HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - AMEND PLAN FOR PROJ AREA (4)Agenda Item: w 5C7 AoZ
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL / REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS Item to be presented by: An -nine Chaparyan
DATE: May 26, 2009
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSIDER
WRITTEN FINDINGS TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS, CONSIDER
THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND INTRODUCE FOR
FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE FOR AMENDMENT NO.
THREE TO EXTEND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S
EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
1) Adopt a Resolution adopting written findings in response to written objections to Amendment
No. Three received from affected taxing entities and property owners, on the proposed
Amendment No. Three to the Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall- Redevelopment Project Area;
and
2) Introduce and pass to second reading an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NEWHALL
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PERTAINING TO THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF,.AND APPROVING AND
ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO."
Redevelopment Agency: No Action.
BACKGROUND
The Redevelopment Agency .of the City of Santa Clarita ("Agency") seeks to amend the
Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") in
Ordinance passed to
A0q-
*Wig - Second reading
order to reinstitute its existing eminent domain authority for a period of twelve (12) additional
years.
In Fall 2008, the City Council and the Agency formally began a process for the consideration and
adoption of the proposed Amendment No. Three to the Plan pursuant to the California
Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.,
"Redevelopment Law"). A number of actions in that process have been taken to date, including
preparation of a draft Amendment ("Amendment"), an Initial Study and Negative Declaration,
and a Report to the City Council ("Report"), that describes the implications of the Amendment.
The Agency and City Council held a joint public Bearing on May 12, 2009 where the Agency and
City Council received a staff presentation and heard all evidence and testimony for and against
approval of the Amendment.
Amendment No. Three is needed to extend a potential redevelopment mechanism of acquiring
property via eminent domain for a variety of reasons. A review of the objectives of the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan is essential to fully understand these reasons. Its goals are as follows:
1. Develop programs and incentives for the rehabilitation of old, obsolescent, and
deteriorating structures in the Project Area.
2. Promote the comprehensive planning, redesign, replanning, reconstruction, and/or
rehabilitation in such a manner as to achieve a higher and better utilization of the
land within the Project Area.
3. Provide for adequate parcels and required public improvements to induce new
construction and/or rehabilitation by private enterprise.
4. Consolidate parcels as needed to induce new or expanded, centralized,
commercial development in the Project Area.
5. Remove economic impediments to land assembly and in -fill development in areas
that are not properly subdivided for development or redevelopment.
It is possible that the Redevelopment Agency may never fully realize all of these goals without
eminent domain authority. Eminent domain could play a significant role in the future in meeting
goals two through five listed above.
If adopted as proposed, Amendment No. Three would permit the use of eminent domain to
acquire commercial and industrial Project Area property, as well as, two specific non -owner
occupied rental residential structures. These, two residential properties were included with great
care and analysis.
A property at the northwest corner of Drayton Street and Springbrook Avenue was included for a
variety of reasons. Not only is the property blighted, but the location of this multi -family
dwelling in the middle of an industrial park with heavy truck traffic puts the health and safety of
its residents at risk. Surrounding -commercialparcels also show signs of blight that are
detrimental to the health and safety of these residents as well. While no specific plan exists for
the property, it is possible that the Redevelopment Agency may need to acquire this property as
part of a greater project requiring lot consolidation within the next twelve (12) years. This type
of project would directly address goals 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
Without eminent domain authority over this parcel, this type of project would not be possible.
The parcel on the southwest corner of Magic Mountain Parkway and Bouquet Canyon/Railroad
Avenue has also been included after careful consideration. This parcel is located at the corner of
a busy intersection and northern gateway of the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. Not only
is the property blighted, but past negotiations with the property owner have resulted in failed
attempts to redevelop the property. While no specific plan exists for the property, it is possible
that the Redevelopment Agency may need to acquire this property as part of a greater
redevelopment project within the next twelve (12) years. This type of project would directly
address goals 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Newhall Redevelopment Plan. Without eminent domain
authority over this parcel, this type of project would not be possible. It is important to note that
should either of these parcels with non -owner occupied rental properties be acquired by the
Redevelopment Agency via eminent domain, all residents would receive relocation assistance
and benefits according to State Relocation Law,
The City has received a wide array of economic development accolades because of its proactive
activities. If the Agency were to loose its eminent domain authority, future projects could be
jeopardized with the lack of this important redevelopment tool. While the Agency may never use
eminent domain, maintaining the legal authority to obtain property via this process is vital to
successful redevelopment of the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area.
Community Outreach and Noticing
Redevelopment Law requires that the Agency and City Council mail notices to property owners,
residents, and businesses within the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area that the Agency could
identify. Along with notice to these afffected parties, notice was also sent via certified mail to
the affected taxing entities. All 3,891 notices were mailed by April 6, 2009.
Furthermore, to familiarize non-english speaking residents and business owners documents were
mailed and provided in both english and spanish. Property owners were mailed notices in
english only.
In addition to mailed notification, a community meeting was conducted on April 27, 2009, to
provide project area property owners, businesses, residents and the general public with the
opportunity to learn more about Amendment No. Three to extend the Agency's eminent domain
authority. The meeting took place at Hart Hall, in Hart Park, and was attended by approximately
36 individuals.
Staff has also conducted.outreach to the property owners of the two specific rental residential
properties that are included as part'of Amendment No. Three. Staff has explained the reasoning
for including these parcels and the ramifications of using eminent domain.
At the joint public hearing held May 12, 2009, many community members raised issues
regarding the proposed Amendment No. Three which staff addressed in both english and spanish.
",3
Residents' concerns were clarified by staff to ensure rental residential properties were protected
as a residential use and exempt from eminent domain. Concerns were also raised regarding state
law allowing for acquisition of rental residential property. Staff clarified that the City is limiting
its eminent domain authority to commercial and industrial property, and potentially two specific
rental residential properties only. The proposed Amendment No. Three would not allow for
acquisition through eminent domain of any other existing homes or residential units.
At the Joint Public Hearing, property owner and business owner concerns focused on the eminent
domain process, valuation of property, and additional benefits. Staff provided information
regarding these subjects and referenced. other documents available for public inspection.
Since the May 12, 2009 Joint Public Hearing, staff held an additional community meeting on
May 21, publishing a legal notice in the Signal newspaper, mailing notice to any individual that
attended previous meetings, and personally calling individuals that spoke at the Joint Public
Hearing.
Written Findings in Response to Written Objections
The Agency received two written objections to the proposed Amendment at or before the joint
public hearing. In accordance with Section 33363 of Redevelopment Law, Agency staff has
prepared written findings in response to all written objections received from affected property
owners (no objections were received from affected taxing entities) at or before the joint public
hearing, which are attached to this staff report. The City Council is being asked to review and
consider adopting the written findings by resolution.
Staff also received a general written response from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD). MWD notified the City and Redevelopment Agency of existing MWD
facilities in the Redevelopment Project Area and requested notification of any development
projects near MWD facilities.
First Reading of Ordinance and Adoption of Negative Declaration
After consideration of all written findings in response to written objections, the City Council is
being asked to consider introducing an Ordinance adopting the proposed Amendment and
conduct a first reading of the' ordinance. If a first reading is conducted at today's meeting, the
City Council will conduct a second reading of the ordinance at the June 9, 2009 Agency and City
Council meeting.
The City Council is also being asked to consider approving and adopting a Negative Declaration
for the Amendment. The Agency has followed the appropriate environmental review process for
the Amendment. The Negative Declaration, along with the Initial Study, was prepared in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
(California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.). The Negative Declaration evaluated
the potential environmental impacts and found that the proposed Amendment would not present
any adverse environmental impacts. Additional environmental review will be conducted as site
specific iinpleimentation projects are considered.
In accordance with CEQA provisions, the Negative Declaration was available for public review
and comment for a period of thirty (30) days. The review period commenced on April 6, 2009
and ended on May 12, 2009. A notice of intent to adopt the negative Declaration and its
availability for public review and comment was also published separately on April 10, 2009, in
The Signal, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Santa Clarita. In addition, an
opportunity for public testimony on the Negative Declaration was provided at the May 12, 2009
joint public hearing. The Negative Declaration was made available for the Agency and the City
Council prior to the joint public hearing as an attachment to the Report to City. Council and is
available now as an attachment to this staff report.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
At the Joint Public Hearing held May 12, 2009, the City Council asked staff to provide
alternative action for consideration to amend the Redevelopment Plan regarding the Agency's
eminent domain authority. Staff has prepared two draft ordinances for Council consideration.
Each version of the ordinance provides for adoption of the Negative Declaration prepared for the
amendment.
One draft Ordinance adopts Amendment No. Three in total providing for eminent domain over
commercial and industrial property, as well as, the two specific identified rental residential
structures located at the southwest corner of Magic Mountain Parkway and Bouquet
Canyon/Railraod Avenue and the northwest corner of Drayton Street and Springbrook Avenue.
The second draft Ordinance adopts Amendment No. Three excluding the two specific rental
residential properties but providing for eminent domain over commercial and industrial property.
FISCAL IMPACT
NONE
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution - Approving and Adopting the Response to Written Objections
Exhibit D - Written Findings in Response to Written Objections
Ordinance - Adopting Amendment No. Three and the Negative Declaration
Ordinance - Adopting Amendment No. Three, Excluding Two Specific Residential Rental
Properties, and the Negative Declaration.
