in (c) above.
Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT A
4. Architectural Types
(a) Courtyard Housing
(b) Stacked Dwellings
(c) Live/Work
(d) Commercial Block
(e) Liner
(fl Other housing types are allowed subject to the issuance of a Minor Use
Permit per Section 4.2.020(A)(3).
4.2.050 Corridor
D. Building Profile and Type
1. Building Height
(a) Maximum height: 2 stories or -30135'.
(b) Towers/Penthouses : an area equal to 10% not exceeding 25 % of the
building's ground floor footprint may exceed the height limit by 1 story or
12'
(c) Where feasible, property owners have the option to develop projects that
conform to the City's Mixed -Use Ordinance at the stated building heights
in the City's Mixed Use Ordinance, subject to the issuance of a Minor Use
Permit, if the project exceeds the height listed in (a) above.
4. Architectural Types
(a) Stacked Dwellings
(b) Live/Work
(c) Commercial Block
(d) Liner
(e) Other housing types are allowed subject to the issuance of a Minor Use
Permit per Section 4.2.020(A)(3).
4.3.010 Architectural Types
M. Commercial Block
7: Building Size and Massing
(a) Standards
i. Target height ratios for various commercial blocks are as follows:
1.0 story: 100% 1 story
2.0 stories: 85% 2 stories, 15% 3 stories
3.0 stories: 40% 2 stories, 50% 3 stories, 10% 4 stories
(c) In instances where an entire block is under development, the target height
ratios listed in section (a)i may be modified subject to the issuance of a Minor
Use Permit, not to exceed 300% of the first -floor footprint. Modifications in
excess of 300% of the first floor footprint may be allowed subject to the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT A
N. Liner
7: Building Size and Massing
(a) Standards
i. Target height ratios for various liners are as follows:
1.0 story: 100% 1 story
2.0 stories: 75% 2 stories, 30% 3 stories
3.0 stories: 40% 2 stories, 50% 3 stories, 10% 4 stories
(c) In instances where an entire block is under development, the targetght
ratios listed in section (a)i may be modified subject to the issuance of a Minor
Use Permit, not to exceed 300% of the first -floor footprint. Modifications in
excess of 300% of the first floor footprint may be allowed subject to the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
4.5 Sign Regulations
4.5.050
B. UC and COR zones. Each sign in the UC and COR zones shall comply with the
requirements in the following table. An approved Sian Review (Enhanced
Signage) or a Master Sign Plan (Sign Program) may allow for additional signage
opportunities that substantially conform to the spirit of Downtown Newhall sign
standards. Refer to the Unified Development Code § 17.19.060(E) and
17.19.060(F).
The following text is proposed for the "Sign Standards For UC and COR Zones" matrix:
Monument: 5 ft including base structure. Allowed only on a site within the COR zone
with more than 100 ft of continuous street frontage. Parcels within the UC
zone that front Railroad Avenue that meet the 100' frontage requirement
are also eligible for monument signs, subject to the approval of Sign
Program (Enhanced Signage).
Page 4 of 4
Downtown Newhall
Specific Plan Area
Deslgrwted Civic Building sire• �Ca
Deslgrored Parking.S&ERtdl'e Silo'
U,Oan Goner I (UGI)
Uman Genesi 2 (UGI)
woes con (UC)
Conidor (COR)
CdR;vd, Diso-kx (CD)
open Space (OS) ❑ .
' IM4M1e5 a ryd, o rm� $«aK ftfn dµxfne
b r/e fiR (NI IS rYldlrtlug On fl! MKrSM1iP
The pO( nY [' vce regWUM ey tre
uraenNM m n ( UGI, 1, UC, COR. CD OS)
&M m I.1 010E Flo,
spsl/k le,guge
tali elan n
0 200 400 900 it O
IYONSAV
NJ.RNEi Si
Ole,
6:r. ST
sm ST
Am Si
z�
�Fu
2
Sj Yd ST
j
'0110 3nd ST
WILLIAMS HART PARK
PIONEEROIL
sfnE /
I MASTERS
COLLEGE
4T,
GATEMING
DEVELOPMENT
DOWNTOWN A"WHALL SPECIFIC PLAN M
City of Santa Clark, Canrornla
ADOPTED DscPMPTR 22, 200E
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title/Master Case Number:
Lead Agency name and address:
Contact person and phone number:
Project location:
Applicant's name and address:
General Plan designation:
Master Case 08-049
Unified Development Code Amendment 08-002
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Ben Jarvis, AICP
Associate Planner
(661)255-4330
Downtown Newhall Specific Plan Area
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Specific Plan 3 (SP 3)
Zoning: SP3: Urban Center (UC), Corridor (COR), Urban General 1
(LTG 1), Urban General 2 (IJG 2), Creative District (CD) and
Open Space (OS).