Exhibit A - Amendment No. Three
Exhibit C - Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Exhibit B - Report to Council available in the City Clerk's Reading File
f5
RESOLUTION 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM AFFECTED TAXING
ENTITIES AND PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA
WHEREAS, on July 8, 1997, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California,
("City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 97-12 establishing the Redevelopment Plan
("Redevelopment Plan") for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, and subsequently
amended said Redevelopment Plan on June 26, 2007 by Ordinance No. 07-05 and May 13, 2008
by Ordinance No. 08-6; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita ("Agency") is
proposing to amend the Redevelopment Plan to modify its eminent domain authority and has
prepared and submitted to the City Council a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
("Amendment No. Three") pursuant to California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and
Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ("Redevelopment Law"); and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared
for Amendment No. Three that addresses the potential impacts of Amendment No. Three, all in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
receive testimony from the public relative to Amendment No. Three and the related
Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and
has considered all written objections received and all evidence and testimony presented for or
against any and all aspects of Amendment No. Three and related Environmental Initial Study and
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, Redevelopment Law Section 33363 provides that, before adopting an
amendment to a redevelopment plan, the City Council, who is the legislative body, shall make
written findings in response to each written objection received from an affected taxing entity or
property owner received before or at the noticed joint public hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby resolve as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the written findings in response to written
objections received from affected taxing entities and property owners as set forth in Exhibit D,
and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2009.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
2
MU KIM •:
l�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Sharon L. Dawson, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
3
CITY CLERK
101
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
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 Resolution 09- adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, California on , 2009, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this ^ day of
)2009.
Sharon L. Dawson, MMC
City Clerk .
By
Susan Caputo, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
0
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 VALENCIA BOULEVARD
SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
PSG
AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO NEWHALL
P REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
May 26, 2008
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
www.webrsg.com
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................1
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES........................................................................................1
OLGAKACZMAR......................................................................................................................................2
ALFONSOTORRES..................................................................................................................................4
0
0s
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
On May 12, 2009, the Santa Clarita City Council ("City Council") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Santa Clarita ("Agency") held a joint public hearing on the proposed Amendment No. Three to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan for the modification of the Agency's eminent domain authority.
The California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq.,
"Redevelopment Law") requires that before considering an amendment to a redevelopment plan, the
legislative body shall evaluate all evidence and testimony, both for and against the adoption of the
amendment, and make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or
taxing entity. Further, the legislative body is to respond in writing to the written objections received before or
at the noticed public hearing and that these responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised and
address in detail the reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions.
This document is the written response of the City Council to the written objections received before or at the
joint public hearing.
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
Two written objections were filed at or before the public hearing. These include the following
1. Letter dated April 27, 2009, from Olga Kaczmar, opposing the amendment for various stated reasons
and received prior to the joint public hearing.
2. Written Comment Card, dated May 12, 2009, from Alfonso Torres, opposing the amendment received
at the joint public hearing.
This document addresses each of these written objections separately.
QN
E- z
T
°p
>, o c o
ooh
QO
—j U
Uw
-C
7
o U)
U) 4)
t~ C -O m c
-0-0 E acic
a) N C a) E @
Q.- U) Int.— Cn �O
Qm
O) E CoC
�0�
Z 30
���
C O a 7 U) ca w, a
������Ma�,�M���
~O
L''YC
moa)—�
�E V)co EpENpot6p
Q z
(D a)
3 c
a) �n C C.
L N c
a• Oa "(n a) C C C c- M-0 U)
U a) r-. (n C E
a) c� o c — c >
(A w
Cu (
c )
0) oa)
M p> p
oa)3�co� ULL c�_�
O
c fl d
con N `p
a 0 W -op � U N C m O O 0) a`)
H�
Qua a) n c
u c pen �'C
*
'N a) c 0 �.
a �vt o
UO
�> 0— E
E 50 E 0-
�
ac�i
_ _
T: �a C X-0 CL can �c
i—
w
> U° O a
o c p a�
-0 p 0
U a
Co
cn m ca 0 a� o c Q .Q o
ca Co p)`0 ao 0
HW
(D0'-oao>i
cO,.�0a)
o� c�C Cooccaaa) >0
LLz
a) C V_
t N 'U)
E co
O Oir,
y (D
E C. a
o
> 0 E ca
C
O a) ca r= uj m-0 U a
a
U o
d
N
m a0O
�
Ca
a ;Q
C
— a) =--
a) a na
•� c
Cu
Z w
O
>
:2
�a O
U) () UO o 'o a E'C a
a) ( U
�-
0
�
0
�'C�C
�
�Ot�n
CoO
ECo0��oaMa
N63
m
a)j0
a N
a)mCu
N -0 -0 -0
M
;n2Q
�
U O- N nN O aaaO U a
F -
Z
w
2
a
O
J
w
w
C
w
w
Q
N
U
Q
(D
J
0
r N M et
u u u u
�Ch
b
5
N N
�pa
TO
,yam �.C7
00 H O
P.
443
Wo
dry" to u G o
p• y.
^tel b c7 Ell N
U •q ZO G O 00
2,4
m. 0QQ t0 it �-1
taa
so
V Lu��j+} �� •'J� ej
CEJ. q) L G P.•.H' '[dOY Gd:
lJJ '� cV }9bt*y 2 �
v t7.
g; d>
U A � cn 7
'' . b�• .d• .�
z
Q�
F- z
�0
JV
UW
Q �
� m
z0
Qz
cn w
LL H
vO
W
W
H(J)
LL Oz
i' G.
U(1)
zW
W
i�
a
f—
z
W
E
rL
0
J
W
W
in
W
w
�OOOc�
c
7 C
0 — N
c6 - N
cm ° ca cc c
U C OO M
c a) U 0) 3 d
0)a)
Q o oo,o
C ° •c C E
0 CL
E N ca O O
0 r- L) )
>m °
LE U�
a) 3 a O
-0 '0 a) of
w @
a) Ci D-
0 o0 (CO °
O a) -L+�J
N a) ° c a)
Q� c E
_ C1
Q (Dca _ O °
a) N OO N
���000
'jE0�
L -0 2 a 0� Ea -
O O O C O O
f Co _C U) (D
L QI
•CM L 'c CU N
c
ca N
(D > m C N
ca .
4 (n _ L
U) 7 C O N Y
c N o t
O — ° O o P
-0 O •n -C (0
j � O a) O
1- °0 EcO
o
O) — .L O
• ` O a) N -o
> E E 0 N
c _ 0 0
�p O L L
E -0 > L
C 3 0 Q
m a)
L .c y Q L C Q
E 0) N
O C
a) c 0
a
3aiQECD 'a>iw-
0 N O a U O
7 C p
O T
L 00 > .L O •N
�..
O) O O C1 0) C1 0)
CDQ'— Q' N'C C6•C
(0 N (D C C O
.
rl-
u
N _0 U)
O
rn
u
a) �; =- C
a CN6 N. c UO
a'
'ice bbD
v 6n
U
c p 7 w
3oUC ES
qL
�
cUo
o.ai��3
d
0- o
CL c ma 0
Up °
a c U N
C6 a) vi
w 3�
0 (D U) Q> 'C
O
a)
> O) V O
O .� O O O U E
c
c a) ?i
� q C�J1 V
o •c O U
c p 30 ` +L- O N
° L) 0 M
uj
-•
o
N
o
O O
.m
NV,
N N O
O=
�- 0
m
o0
o
_
�-arnC
S 0
•> c a)
0)Lo
d q
-d
Qbqj.,
.0
E
O
N
.A
C
a) ,a)
3
O.M.
.Q L
'N O Q
co C O O
O
O
O N
O :-
N
C Q�
O C
O o a) -0
CV
c
>, 0
(U O 0
�mc�'`�C6a>i>>
a)
°'°?o'Q
C (�
L
O
01
E
O
i
O C
n
'
a�
t 9 gper°
>
cn ca - 0 0 3.. o o
ca
c
O
CL 0
0-6 •. >
P CD E C O L O
O
O
p O
N> •C
EcO�00
�t
o0
3
U��d
C
.O
`)
i
p' N
E
p
N
c
Q
c
c0 U
co
ai c o >°
n
o
o h
c o°>
0)3 Oc°o
•_ E
Q O C a)
w
O
Na
0
�.0U°0
E U
O
(i O)
C a
_
° a)
o �� �O 0
L)
c
m a)� a) a`)
r� C2 .0 3 Q .L-• "0
N '
aD
CA
a) a -C
LL
m Y O 5 E
LO
u
0
u
rl-
u
co
u
rn
u
o m
a'
'ice bbD
v 6n
A
qL
�
o
G
o.ai��3
d
"o
oma•
w 3�
� q C�J1 V
H 'rYi
El
bD:b
-•
o
•��y G
q �,
NV,
5..c
d q
-d
Qbqj.,
Q.-
.-o.o,
.A
O.M.
H, A sa. 3
.�
Iffa "i
3
p ti LL
i
.J b
n
'
a�
t 9 gper°
>
S
1 `f
U)
w
O
`O
U)
Z
O
LL
ON
_Q) co' U d (13.0
O Ci>._
N U a N
L'°
O N z U U, C a
0-0 O
(0
C O- Co
d i) a
w0 rL-
c
Ym D a) '> C
a) m a)
�
f6
N
7
c @ U
Lco
L
C s >
-c a)E>
a CCo
rn< a o
a) a c °
c O OIC?aU
; @ O
U
c a
.. c »�
c o o
E.c .o aac
p cu U) c -C
U
U ENO
°C aU
_
a> ° O
U a)U
a? a o ° O- O U "
�6 o -oCL _
ci a
E
opo -a
E aca
C a) O
�--0 c
O L .O
D N
O UcoCao
� s- U c
a) cn� 3 c
a)
�� °ID Z U
3 o
°-C o E�
""aU�
C
0.