Description of project and setting: The City of Santa Clarita is proposing to modify Chapter 4
of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan (DNSP). The
amendments will clarify the DNSP's relationship to the
Unified Development Code. The amendments would further
clarify development opportunities in the Urban Center (UC)
and Corridor (COR) zones, and make certain aspects of
commercial development more consistent with the Mixed
Use Ordinance. The amendments are in keeping with the
original intent of the-DNSP and do not change the projected
population, the number of housing units, the amount of
commercial space, or the number of stories permitted by the
specific plan.
No additional modifications to the DNSP are proposed at
this time.
Surrounding land uses: I N/A
Other public agencies whose N/A
approval is required:
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
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
[ ] Mineral Resources [ ]
[ ] Public Services [ ]
[ J Utilities / Service Systems [ ]
B. DETERNIINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality
Cultural Resources [ ] Geology/ Soils,
Hydrology / Water [ ] Land Use / Planning
Quality
Noise [ ] Population / Housing
Recreation [ ] Transportation / Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance ,
[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 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 3 of 28
[ ] 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.
<� 1-f -
Ben Jarvis, Associ to Planner Date
-v
J4
Smisko, Senior Planner Date
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 4 of 28
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 [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
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 [ J [ ] [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 [] I [] []
II. 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 5 of 28
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] [ ] [ ] - [X]
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?
fl 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?
[X]
ra
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 6 of 28
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I [] [X]
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
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 [ ] [ ]
[ ] IN
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or [ ] [ ]
[ ] TX]
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 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 7 of 28
Potentially Less Than Less Than
No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ J [ ] [ ]
[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 [] [] []
I
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial [ ] [ ] [ ]
IN
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? [ ] [ ] [ ]
IN
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ]
IN
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [ ] [ ] [ ]
IN
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 8 of 28
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, [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
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?
[X1
[X]
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 9 of 28
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)?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] I [X]
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 [ ]
I 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
i 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]
[] [] [X]
i
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 10 of 28
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 [ ]
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste [ ]
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [ ]
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 [ ]
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 [ ]
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 [ ]
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ]
[J [] [XJ
[] [] IN
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 11 of 28
Potentially Less Than Less Than
No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
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? [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
and direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
m) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
following ways:
i) Potential impact of project construction and [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
project post -construction activity on storm water
runoff?
ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful [ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
increases in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 12 of 28
v) Storm water discharges that would significantly
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
drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions
for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials
both during construction and after project
occupancy?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I I [X]
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [ ]
community (including a low-income or minority
community)?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, [ ]
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 [ ]
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 [ ]
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
[] [] IN
[] [X] []
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 13 of 28
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
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
inefficient manner?
M. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
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
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
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 expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I I [X1
11 11 11 1X1
11 11 [1 [X1
11 11 [1 1X1
11 11 [1 1X1
[1
11 11 [' [X1
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 14 of 28
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
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,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
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?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
XIV. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
[J [J [J [XJ
[J [J [J [XJ
[J [J [J IN
[] [J [J [X]
[J [J [J IN
[] [J [J IN
[] [J [J [XJ
[J [J [J [XJ
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 15 of 28
b) Include recreational facilities or require the I] [ ] [] IN
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 [ ] [ ]
[ ] IN
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 [] []
[] IN
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 [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
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 [ ] [ ]
[ ] IN
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ]
[ ] IN
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ ]
[ ] IN
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [ ] [ ]
[ ] IN
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ]
[ ] IN
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ] [ ]
[ ] IN
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
0
I
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 16 of 28
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 storm
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?
0 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. NL.ANDATORY 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?
H [] IN
[] [] [X]
[] [] IN
[� [] IN
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 17 of 28
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?
XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME -`DE MINIMUS' FINDING
a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [ ] [] [] [X]
individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife
resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose
of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants,
fish, amphibians, and related ecological
communities, including the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends for it's continued viability."
I
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 18 of 28
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS
a. -d.) Less Than Significant Impact — The proposed modifications
to the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan (DNSP) would not
significantly affect any scenic vistas, ridgelines or other scenic
resources, visual character, or create any light or glare above those
levels analyzed in the project Environmental Impact Report that
was certified by the Santa Clarita City Council in 2005. The
proposed modifications would clarify the relationship between the
DNSP and the Unified Development Code- (UDC) and would
encourage additional mixed-use, compact projects by making the
DNSP consistent with the City's Mixed Use Ordinance. The
modifications would provide greater flexibility in the kind of
housing types and building characteristics of certain projects. The
proposed amendments would not increase the number of allowable
stories, would not increase the number of allowable housing units,
or allow for an increase in the overall amount of commercial space
that was originally permitted by the City Council. While the
number of stories would not change, commercial projects would
have the potential to be 8' taller than currently permitted (55'
instead of 47'). Buildings would be subject to the four story limit
called out in the DNSP and would remain consistent with the
development envelope identified in the specific plan.
Therefore, the proposed amendments would have less than a
significant impact to aesthetics.
II. AGRICULTURE
a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the DNSP would
RESOURCES
not affect any farmland identified by the California Resources
Agency, farmland designated under a Williamson Act Contract,
and would not convert any farmland to non-agricultural use.
Therefore, no impact to agricultural resources is anticipated at this
time.
III. AIR QUALITY
a. -e.) No Impact -The proposed amendments would not change the
number of housing units or the amount of commercial space that is
included in the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan. The proposed
amendments would not increase the number of stories allowed for
commercial projects in the UC or COR zones. The proposed
amendments would clarify the relationship between the DNSP and
the UDC and provide greater flexibility in the kind of housing
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 19 of 28
types and building characteristics of certain projects. The
proposed amendments would not affect any air quality plan,
violate an air quality standard, increase any criteria pollutant,
expose additional sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations, or remove any odor -related regulations.
C
Therefore, no air quality impacts are anticipated at this time.
IV. BIOLOGICAL
a. -g.) No Impact — The proposed changes to the DNSP would not
RESOURCES
modify or change the land use of any parcel. Commercial and
residential zones would remain as they are. The proposed
modifications would clarify the relationship between the DNSP
and the (UDC) and provide greater flexibility in the kind of
housing types and building characteristics of certain projects. The
proposed changes would not include 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
DNSP amendments would not adversely affect any riparian habitat
or wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The proposed DNSP amendments would help guide development
within Downtown Newhall in areas that are already developed and
urban in nature. The proposed DNSP amendments are consistent
with the DNSP Environmental Impact Report and would not
change the intent or vision of the specific plan. No alterations to
wildlife or migratory fish corridors are proposed, nor would the
proposed amendments change any regulation or code protecting
such resources. The proposed amendments would not affect any
biological resources nor would the proposed amendments conflict
with any local policy, ordinance, local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan. The proposed amendments would not affect a
Significant Ecological Area or Significant Natural Area.
Therefore, no biological impacts are anticipated at this time.
V. CULTURAL
a. -d.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the DNSP would
RESOURCES
not create any impacts to cultural resources in the Downtown
Newhall area. The proposed modifications would not alter any
unique geological feature, paleontological resource, any human
remains or affect any historical or archeological resource.
Therefore, no impact to any archeological, historical or cultural
resource would be caused by the proposed UDC modifications.
r
VI. GEOLOGY AND
a. -i.) No Impact — Southern California has numerous active and
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 20 of 28
SOILS potentially active faults that could affect the City. The proposed
modifications to the DNSP would not change any land use
designation or entitlements, nor would the amendments increase
the risk or exposure of people or property to adverse, harmful,
geologic hazards. The proposed amendments are consistent with
the Environmental Impact Report that was adopted by the City
Council in 2005. The amendments would not significantly change
the character of the envisioned buildings along Main Street, Lyons
Avenue, and Railroad Avenue. Future development would be
required to meet all building, grading, and development codes.
The modifications would not affect any wind or water erosion,
unstable soil, or a change to any topographic feature. No soil will
be moved and no slope greater than 10% will be affected with the
proposed DNSP modifications.
Therefore, no impact to geology and soils is anticipated at this
time. `
VII. HAZARDS AND �a.-i.) No Impact — The proposed changes to the DNSP would not
HAZARDOUS directly expose people to health hazards or hazardous materials
MATERIALS and would not interfere with any emergency response plans. The
proposed amendments would not change the land use designation
for any parcel and would provide greater development flexibility
for land that is already commercially zoned. The proposed
amendments would not increase the number of housing units,
allowed in the DNSP area, nor would they increase the amount of
commercial square -footage that is permitted as part of the specific
plan. Any development within the Downtown Newhall area would
be required to comply with the City's General Plan, the DNSP
development code, and all federal, state, and local hazardous
material regulations.