�
C 3
4� OU)0 °
0
CL 0 N
U) CO
O
y U a) CO L a) O
o Cl
'a
Oa L p ++
cu
O C U L a cu C
LL
in N L .�
m `^
CV
ma �
N m
c fti - c E
U a
.b yQ _. W $
Sr O
90 E
C Sir rtip E ° m
N 0 n D c Al U
h v
)S ;�
z '.
vi
r .E y.W wo
'o .w w
Eo
� �VVV777 F
n i\� � }!CJI 5�2 .0 �
9 p YI A v:uj
cl
a a
N. o.
E ji
-
o
�4,`f •� � � m m 7 at VC m �
Ty �q m I
� o
,31
ORDINANCE NO. 09 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PERTAINING TO THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF, AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, on July 8, 1997, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California,
("City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 97-12 establishing the Redevelopment Plan
("Redevelopment Plan") for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"), and
subsequently amended said Redevelopment Plan on June 26, 2007 by Ordinance No. 07-05 and
May 13, 2008 by Ordinance No. 08-6; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita ("Agency") is
proposing to amend the Redevelopment Plan to modify its eminent domain authority and has
prepared a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("Amendment No. Three") pursuant
to California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq., in
the form attached herewith as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 33450 authorizes a City to
amend or modify redevelopment plans by ordinance where it. deems such amendment or
modification to be necessary and desirable; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. Three is proposed to extend the authority of the Agency to
use the power of eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire property within the Project Area, but
with a more limited scope of authority than currently exists. The original eminent domain
authority of the Agency expires on July 8, 2009. Amendment No. Three would extend the
Agency's eminent domain authority for twelve years and would permit the use of eminent
domain to acquire Project Area property that is not occupied as a residence, as well as two
specific residential parcels located in nonresidential zones at the southwest corner of Magic
Mountain Parkway and Bouquet Canyon/Railroad Avenue and the northwest corner of Drayton
Street and Springbrook Avenue. Other than those specifically identified residential properties,
the Agency would have no authority to acquire any other residential property within the Project
Area. Because of the limited number of residences subject to the proposed eminent domain
authority, formation of a project area committee is not required pursuant to Health and Safety
Code Section 33385.3; and
WHEREAS, it is the purpose and intent of the City Council and the Agency to cause and
facilitate the orderly redevelopment of the Project Area in order to eliminate blight and the
conditions that perpetuate economic stagnation, to increase employment opportunities and
property values within the Project Area, and to stimulate economic growth and revitalization
within the Project Area to the benefit of the community and the property owners, residents, and
businesses within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared for Amendment
No. Three, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA); and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009 the City and Agency conducted a joint public hearing to
consider the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration for Amendment No. Three, at
which meeting members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon the
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, in accordance with Health and Safety Code section
33458, the City Council and the Agency, upon the consent of both, conducted a joint public
hearing, noticed in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 33452, and at which
Amendment No. Three was considered.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that all the facts, findings and conclusions
set forth in the above recitations are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council, based upon the substantial evidence within the record as a
whole, including, but not limited to, the Report to Council on Amendment No. Three
(incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit `B"), the text of the Amendment No. Three (Exhibit
"A"), the Redevelopment Plan, as.amended, and all previous findings and reports associated with
the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, testimony received at the joint public hearing. as well as
written comments and objections, if any, makes the following findings:
A. The City Council and the Agency consented to holding, and held, a joint
public hearing to consider Amendment No. Three in accordance with California Health and
Safety Code section 33458 and, therefore, the City Council may adopt Amendment No. Three
with no action necessary by the Agency, including any requirement for the Agency to issue a
recommendation to the City Council, prior to adoption; and
B. The reports and information stated in California Health and Safety Code
section 33352, to the extent required by Health and Safety Code section 33457.1, have been
prepared and made available to the public prior to the public hearing concerning adoption of this
Ordinance; and
C. It is necessary and desirable to amend the Redevelopment Plan, as
previously amended, as proposed in Amendment No. Three.
2 I/
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 Negative Declaration (Exhibit C) 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 10, 2009 in accordance with CEQA. The
public review period was open from April 6, 2009 through. May 12,, 2009.
C. Staff found that there were no impacts created as a result of the proposed
Amendment No. Three 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 based is the Amendment
No. Three to the Redevelopment Plan within the Community Development Department and is in
the custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 4: The requirements of California Health and Safety Code sections 33354.5 and
33354.6, insofar as they apply to the amendment of California redevelopment plans, are not
applicable to Amendment No. Three and, with respect to such sections, the City Council makes
the findings as follows:
A. Amendment No. Three does not add territory to, or change the boundaries
of, the Project Area; and
B. Amendment No. Three does not change the taxing authority of the Agency
or the allocation of.taxes among affected taxing entities within the Project Area; and
C. Amendment No. Three does not contain any changes in land use
designation or regulation which affect the General Plan for the City.
SECTION 5: Based upon the scope of Amendment No. Three and the findings of the City
Council as set forth in Section 3, above, and the materials relied upon by the City Council as
described in Section 3, the findings and determinations pursuant to California Health and Safety
Code sections 33457.1 and 33367 are not relevant and not warranted. Nevertheless, the findings
of such section 33367, made in conjunction with the Redevelopment Plan, Amendment No. 1
and Amendment No. 2 continue to be applicable to the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, and
the City Council finds that the following continue to be applicable with Amendment No. Three:
A. The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is
3
necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the California Community
Redevelopment Law; and,
B. The Redevelopment Plan, as amended, will assist in the redevelopment of
the Project Area in conformity with the California Community Redevelopment Law and in the
interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare; and,
C. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, is
economically sound and feasible; and,
D. 'The Redevelopment Plan, as amended, is consistent with the City of Santa
Clarita's General Plan, including the Housing Element, which is in substantial compliance with
California Government Code section 65580 et seq.; and,
E. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, will promote the
public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City of Santa Clarita and will effectuate the
purposes and policies of the California Community Redevelopment Law; and,
F. The condemnation of real property, as limited under Amendment No.
Three, is necessary to the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, and, since the
Agency is required under the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, to exercise its powers of eminent
domain in the manner consistent with the adopted Owner Participation Rules and Relocation
Plan as well as the California Constitution and the California Eminent Domain Law, adequate
provisions exist for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law; and,
G. Although Amendment No. Three only permits very limited acquisition of
real property upon which persons reside, the Agency's previously adopted Relocation Plan, as
well as the discussion set forth in the Agency's report for Amendment No. Three satisfy the
requirement for a feasible plan for relocation of any such,displaced persons; and,
H. As a safeguard for families and residents in the Project Area, the Agency
has adopted a Relocation Plan and a Replacement Housing Plan that provide a feasible method
for the relocation of any occupants of housing facilities that, in rare circumstances, may be
displaced as the result of a redevelopment project within the Project Area. These plans contain
procedures that ensure the availability of temporary decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings that: (i)
are located in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities; (ii) are equal in number to the number of displaced families
and/or residents; (iii) leased at rents or sold at prices within the financial means of such displaced
families and/or residents; and (iv) are reasonably accessible to their places of employment.
These plans also contain procedures that ensure permanent dwellings meeting the above
requirements will be available to displaced families and/or residents within a period not longer
than three years from the time of displacement; and,
I. Inclusion of lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare, but which are located within the existing boundaries of
the Project Area, are necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Project Area; and,
J. All real property and areas included within the existing boundaries of the
Project Area have been included because they are necessary for effective redevelopment and not
primarily for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from the area
pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33670; and,
K. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could
not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid
and assistance of the Agency; and,
L. The Project Area is "predominantly urbanized" as that term is defined in
California Health and Safety Code § 33320.1 in that not less than eighty percent (80%) of the lots
in the Project Area have been developed for urban uses; and
M. The time limitations contained in the Redevelopment Plan, as amended,
are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the
ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area; and
N. The implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, will improve
or alleviate the physical and economic conditions of blight in the project area, as described in the
report prepared pursuant,to Section 33352, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
O. As further described in the report for Amendment No. Three, the City
Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the
time occupants of the Project Area are displaced, and pending development of any such facilities,
there will be available to any displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents
comparable to those in the community at the time of their displacement.
SECTION 6: The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita hereby adopts and approves
Amendment No. Three, Exhibit "A," and designates the Redevelopment Plan, as amended,
including Amendment No. Three, as the official redevelopment plan of the Project Area.
SECTION 7: Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the provisions of Amendment No.
Three shall supersede any inconsistent or conflicting provisions of the Redevelopment Plan, as
amended.
SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita hereby declares that. it would have
adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or
portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 9: 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 )2009.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
rol
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 09 was regularly introduced and placed upon 'its first reading at a
`regular meeting of the City Council on the day of, 2009. That thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day
of , 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
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. 40806).
CITY CLERK
7
�2
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 09- , adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, CA on , 2009, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
52009.
Sharon L. Dawson, MMC
City Clerk
By
Susan L. Caputo, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
3
ORDINANCE NO. 09 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AMENDMENT NO. THREE,
EXCLUDING TWO SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTIES, TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT.PROJECT AREA
PERTAINING TO THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, on July 8, 1997, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California,
("City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 97-12 establishing the Redevelopment Plan
("Redevelopment Plan") for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"), and
subsequently amended said Redevelopment Plan on June 26, 2007 by Ordinance No. 07-05 and
May 13, 2008 by Ordinance No. 08-6; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita ("Agency") is
proposing to amend the Redevelopment Plan to modify its eminent domain authority and has
prepared a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("Amendment No. Three") pursuant
to California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq., in
the form attached herewith as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 33450 authorizes a City to
amend or modify redevelopment plans by ordinance where it deems such amendment or
modification to be necessary and desirable; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. Three is proposed to extend the authority of the
Agency to use the power of eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire property within the Project
Area, but with a more limited scope of authority than currently exists. The original eminent
domain authority of the Agency expires on July 8, 2009. Amendment No. Three would extend
the Agency's eminent domain authority for twelve years and would permit the use of eminent
domain to acquire Project Area property that is not occupied as a residence. The Agency would
have no, authority to acquire residential property within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, it is the purpose and intent of the City Council and the Agency to cause
and facilitate the orderly redevelopment of the Project Area in order to eliminate blight and the
conditions that perpetuate economic stagnation, to increase employment opportunities and
property values within the Project Area, and to stimulate economic growth and revitalization
within the Project Area to the benefit of the community and the property owners, residents, and
businesses within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared for
Amendment No. Three, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009 the City and Agency conducted a joint public hearing
C�y
to consider the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration for Amendment No. Three, at
which meeting members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon the
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, in accordance with Health and Safety Code section
33458, the City Council and the Agency, upon the consent of both, conducted a joint public
hearing, noticed in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 33452, and at which
Amendment No. Three was considered.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that all the facts, findings and conclusions
set forth in the above recitations are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council, based upon the substantial evidence within the record as a
whole, including, but not limited to, the Report to Council on Amendment No. Three
(incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit `B"), the text of the Amendment No. Three (Exhibit
"A"), the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, and all previous findings and reports associated with
the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, testimony received at the joint public hearing as well as
written comments and objections, if any, makes the following findings:
A. . The City Council and the Agency consented to holding, and
held, a .joint public hearing to consider Amendment No. Three in accordance with California
Health and Safety Code section 33458 and, therefore, the City Council may adopt Amendment
No. Three with no action necessary by the Agency, including any requirement for the Agency to
issue a recommendation to the City Council, prior to adoption; and
B. The reports and information stated in California Health and
Safety Code section 33352, to the extent required by Health and Safety Code section 33457.1,
have been prepared and made available to the public prior to the public hearing concerning
adoption of this Ordinance; and
C. It is necessary and desirable to amend the Redevelopment
Plan, as previously amended, as proposed in Amendment No. Three.
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 Negative Declaration (Exhibit C) 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
2 �5
by affected governmental agencies and the public and all comments received, if any, have been
considered. The document was posted and advertised on April 10, 2009 in accordance with
CEQA. The public review period was open from April 6, 2009 through May 12, 2009.
C. Staff found that there were no impacts created as a result of
the proposed Amendment No. Three 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 based is the
Amendment No. Three to the Redevelopment Plan within the Community Development
Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 4: The requirements of California Health and Safety Code sections 33354.5 and
33354.6, insofar as they apply to the amendment of California redevelopment plans, are not
applicable to Amendment No. Three and, with respect to such. sections, the City Council snakes
the findings as follows:
A. Amendment No. Three does not add territory to, or change
the boundaries of, the Project Area; and
B. Amendment No. Three does not change the taxing authority
of the Agency or the allocation of taxes among affected taxing entities within the Project Area;
and
C. Amendment No. Three does not contain any changes in land
use designation or regulation which affect the General Plan for the City.
SECTION 5: Based upon the scope of Amendment No. Three and the findings of the City
Council as set -forth in Section 3, above, and the materials relied upon by the City Council as
described in Section 3, the. findings and determinations pursuant to California Health and Safety
Code sections 33457.1 and 33367 are not relevant and not warranted. Nevertheless, the findings
of such section 33367, made in conjunction with the Redevelopment Plan, Amendment No. 1
and Amendment No. 2 continue to be applicable to the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, and
the City Council finds that the following continue to be applicable with Amendment No. Three:
A. The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of
which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the California Community
Redevelopment Law; and,
B. The Redevelopment Plan, as amended, will assist in the
redevelopment of the Project Area in conformity with the California Community Redevelopment
Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare; and,
C. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan, as
amended, is economically sound and feasible; and,
D. The Redevelopment Plan, as amended, is consistent with the
City of Santa Clarita's General Plan, including the Housing Element, which is in substantial
compliance with California Government Code section 65580 et seq.; and,
E. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan, as amended,
will promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City of Santa Clarita and will
effectuate the purposes and policies of the California Community Redevelopment Law; and,
F. The condemnation of real property, as limited under
Amendment No. Three, is necessary to the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, as
amended, and, since the Agency is required under the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, to .
exercise its powers of eminent domain in the manner consistent with the adopted Owner
Participation Rules and Relocation Plan as well as the California Constitution and the California
Eminent Domain Law, adequate provisions exist for payment for property to be acquired as
provided by law; and,
G. Although Amendment No. Three limits acquisition of real
property upon which persons reside, the Agency's previously adopted Relocation Plan, as well as
the discussion set forth in the Agency's report for Amendment No. Three satisfy the requirement
for a feasible plan for relocation of any such displaced persons; and,
H. As a safeguard for families and residents in the Project Area,
the Agency has adopted a Relocation Plan and a Replacement Housing Plan that provide a
feasible method for the relocation of any occupants of housing facilities that, in rare
circumstances, may be displaced as the result of a redevelopment project within the Project Area.
These plans contain procedures that ensure the availability of temporary decent, safe, and
sanitary dwellings that: (i) are located in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less
desirable in regard to .public utilities and commercial facilities; (ii) are equal in number to the
number of displaced families and/or residents; (iii) leased at rents or sold at prices within the
financial means of such displaced families and/or residents; and (iv) are reasonably accessible to
their places of employment. These plans also contain procedures that ensure permanent
dwellings meeting the above requirements will be available to displaced families and/or residents
within a period not longer than three years from the time of displacement; and,
I. Inclusion of lands, buildings, or improvements which are not
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, but which are located within the existing
boundaries of the Project Area, are necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Project Area;
and,
J. All real property and areas included within the existing
boundaries of the Project Area have been included because they are necessary for effective
redevelopment and not primarily for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment
revenues from the area pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33670; and,
K. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the
Project Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting
alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency; and,
L. The Project Area is "predominantly urbanized" as that term is
defined in California Health and Safety Code § 33320.1 in that not less than eighty percent (80%)
of the lots in the Project Area have been developed for urban uses; and
M. The time limitations contained in the Redevelopment Plan, as
amended, are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area
and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area; and
N. The implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, as amended,
will improve or alleviate the physical and economic conditions of blight in the project area, as
described in the report prepared pursuant to Section 33352, attached hereto as Exhibit B.,
O. As further described in the report for Amendment No. Three,
the City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three years
from the time occupants of the Project Area are displaced, and pending development of any such
facilities, there will be available to any displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities
at rents comparable to those in the community at the time of their displacement.
SECTION 6: The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita hereby adopts and approves
Amendment No. Three, Exhibit "A," and designates the Redevelopment Plan, as amended,
including Amendment No. Three, as the official redevelopment plan of the Project Area.
SECTION 7: Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the provisions of Amendment No.
Three shall supersede any inconsistent or conflicting provisions of the Redevelopment Plan, as
amended.
SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance'is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of. the remaining . portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita hereby declares that it would have
adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or
portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 9: 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
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
(Qa
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 09- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of, 2009. That thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day
of , 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: ICOUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
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. 40806).
CITY CLERK
7
an
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 09- , adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, CA on , 2009, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
52009.
Sharon L. Dawson, MMC
City Clerk
By
Susan L. Caputo, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
31
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
I. BACKGROUND
The Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area
("Project Area") was adopted on July 8, 1997, by Ordinance No. 97-12. The Plan has
been amended twice since its adoption. The first amendment, adopted by the Santa
Clarita City Council ("City Council") on June 26, 2007, by Ordinance No. 07-05,
addressed Senate Bill 53 ("SB 53") for the Project Area. SB 53, codified in Section
33342.7 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code
Section 33000 et seq., "Law"), required the City Council to adopt an ordinance
describing the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency's ("Agency") program to acquire
real property by eminent domain. The second amendment, adopted by the City Council
on May 13, 2008, by Ordinance No. 08-6, amended certain time limitations with respect
to the Project Area pursuant to the provisions of Section 33333.2 of the Law. As a
result, the Plan was amended to extend the time limit on the effectiveness of the Plan to
July 8, 2028.
A third amendment has been proposed by the Agency to modify the Plan's eminent
domain authority as described herein. Pursuant to the Plan, the authority of the Agency
to initiate condemnation proceedings to acquire property expires on July 8, 2009. As
authorized under the Law, the Agency proposes to amend the Plan to extend this time
limit by 12 years, or to July 2021. If adopted as proposed, the third amendment would
permit the use of eminent domain to acquire Project Area property that is not occupied
as a residence, as well as two specific residential parcels located in nonresidential
zones at the southwest corner of Magic Mountain Parkway and Bouquet
Canyon/Railroad Avenue and the northwest corner of Drayton Street and Springbrook
Avenue.
The third amendment is consistent with Proposition 99. Pursuant to Proposition 99,
which was passed by California voters on June 3, 2008, State and local governments
cannot use eminent domain to acquire an owner -occupied residence to convey it to a
private person or entity. State and local governments retain the right to acquire non -
owner occupied residential properties for similar purposes. Furthermore, State and
local governments may acquire owner -occupied residences to protect public health and
safety, prevent serious and repeated criminal activity, respond to an emergency,
remedy environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety, .
and for a public work or improvement.
II. AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN
Effect Upon the Plan. Unless otherwise expressly amended by this Third
Amendment, the Plan remains in full force and effect according to its terms. From and
after the City Council's adoption of this Third Amendment, wherever the terms "Plan" or
"Redevelopment Plan" appear in the Plan, it shall be understood to mean the Plan as
amended by this Third Amendment.
The following identifies all of the proposed changes to the Redevelopment Plan.