The proposed code amendments would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment involving an explosion or
release of hazardous materials into the environment. Nothing in
the proposed DNSP amendments would allow for hazardous
emissions or the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or
waste. The proposed amendments do not cover an area that is
within an airport land use plan and there are no private airstrips
nearby. The proposed amendments would only cover those
properties located within the DNSP boundaries, an area that is
already developed and that is urban in nature. The specific plan
area includes open space along Newhall Creek and abuts wildland
areas to the west and southwest that could be subject to wild fires;
however, the proposed amendments would not increase the amount
of populations, housing units, or commercial space that is currently
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 21 of 28
permitted in such areas.
Therefore, no impact to hazardous materials is anticipated at this
time.
VIII. HYDROLOGY
a. -m.) No Impact — The proposed project includes modifications to
AND WATER
the DNSP to guide future land use decisions. No construction will
QUALITY
be permitted with this project that will affect any creek, wash,
channel, river, water supply, watershed, drainage pattern,
stormwater drainage system, or 100 -year flood hazard area. The
proposed project is an amendment for land use provisions.
Subsequent development projects would be required to comply
with the development impact standards, put forth in the City's
General Plan, UDC, the DNSP, and all Clean Water Act
Requirements, including the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES).
Therefore, no impact to hydrology and water quality is anticipated
at this time.
IX. LAND USE AND
a. and c.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the DNSP
PLANNING
would not physically divide an established community. The
revisions would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or
community conservation plan. The proposed modifications would
clarify the relationship between the DNSP and the UDC, and
would create greater flexibility in the style and type of housing
units that are allowed in commercial zones. The proposed changes
would add flexibility within the existing development envelope for
office and retail development, and would encourage mixed use
projects in the downtown area and along major arterial corridors.
b.) In certain instances, the proposed amendments would allow
buildings to be 8' taller than currently permitted, if an applicant
developed a project under. the City's Mixed Use Ordinance. The
proposed amendments would also provide incentives for applicants
who own, plan, and develop an entire block in the Urban Center
zone. These incentives include more flexibility in satisfying the
target floor area ratios for each story/floor, and building larger
projects subject to the issuance of a Minor Use Permit or a
Conditional Use Permit. The proposed amendments would not
change zoning or land use designations in the specific plan area,
nor would they increase the projected population, the number of
allowed housing units, the number of allowable stories, or the
overall amount of commercial space that was analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report that was certified and adopted by the
City Council in 2005. The amendments support the intent of the
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 22 of 28
DNSP, the General Plan, UDC, and Mixed Use Ordinance. The
proposed amendments would aid in the creation of a pedestrian -
oriented, thriving downtown environment within the specific plan
area and would make the DNSP consistent with the Mixed Use
Ordinance.
Therefore, any Land Use or Planning impacts created by the
proposed amendments would be less than significant.
X. MINERAL AND
a. -c.) No Impact — Historically, gold mining, borax mining,
ENERGY
aggregate mining, and oil production have been the principal
RESOURCES
mineral extraction activities in and around the Santa Clarita
Valley. The proposed DNSP modifications would not affect future
mining potential and oil production within the City of Santa
Clarita as no modifications are proposed with respect to mining
activities. The proposed DNSP amendments encourage and mixed
use, compact, pedestrian -oriented development that is more energy
efficient than traditional development. The proposed
modifications would not change the "green building" principles
contained in the adopted specific plan.
Therefore, no impact to mineral and energy resources is
anticipated at this time.
XI. NOISE
a. -f.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the DNSP include
the modification of land use regulations for commercially -zoned
parcels. The amendments would also clarify the relationship
between the DNSP and the UDC. The proposed amendments
would not create any new noise impacts nor would they intensify
existing noise impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the
DNSP Environmental Impact Report. The proposed modifications
would not affect any airport or private airstrip. All future
development will be required to comply with the City's Noise
Ordinance and all applicable noise standards.
Therefore, no impact to noise is anticipated at this time.