Italicized sections indicate existing wording in the Redevelopment Plan.
Underlined sections indicate new wording in the Redevelopment Plan.
sections indicate wording to be removed from the Redevelopment Plan.
Amendment to Section 321 of the Plan
321 — Acquisition of Real Property
The Agency may acquire, but is not required to acquire, any real property
located in the Project Area by gift, devise, exchange, purchase or any other
lawful method, including eminent domain sub
iect to the limitations described
below: The enginent dengain )f this Plan do not app�y to any
for- aGq14i6k4GR Of Me PFGPeily.
(i) Eminent domain may be used to acquire any property that does not
contain a legal residential use or residential structure in the_ Project
Area existing as of the date of this Amendment.
(ii) Notwithstanding the above and subiect to the provisions of Proposition
99 as codified in Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution
eminent domain may be used to acquire specific parcels upon which
any persons resides as listed below:
a. Southeast corner of Magic Mountain Parkway and Bouquet
Canyon/Railroad Avenue (Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel
Number 2861-003-001)
b. Northwest corner of Drayton Street and Springbrook Avenue
(Assessor Parcel Number 2836-008-002)
(iii) Eminent domain proceedings, if used, must be commenced within
twelve (12) years from the effective date of
Ordinance No. approving and adopting the Third
Amendment. to the Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall
Redevelopment Project Area. Such time limit may only be extended by
further amendment to this Plan.
The Agency is authorized to acquire structures without acquiring the land
upon which those structures are located. The Agency is also authorized to
acquire any interest in Real Property less than a fee.
Properties may be acquired and cleared by the Agency if a determination is
made that one or more of the following conditions exist:
3,5
1. The buildings and/or structures must be removed in order to assemble
land into parcels of reasonable size and shape to eliminate an impediment to
optimal land development,
2. The buildings and/or structures are substandard as demonstrated by an
inspection of the property by the Building and Safety Division of the City of
Santa Clarita;
3. The buildings and/or structures must be removed in order to eliminate an
environmental deficiency, including, but not limited to, incompatible land uses
and small and irregular lot subdivisions;
4. The buildings and/ or structures must be removed to provide land for
needed public facilities, including among others, rights-of-way, public parking
facilities, open space, or public utilities;
5. The acquisition of property is allowed by the California Community
Redevelopment Law and will promote the implementation of the Plan.
Other provisions of this section notwithstanding, the Agency shall not acquire
from any of its members or officers any property or interest in property except
through eminent domain proceedings.
Amendment to Section 330 of the Plan.
330 — Relocation of Persons, Families and Businesses
The following provisions relative to the relocation of persons, families and
businesses are required by CRL. The Plan does not.
(i) . Contain authority for the Agency to acquire by eminent domain any
property on which persons reside with the exception of two specific
parcels described in Section 321.
(ii) Contain any public projects that will displace a substantial number of
low- or moderate -income persons.
(iii) Include the recommendation that existing automotive businesses in the
downtown Newhall area be relocated, including, but not limited to, that
recommendation as it is described and found in the Downtown Newhall
Improvement Program, April 1996 (the Freedman Plan)
-%y
Amendment to Section 340 of the Plan
340 - Demolition, Clearance, Site Preparation, Project Improvements and
Public Improvements
The following provisions relative to the demolition, clearance and site
preparation are required by CRL. The Plan does not:
(i) Contain authority for the Agency to acquire by eminent domain any
property on which persons reside with the exception of two specific
parcels described in Section 321., or;
(ii) Contain any public projects that will displace a substantial number of
low- or moderate -income persons.
25
ITY-OF-SANTA CLARITA . ---. --- 7-
N E G A T I V E
-NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO: N/A
PERMIT/PROJECT
NAME: Amendment No. Three to .the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
APPLICANT: City. of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia'Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT: The Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area is generally located along Lyons
Avenue, and Newhall Avenue north to Magic Mountain Parkway,
DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT: The Third Amendment is being proposed at this time to extend the existing
eminent domain authority on non-residential property by 12 years, granting -the Redevelopment Agency
eminent domain authority until July 2021. In addition, an amendment is proposed that would allow for a
limited expansion to the Redevelopment Agency's eminent domain authority to allow eminent domain powers
on two specific non -residentially designated properties that may have existing residential uses that appear to be
either illegal, or non -conforming with the City's General PIan land use designations. The two parcels that
have been- identified at this time include the property located on the southwest corner of Magic Mountain
Parkway and Railroad Avenue (APN: 2861-003-001) and the property located on the northwest corner of
Drayton Street and Springbrook Avenue (APN:2836-008-002).
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the
requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Planning and Building Services
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
Lisa M. Webber, AICP — - —`
PLANNING MANA R r
Prepared by; Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner '
Si ahire) (Name/Title)
Apliroved by; kLQAJ SharorrSorenseir Seninc Pfiaiiner-----~--- -- -
(Signature) (Name/Title)
Public Review Period From April 6, 2009 ToMay '12 2009 _
Public Notice Given On April 6 2009
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
SACD\CURRENT%12009\RDA Negative Declaration.doc
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:
Zoning:
Description of project and setting:
Amendment No: Three to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan
City of Santa Clarita
23920.Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Alex Hernandez
Administrative. Analyst
(661) 255-4030
Patrick Leclair
Associate Planner
(661) 255 -4349 -
Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area
(see attachedmap. exhibit)
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa.Clarita, CA::91.355
N/A
N/A
The City of Santa Clarita. ,is `-,.preparing the third
amendment to the. Newhall. Redevelopment Plan. The
Redevelopment Plan for.the Nevwhalt Project area was
adopted on July 8, 1991, establishing the authority of
the City's Redevelopment Agency (RDA) to use
eminent domain as a tool to acquire, non-residential
property. At this time, the City, is proposing an
amendment to the Plan that would extend the
Redevelopment Agency's eminent domain authority by
12 years, or until July 2021.
The Redevelopment Agency currently possesses
eminent domain authority on non-residential property
within the 913.63 -acre Newhall Redevelopment Plan
Area. The Third Amendment is being proposed at this
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 2 of 37
time toextend this existing authority on non-residential
property by 12 years, granting the Redevelopment
Agency eminent domain until July 2021. In addition,
an amendment is proposed that would allow for a
limited expansion to the Redevelopment Agency's
eminent domain authority to allow eminent domain
powers on two specific non -residentially designated
properties that may have existing residential uses that
appear to be either illegal, or non-confonning with. the
City's General Plan land use designations. The two
parcels that have been identified at this time include the
property located on the southwest corner of Magic
Mountain Parkway and Railroad Avenue (APN: 2861-.
003-001) and the property located on the northwest
corner of Drayton Street and Springbrook Avenue
(APN:2836-008-002). The Magic Mountain
Parkway/Railroad Avenue property totals 3.9 acres and
is identified as a "Restaurant" use on the Los Angeles
County Tax Assessor tax rolls with structures built on -
the project site in 1931. The Drayton
Street/Springbrook Avenue property totals 0.13 acres
(5;497 square feet) and is identified as a "Quadruplex"
on the Los Angeles County, Tax -Assessor tax rolls with
structures built in 1957. The Newhall Redevelopment
Plan primarily addresses land that has been previously
developed; however, undeveloped, vacant property east .
of Railroad Avenue and north of 12th Street is also
within the area affected by the Redevelopment Plan.
No other amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan are proposed at this time.
In 2005, the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan (DNSP)
was adopted encompassing 297.3 acres of the 913.63 -
acre Newhall Redevelopinent Plan Area. The DNSP
enabled the redevelopment of a higher density
commercial and residential transit , oriented
development around the existing Jan Heidt Metrolink
Station. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
prepared for the DNSP to address any environmental
impacts associated with the future development of the
DNSP. Therefore, future projects that are consistent
with the DNSP have been analyzed and will not require
further review under CEQA. The amendment to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan will not amend the
DNSP. The amendment will only affect the eminent
domain authority within the Newhall Redevelopment
:J �
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 3 of 37
Plan Area, of which the DNSP is a part.
The proposed changes are regulatory in nature. No
changes to, the physical environment or the existing
community are proposed with the amendment to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan; however, extending and
expanding eminent - domain power as proposed is
intended to stimulate redevelopment within the land use
policies of the City's General Plan, DNSP, applicable
zoning ordinance, and other planning and development
standards. Therefore, approval of these amendments
could have an indirect impact on the environment.
Because it.,is: not _known what properties, if any, will
.redevelop. during the life of the plan, these impacts are
considered to be less than significant. Redevelopment
projects will be evaluated on a case by case basis as
redevelopment is proposed.
Surrounding land uses: The Magic Mountain Parkway/Railroad Avenue parcel
of land .(APN:2861-003-001) is surrounded by vacant,
commercially zoned property to the north across Magic
Mountain 'Parkway, developed, industrial zoned
property to the east across Railroad Avenue and the
Southern .Pacific rail line, developed, commercially
zoned, property to the south of the project site, and the
South Fork of the Santa Clara River to the west of the
project site.
The . Drayton Street/Springbrook Avenue parcel
(APN:2.836-008-002) is surrounded on all sides by
developed industrial zoned property.
Other public agencies whose N/A
approval is required:
I
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
May 2009
Page 5 of 37
0
6using
T
I
7; TTigff ic
,ct-:. On the
pect i on, the -
":he
in,
t'
t�. 6:.. : ..
NEGATIVE V;- IYUe prepared.
:
V6- significant effect on the environment, and an
I ff6alfi' ih6-pr6pos6 ".prqjeWhave a...'91gni
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 docurrient 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.
q /
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 6 of 37 !'
[ ] 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
pro sed project, nothing further is required.
Pa rick Leclair, Associate Planner Date
Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner Date:
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 7 of 37
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
:Poteritially
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 [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
e)Other [] [] [] []
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
Farnland_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?
q,3
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 8 of 37
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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ _]
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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
number of people?
f)Other
IV. BIOLOGICAL- RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or [ ] [.] [X] []
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?
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 9 of 37
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 ori regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Departinent of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally . J] ]
[. ] [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 [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
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
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?
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 10 of 37
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] [ j.
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] Il
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 11 of 37
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- [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) :Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] .
[X] . [ ]
features?
g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ ]
[X] []
yards or more?
h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than.. [ ]. [ }:
[X] . [ ]
10% natural grade?
i) The destruction,. covering or modification 'of any [ ] 1 [ ]
[X] [ ]
unique geologic or physical feature? .
j)Other [] []
[] []
V11. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal o£ hazardous materials?
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 12 of 37
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Impact
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ]
[ ] [X] []
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving explosion or the
release of hazardous materials into the enviromnent
(including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or.radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ]
[ ] [X] . [ ]
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 [ ]
[ ] [X] [I
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 envirorunent?
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 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, [ ]
[ ] [ ]. [X]
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the proj cot area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ]
[] [X] [I
loss, injuy or death involving wildland 'fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Lf9
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 13 of 37
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lilies, oil pipelines)?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] [X] I
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 plamzed uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantiallyalter the existing drainage pattem sof 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 mariner
which would'result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would.' [ ]
exceed the capacity of existing or . planned
stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [
[] [] []
[] [X] []
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 14 of 37
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?
i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
1) 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 enviromnentally harmful increase in [ ] .
[ ] [X] [ ]
the flow velocity or volume of stone water runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
increases in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
ou
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 15 of 37
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 impainnent 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:
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?
LX] H
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation .[„] [ ] CX].
plan, natural community conservation plan,, and/or
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the
proj ect?
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?
�I
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 16 of 37
0
i
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
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?
XI. 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?
[] [X] []
[] _1X1 [ ]
1�52
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 17 of 37
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 perfonnance .
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?
53
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 18 of 37
b) Include recreational facilities or require the [ ]
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 [ ] [ ]
[I [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 [ ] [ ]
[X] [I .
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
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 [ ] [ ]
IN [ ]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Amendment No, Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 19 of 37
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ]
[ ] [X] ( ]
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 [ ]
[ ] [X] ( ]
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 [ ]
[ ] IN ( ]
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ .]
[ ]:, [X]
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?
y
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ]
[ ] .. [X] ( ]
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal,. state, and local statutes and.. [ ]
[ ] IN ( ]
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE;
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the .. [ ]
[ ] [X]. []
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining.
levels, threaten. to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate .
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan '
May 2009
Page 20 of 37
b) Does the project have impacts _.that are individually
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."
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 21 of 37
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS a.) Less than' Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is
located within Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is
bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the
Santa Susanna Mountains to the southwest, and the mountains of the
Los Padres and Angeles National Forests to the north. The
surrounding natural mountains and ridgelines; some of which extend
into the City, provide a visual backdrop for the City. Other scenic
resources within or visible from the City include the Santa Clara
River coiridot, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons and
natural drainages in portions of the City.
The proposed modifications to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will
extend the eminent: domain. authority for the City's Redevelopment
Agency (RDA) by 12 years., including a limited expansion to the
eminent domain authority on,the two'- non-residdntial-ly.-desipated
properties (the Magic Mountain Parkway/Railroad.Avenue parcel and
the Drayton Street/Springbrook . Avenue parcel) to enable the
potential acquisition of land within the Plan Area. These
modifications in and of themselves will not affect any scenic vistas or
other scenic resources within the City of Santa Clarita. Rather, the
modifications proposed may further enable the RDA to improve
aesthetics within the Plan Area by assisting redevelopment within
blighted portions of the City. Future'development proposals will be
evaluated on a project by project basis pursuant to the provisions of
CEQA.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.
b.) Less than Significant Impact: The Newhall Redevelopment
Plan Area is located in a primarily urbanized portion of the City.
While the segment of the Interstate 5 (I-5) Freeway extending from
the I-210 Freeway interchange to the SR126/Newhall' Ranch Road
interchange and the SR 126• from the City's boundary at the. I-5 west
to SR 150 in Ventura County are designated as "Eligible State Scenic
Highways" in the California Department of Transportation's State
Scenic Highway program, the proposed amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan affect properties that are not within this corridor
and will not have an impact on these vistas. Further, there are no
outcroppings, ridgelines, or trees approved for alteration with the
proposed amendments. Any impacts to these resources would be
51
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 22 of 37
associated with future development and would be evaluated at the
time approval is requested from the City,
One or more buildings with historic or potentially historic
significance are located within the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
area.. However, the proposed amendments to the Redevelopment
Plan will not authorize, nor will the City authorize any development
or construction that would impact any historic structure within the
plan area with approval of these amendments.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would have a less than significant impact on scenic resources
within a state scenic highway, ridgeline, rock outcropping, tree, or
historic structure.
c.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan will enable the potential acquisition of
properties within. the Plan Area for redevelopment of blighted
conditions.. All future development within the Redevelopment Plan
Area would be required to comply with the development standards of
the City, including the Uniform Building Code, the City's Unified
Development Code and the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, and
would be subject to review. at the time. that permits are requested. As
previously stated, the:.proposed changes are regulatory in nature and
do not propose any changes. to the physical environment or the
existing community. While extending and expanding eminent
domain power as proposed could stimulate redevelopment, it is not
known what properties, if any, will redevelop during the life of the
plan. Redevelopment projects will be evaluated on a case by case
basis as redevelopment is proposed.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to the visual character of the
plan area is anticipated. with the proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
d.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments do not
alter the City standards for. outdoor lighting and do not authorize any
new construction that would create a new source of light or glare in
the plan area.
The proposed. amendments to the,. Newhall Redevelopment Plan are
anticipated to have aaess than significant impact on light and glare.
II. AGRICULTURE a. -c.) No Impact — No farmland is . located within the primarily
RESOURCES. urbanized community of Newhall. Therefore, the proposed
amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will not affect any
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 23 of 37
farmland identified by the California Resources Agency, farmland
designated under a Williamson Act Contract, and will riot convert
any farmland to non-agricultural use.
Therefore, no impact to farmland is anticipated as a result of the
proposed amendrrients to the Newhall is,
Plan:
AIR QUALITY a.) Less than Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is
within theSouth Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the
San Gabriel,, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north
and east, and the Pacific Ocean .to... the' south and west. More
specifically, the .City of Santa Clarita is located in northern Los
Angeles County, generally between the Interstate 5 Freeway and
State Route 14 and south of Copperhill Drive.. The air quality in the
SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD):`:....;,._..._ +.. .... .
The SCAB has a.history of recorded air:quality violations and is an
area where both ' state and federal: ambient air quality standards are
exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air
Quality Standards�(CAAQS), the California.Clean Air Act requires
triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
The AQMP analyzes air quality ;on a regional level and identifies
region -wide attenuation mdtl ods to achieve the air quality standards.
These Legion -wide ' - attenuation methods include . regulations for
stationary -source polluters; facilitation of new transportation
techriologies, r such as low:emission vehicles; and capital
improvements, such as park-and-ride facilities and public transit
improvements.
The most recently adopted plan is the 2007 AQMP, adopted on June
1-, 2007. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This plan is designed to implement the
California Clean. Air Act: an in -tum implement the Federal Clean Air
Act administered by the EPA. The AQMP accommodates population
growth and trarispo.art'ation'projections based on the predictions made
by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Thus; projects -that are consistent with employment and population
forecasts' are consistent with the AQMP.
The: proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will
not alter the AQMP. - The proposed amendments will extend the
Redevelopment Agency's eminent domain authority to allow for the
potential acquisition. of commercial and specifically.. ;identified
residential parcels within the Newhall. Redeveloprnent:.Plan Area -to
facilitate redevelopment. Potential air quality impacts of any future
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May.2009
Page 24 of 37
redevelopment projects however, are too speculative to evaluate at
this time. Regardless, subsequent development projects will be
required to adhere to the General .Plan, the Downtown Newhall
Specific Plan, and the standards set forth in the UDC, and must be
evaluated.in compliance with CEQA.
Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated with respect to
any applicable air quality plan with the proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
b.) Less than Significant Impact: Santa Clarita is located in a non -
attainment area, an area that frequently exceeds national ambient air
quality standards. The proposed amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan area do not affect the South Coast Air Quality*
Management District's (SCAQMD) land use, construction, and
mobile emission thresholds for significant air quality impacts,
according; .to the 1993 updated SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality
Handbook in and of themselves. The proposed amendments will
modify the City's eminent domain authority and will not authorize
any.development.or redevelopment within the Plan Area. Any air-
quality impacts as a result of any development or redevelopment
within the plan area are speculative at this time. Unless otherwise
evaluated under any previously certified CEQA document, any future
development: would .need,. to: be evaluated in compliance with CEQA
at the time that development is proposed'.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to any air quality standard is
anticipated as a. result of the proposed. amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan.
c.) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed is Section III.b), the
proposed amendinents in and of themselves, would not exceed the
thresholds.. of significance established by the SCAQMD. The
SCQAMD established these thresholds in consideration of
cumulative air pollution in the SCAB. As such, projects that do not
exceed ih�ei SCAQMD's thresholds are not considered to significantly
contribute to cumulative .air quality impacts. The amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan do not propose or. entitle any
development at this time. However, future redevelopment projects.
will. -be evaluated pursuant to CEQA, addressing project -related air
quality impacts.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to ambient air quality is
anticipated as a result of the proposed amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan.