XII. POPULATION
a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the DNSP would
AND HOUSING
not induce substantial population growth in the Downtown
Newhall area, either directly or indirectly, nor would any of the
proposed activities cause displacement of existing homes or
people. The proposed amendments would not change the number
of housing units permitted by the DNSP. The amendments would
allow greater flexibility in the type and character of housing units
that are permitted in commercial zones. The proposed
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 23 of 28
amendments are regulatory modifications and do not include or
reference any specific development project.
Therefore, the project would have no impacts to population and
housing.
XIII. PUBLIC
a.)i.-iv) No Impact — The City is proposing to modify the DNSP to
SERVICES
clarify the relationship between the specific plan and the UDC, and
to allow for greater flexibility in building design and housing
options in certain zones. The proposed code amendments would
not create the need for new government safety facilities, and would
not increase response time for the Los Angeles County Sheriffs
Department or the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The
proposed code amendments would not increase the need for new
schools or parks as they would not allow for an increase in the
numbcr of housing units or the amount of commercial space that
are currently permitted by the DNSP.
The code amendments themselves would not directly affect the
need for fire protection services, schools, or parks, any future
development would be subject to all applicable development fees,
which are established to compensate for growth.
Therefore, no impact related to public services is anticipated at this
time.
XIV. RECREATION
a. -b.) No Impact — The proposed changes to the DNSP would not
have any impact on recreational amenities within the City of Santa
Clarita. The proposed amendments are regulatory in nature and do
not include any development activities at this time.
Therefore, no significant impact to recreation would be caused by
the proposed DNSP modifications.
XV.
a. -h.) No Impact — The proposed project would have' no
TRANSPORTATION /
developmental impacts that would cause an increase in traffic load
TRAFFIC
and capacity on street systems at this time. All future development
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 policies, plans, and programs supporting
alternative transportation. The project would have no impacts on
City traffic systems including emergency routes, parking capacity,
pedestrian or bicycle routes, air traffic patters, or increase hazards
due to a design feature or incompatible use. The proposed
amendments would not increase the number of housing units or
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 24 of 28
population projections identified in the DNSP, nor would the
amendments increase the amount of commercial space.
Therefore, no impact to transportation and traffic is anticipated at
this time.
XVI. UTILITIES AND
a. -g.) No Impact — The proposed modification to DNSP does not
SERVICE SYSTEMS
include any development at this time nor would the amendment
permit any additional population, housing, or commercial growth
beyond the totals that were included in the adoption of the original
plan. 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 evaluated on a case by case
basis and required to comply with the DNSP, the City's General
Plan, would be subject to the requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, as well as the requirements of all
applicable utility purveyors. Compliance with these requirements
would ensure all federal, state and local statutes and imposed
regulations are met.
Therefore, no impacts to utilities or service systems are anticipated
at this time.
XVII. MANDATORY
a. -c.) No Impact — The project would have no impact on the
FINDINGS OF
environment that would lead to a substantial reduction in habitat of
SIGNIFICANCE
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 at this time. The proposed DNSP
amendments would apply to future development projects within
the Downtown Newhall area. The proposed amendments would
not remove any established City regulations that protect any plant
and animal species. Due to the nature of the proposed DNSP
amendments, and the fact that no additional residential units,
population, or commercial space would be permitted beyond that
which is already contained in the existing specific plan, the
proposal would not contribute to any cumulative impacts and
would not cause environmental effects that would adversely affect
humans.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts that could
result in a Mandatory Findings of Significance.
XVIII. DEPARTMENT
a.) No Impact — The legislative intent of the Department of Fish and
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 25 of 28
OF FISH AND GAME Game `De Minimus' Finding is "to extend'the current user -based
`DE MINIMUS' funding system by allocating the transactional costs of wildlife
FINDING protection and management to those who would consume those
resources through urbanization and development..." (AB 3158,
Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, effective January 1, 1991, Section
1(c)). The proposed DNSP amendments would not entitle any new
development.
Since, the proposed amendments would have no adverse effect
either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources,
the project's impacts on fish and wildlife are de minimus.
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 26 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM'
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
I. AESTHETICS
1-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
2-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
III. AIR QUALITY
3-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
5-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
6-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 27 of 28
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
8-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
9-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES
10-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
t -
XI. NOISE
11-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
12-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
13-1. Mitigation:
Master Case 08-049
UDC 08-002
Page 28 of 28
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
XIV. RECREATION
14-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
15-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:,
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
16-1. Mitigation:
Party Responsible for Mitigation:
Monitoring Action/Timing:
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency:
SAMCURRENIM2008\08-049 (DNSP Amendments)\On-049 Initial Study doc