6n
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 25 of 37
d.) Less than Significant Impact: Certain residents, such as the
very young, the elderly and those suffering from certain illnesses or
disabilities, are particularly sensitive to air pollution and are
considered sensitive receptors. In addition, active park users, such as
participants in sporting events, are sensitive air pollutant receptors
due to increased breathing rates. Land uses where sensitive air
pollutant receptors congregate include. schools, day care centers,
parks, recreational areas; medical facilities, rest homes, and
convalescent care facilities.
The proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan do
not include any physical development at this time. Further, the
proposed amendments do not remove any odor -related, regulations
and would not foreseeably lead to a. change in the generation of odor.
The 'proposed amendments would not place sensitive land uses
adjacentf:to substantial air.:, pollution;: sources as no development is
proposed at::this tiiiie. All future development or redevelopment will
be required to 'comply with all of the applicable provisions of CEQA.
Therefore; the proposed' amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would have a less than; significant impact to air quality impacts
on -sensitive receptors...; -
e.) Lessthan .Significant-Impaet: The proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan will;not; in and of themselves, result in
locating any sensitive, land uses adjacent to odor producing facilities
or uses: The -proposed amendm ents. are regulatory in nature and all -
future -land use proposals: will . be required to comply with all :
applicable regulations"of the AQMDi, the City of Santa Clarita
General Plan, UDC, and the DNSP.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to .the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan -would have a. less than significant impact due to objectionable
odors within the plan.area: .
IV. BIOLOGICAL a. -d) Le'ss'thaii Sibi£ieant-Impact — The Newhall Redevelopment
RESOURCES Plan Area is located within a priinarily urbanized portion of the City
of Santa Clarita. The amendments proposed at this time will extend
the eminent domain authority. within the plan area to enable the
potential acquisition: of non-residential property and specifically
identified properties with potential nonconforming residential uses to
enable development and redevelopment within the Plan Area.
The Plan Area is predominantly developed and does not contain
natural open spaces that will be: affected by the proposed
amendments. There are endangered species located in the region;.
61
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 26 of 37
however, no habitat for. these species is known to be located within
the plan area.:The.proposed amendments will extend and expand the
City's eminent domain authority only and do not authorize any
development at this. time:.. Any future, development proposals would
be subject to further review under CEQA at the time permits are
requested. Further, the proposed amendments will not have any
adverse affect on any riparian habitat .or wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, any wildlife corridor, or any
migratory fish corridor.
Therefore, the proposed .amendment to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to sensitive
species, sensitive natural cominunity, riparian habitat, and/or
wetlands.
e.) Less than Significant Impact — The City of Santa Clarita has an
Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance that regulates development
adjacent to and under oak trees that are found in the region: No
modifications to the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance are.
proposed at this. timer Further, the . amendment to the Newhall
Redevelopment Pian will.not� authorize any impact to an oak tree,
protected or otherwise;�in the City. , While oak trees are found in the
plan area, none are. proposed for, modification at this time. Any
future development involving an, -.oak tree must comply with the Oak
Tree Preservation Ordinance: and must comply with all requirements
of CEQA.
Therefore, a less than significant,.mpact to oak trees is anticipated
with the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
f.) No Impact — The amendments to..the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan are consistent with to any.lo:cal and regional habitat conservation
plans and would not result _iry in aalterations to these plans. Further,
the proposed amendments in
Newhall Redevelopment Plan will
extend the City's eminent .domain authority only .and will .not
authorize any construction or.; development that will have any
potential impact on the environment.
Therefore, no impact to any habitat conservation plan is anticipated
with the proposed amendments to the. Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
g.) Less than Significant Impact - The proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan are regulatory in nature, extending the
City's eminent domain authority for:primarily developed areas of the
community of Newhall. No new development or redevelopment will
be entitled or approved with the proposed amendments. The
Amendment No. Three to .the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 27 of 37
proposed amendments will not affect any property designated as an
SEA (Significant Ecological Area) or SNA (Significant Natural Area)
on the .City's ESA. (Environmentally Sensitive Area) Delineation
Map:: While the amendments proposed at this time could create the
opportunity for future development or redevelopment, potential
impacts are too speculative to. evaluate at this time. Future
.development proposals would ,need to be evaluated to detennine their
impacts, if any, om the environnent at the time development is
requested.
Therefore, a less than significant 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 Newhall Redevelopment
RESOURCES Plan is located in a primarily urbanized portion of the City of Santa
Clarita.. Structur - -that ar6. designated as having historical
significance° exist- the Redevelopment Area, however, there are no
glais to': disturb or- :modify . these,- 'structures as a part of the
Redevelopment Plan. Further, the proposed amendments to the
Newhall.•!Redevelopment.'Plan are intended to extend the City's
eminent : domaiin authotity for the potential acquisition of property
within the. plan area to enable redevelopment to occur and to reduce
blight.; :. The;, proposed amendments have not identified any
development ' pioj'ects. that. could impact any buildings with the
potential for historical- significance.! However, as development
projects are proposed, the appropriate environunental work, including
a Cultural Study or other assessment detailing the historical
sigiaficance ofstructures iii the project area, must be completed.
Further, the proposed amendments, in and of themselves, will not
alter any unique geological_ feature, paleontological.resource, impact
any- unman remains, or otherwise impact any archeological resource..
While the proposed amendments will extend and expand eminent -
domain,:
minentdomain- authority -of the . Redevelopment Agency to encourage
redevelopment, -it is unclear which properties will develop or
redevelop as, a result of these anendinents. Therefore, the potential
impact of future development is too. speculative to evaluate at this
time. 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
orcultural resources would occur as a result of the approval of the
proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
3
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 28 of 37
6V
VI. GEOLOGY AND
aA.)..Less than: �Sianificant Impact - Southern California has
SOILS
numerous active and 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 along the San
Andreas Fault: This could result in ground failure and liquefaction.
However, the proposed amendment to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would not change any approved land use entitlements, and
would not change the requirements of future development to follow
all state and City building codes/regulations. Any future
development would-be required to be evaluated in compliance with
CEQA,"evaluating any potential impacts affecting soils and geology.
Therefore, the proposed amendment to, -the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would have a less than significant, impact related to exposure of
people or structures to.. any adverse effects of seismic activity,
erosion, unstable.or expansive soil, or any topographical features.
VII. HAZARDS AND
a. -d.) Less than Sigi ficant Impact - The proposed amendments to
HAZARDOUS- '`
'the Newhall RedevelopmentPlan would not directly, or indirectly,
MATERIALS.
expose people :to healthhazards: or hazardous materials and would
riot interfere. with any emergency response plans. The proposed
amendment to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will extend the
City's eminent domain authority for the potential future acquisition
of propexty.within-the:,-,:Plan.area to enable redevelopment within -the
plan area: However; sirbsegirent developments in the. City would be
required to comply: with the City's General Plan and development
codes 'ah' &.all federal;: state, and local; hazardous material regulations.
Furthermore; no -news:: development is associated . with these
amendments ' ,and potential future effects would be evaluated on a
case by case basis; : .
Therefore'=a less tlian significant impact as ' a result of exposure to
hazardous materials is anticipated with the proposed amendment to
the Newhall' Redevelopment Plan.
e. -f.) No Impact - The proposed amendinents include no change to .
land use orl-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 anendinent to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would not affect, the risks of land uses adjacent to airports or
airfields and the proposal would have no related impacts,
6V
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 29 of 37
gA.) Less than Significant Impact — The Newhall Redevelopment
Plan area is located in a primarily urbanized area of the City of Santa
Clarita. Property within the -plan area is not located within proximity
to a natural wildland area and is not subject to any wildland fires.
Emergency services and plans are currently in effect in the Plan area
and will not: . affected by the proposed amendments to -the
Redevelopment Plan. There are existing utility structures that are
known to be present in the Plan area including power transmission
lines; natural gas lines, and oil pipelines. The proposed amendments
to the Newhall Redevelopment:Plan will extend the eminent domain
authority. of. the City and will not authorize any development at this
time. Future development impacts are speculative at this time and
can not be evaluated with this project. Any future development will
be required to analyze .any potential impacts associated with any
natural •wildland. areas, utility infrastructure, or any emergency plan
in compliance with CEQA. Therefore,. any future impacts will be
addressed at the time development occurs..
The proposed, arnendments!;to• the; Newhall .Redevelopment Plan
would have a less than significant affect the on the implementation. of
emergency, response plans, wildland areas, or any existing utility
. � , . structures:
VIIL''HYDROLOG•Y'-) " a. -b.) Less,:,thari-Sienificant Impact -..The proposed amendments to
AND WAVER the Newhall Redevelopment Plan. would not impact water quality.
QUALITY standards; nor affect;•...grouzndwateT supplies. The proposed
amendments would' exterid the; City's pm' inept domain authority fot
potential .,acquisition of properties ; within the Plan area for the
purpose -of, redevelopmentand therefore could have an indirect
-impact on the envornrnent: - Subsequent redevelopment projects are
unknown at this time and their impacts are therefore speculative;
however, they.would be required to comply with the development
impact 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 proposed .amendments to the Newhall Redeveloprrient
Plan will have a less than significant impact to water quality or
ground water supplies:
c.-1.) Less than Sij4nificant Impact — The Newhall Redevelopment
Plan area.is.located: in. a primarily,,urb
anized portion of the City.
However, there are areas within the plan area that are located in, or
adjacent'to the Newhall Creek, a,designated blueline stream. FEMA
is currently in the process of u dating the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
6,5
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 30 of 37
(FIRM) within the City of Santa Clarita. The first step in this process
is digitizing the existing. FIRM maps that the City and County of Los
Angeles currently. use. This process has been completed and FEMA
has begun to re -study -.areas within the Santa Clarita Valley. This
process is currently underway and has not been finalized. However,
the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will
extend the City's, eminent domain authority for the potential
acquisition of property within the plan area and will not directly
authorize the construction or development of any structure that will
impact a drainage pattern, stream, river, or stormwater drainage
system. Further, the amendment will not directly locate structures
within any 100 -year flood hazard area and will not expose people or
structures to'significant :risk due to. flooding, any seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow.
Therefore,.the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan will have.a less than significant impact with respect to flooding,
drainage pattern, river or stream, or any stonnwater infrastructure. .
IX. LAND USE AND a.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments to the
PLANNING`! Newhall Redevelopment Plan will. extend the timeline and expand the
existing eminent domain authority within the plan area to include two
potential additional properties.. In and of itself, the proposed
amendments to the: Redevelopment Plan will not directly result in
changes to the physical environment.. -:The proposed amendments will
enable -the potential acquisition of properties in the plan area to allow
for the potential redevelopment of blighted properties. Further, the
proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will not
authorize any construction. Any future development/redevelopment
will be: -required to be evaluated in' compliance with CEQA and must
comply with the City's General Plan, Downtown Newhall Specific
Plan, .and -,Unified Development Code.
Therefore, a less than significant impact in anticipated -with respect to
anyestablished communityas a result of the proposed amendments to
the Newhall. Redevelopment Plan.
b.) Less than Significant 'Impact: The proposed amendments may .
further enable development and/or redevelopment within the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan Area by extending the eminent domain authority
of the Redevelopment Agency to allow for the potential acquisition of
property within the plan area.: Since the establishment of the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan, the Downtown Newhall ,Specific Plan has been
adopted within. the Newhall Redevelopment Plan boundary. The
proposed amendments will further enable redevelopment consistent
with the City's General Plan and the development standards outlined
66.
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 31 of 37
in the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and the City's Unified
Development Code.: However, the proposed amendments will not
authorize the development .of any property. Subsequent development
projects on property ,acquired by the agency must be reviewed in
compliance with CEQA to determine any environmental impacts and
would further need to be reviewed to be compliant with the City's
General Plan -and, zoning standards.
Therefore, a less than significant impact related to land use and
planning is anticipated with the proposed amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan.
c.) Less thaw Significant: Impact; The proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan 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. No development or
redevelopment is- approved;..and .no:: entitlements granted with
approval of the proposed amendments. Development of any property
acquired es :a result .of, tie City's eminent domain authority, would be
required to process the appropriate CEQA documentation to evaluate
the impacts -on the .environinent:associated with the specific projects.
At this time, any potential development is unknown, and therefore too
speculative ; to . ,evaluate ..at -this time. However, the proposed
aznendmeats: are. ;consistent with,. and do not directly impact any
:-conservation plan in and of themselves.
Therefore; the project is anticipated: to have a less than significant
impact on conservation :plans .:as a result of the proposed
modifications to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
X. MINERAL AND a. -c.) Less than Significant Impact—Gold, sand, and gravel mining
ENERGY . along with oil production historicallyhave been the principal mineral
RESOURCES, extraction: activities in and around the Santa Clarita Valley. The
City's General Man and Zoning Code have identified locations within
the City: that have Historical oil and mining activities with a Mineral
Oil Conservation Area (MOCA) overlay zone. Other minerals found
it the' Sa_nta"Clarita Valley, include construction aggregate, titanium,
and. tuff. Mineral resources and extraction areas are shown in Exhibit
!OS -5 of the City's General Plan.
The amendments to- the Redevelopment Plan will not affect mineral
and;,energy• resources.: as - .the:proposed amendments will only affect
the City's eminent domain authority within the Redevelopment Plan
Area. No modifications to current mining operations within the City
are anticipated at this time and therefore, will not affect mineral
6.
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 32 of 37
resources in the City. Further, no property within the Plan Area has
the MOCA zoning overlay designation.
Therefore, a less than significant impact. related to mineral and
energy resources isanticipatedwith the proposed amendments to the
NewhallRedevelopment Plan.
XI: NOISE
a. -d:) Less than:. Significant Impact — The amendments do not
propose or authorize any development at this time. Therefore, the
proposed amendments to the Newhall. Redevelopment Plan will not
expose persons to the generation of excess noise levels, groundborne
vibration, or increase ambient noise in the City of Santa Clarita. Any
future development would be "required to conduct all applicable
enviroiiinental studies. in accordance with CEQA, including noise
studies. The proposed amendinents do not remove any noise -related
regulations, and therefore would not foreseeably lead to a change in
the generation of noise.
.Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated with relation to noise
as a result of the proposed amendment to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan.
e. & f.) No Impact — The Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area is not
located within an airport land use plan, two miles of an airport, or
within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Therefore, `:no . impact relating. to noise generated by an airport or
airstrip is anticipated to occur as z.:a result. of the approval of the
proposed amendments.
XII. POPULATION
a:) Less than SiQnif cant Impact — The proposed amendments to the
AND HOUSING
Newhal.PRedevelopment Plan will extend the City's eminent domain
authority until year 2021 and add two potential residential structures
that could potentially be acquired by the RDA, and will not entitle or
approve new development at this time. However, the, use of eminent
domain has the potential' to create development opportunities in the
future. In 2005, the'Ciiy adopted the Downtown Newhall Specific
Plan (DNSP) encompassing approximately 297 acres of the 913 -acre
Redevelopment Plan Area. The DNSP created greater flexibility for
land uses including the allowance for `mixed use developments with
comtnercial, office; and retail uses incorporated with residential units.
Upon buildout of the DNSP it is anticipated that an additional 712
residential units" could be developed' which would increase . the
population within ' the, Redevelopment Plan Area. However, the
amendments ro osed'at this time are regulatory in nature and do not
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 33 of 37
allow for development of these units at this time. Future
development within the DNSP, while possible, is too speculative to
be evaluated at this time. Development in the Newhall
Redevelopment-. Plan- Area, outside of the DNSP, is foreseeable in the
future. However, the proposed amendments to the Redevelopment
Plan will not authorize any development at this time. Any future
developrrient within the Newhall Redevelopment Plan area would
need to be, evaluated. in : conjunction with each development
application to comply.with CEQA. The Redevelopment Agency has
.'',:established a 5 year implementation plan that identifies the goals of
the Agency: This plan identifies the Agency's obligation to provide,
maintain, and replace, affordable housing within .the Redevelopment
Plan Area. `The :proposed amendments could affect the success of the
implementation.! plan. by ..creating opportunities for additional
affordable housing units in the Plan Area. While the proposed
amendments could potentially. assist,in. the future development and/or
redevelopment within,the Newhall:Redevelopment Plan area, it is not
possible at this time to anticipate the type or scope of development of
affordable housing that: could potentially occur following approval of
these amendments, and therefore can not be. adequately evaluated at
this time.
Therefore, a less: than: significant impact with respect to population
growth: -is anticipated.. :a result of the proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
b. &.c.) Less than Significant Impact _ The proposed modifications
.to the Newhall Redevefopment,Plan-will extend the eminent domain
authority of the City:: The.,City's current eminent domain authority
only applies to non-residential property. With the proposed
amendments to the Redeaelopmeni Plan, the non-residential .:eminent
domain authority.: will .be extended by an additional 12 years. In
addition, the. eminent domain authority will be extended to two
specific, coinmercially, designated parcels (APN: 2861-003-001 &
2836-008=002) that.appear. to. have been constructed without permits
'or are legal nonconforming. residential uses. The use of eminent
domain throughout the Plan.;Area has the potential to displace
residential : units.::At: this, time it: is , anticipated that up to five (5)
residential units .could: be affected by the proposed amendments.
However, it is anticipated that any.,units that would be displaced
would be units that m4y currently be. illegal, or non -conforming with
the City's Unified. Development .Code; General Plan, and/or the
Downtown Newhall Specific:. PJan.:._ Should residential units be
displaced as a result : of the use of eminent domain, the City has
adopted a. strategy;for.relocation. and replacement of residential units
known as the Relocation Method that would serve as a blueprint for
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 34 of 37
70
the relocation of these residents. Further, Proposition 99 was passed
by California voters on June 3, 2008, to help protect residents.
Proposition 99 prohibits State and local governments from using
eminent domain to acquire an owner -occupied residence. Should
eminent domain be., used by the Redevelopment Agency, all
applicable provisions of the State of California regarding the use of
eminent domain and. relocation of affected 'residents must be
complied with. Due to the low number of housing units potentially
involved, and the adopted relocation and replacement plans in place,
the impacts associatedwith the proposed amendments are anticipated
to be less than significant.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan area anticipated to have a less than significant impact to the
displacement or replacement of people or housing units.
XIII: PUBLIC
a)i.-iv. Less than Significant Impact - The proposed amendments to
SERVICES
the Newhall Redevelopment Plan project will not directly. increase
-the need for fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, or
parks within the Plan Area:-, The Plan Area is located in a primarily
urbanized portion ofthe City that is currently provided services by
the Los. Angeles County Fire and Sheriff Departments, the existing
school districts, and the City's Parks and Recreation facilities and
programs. The proposed amendments to the Redevelopment Plan
will affect the City's eininent domain authority within the Plan Area
and will not create additional demand for these services within the
Plan Area. Future redevelopment within the Plan Area could consist
of additional residential units.. that: might increase .the .need for
additional schools and parks in the City. However, these projects are
unknown and therefore too speculative at .this time and will be
evaluated at the time entitlements.:are requested. Further, any new
residential units would be required to pay the applicable statutory
fees to mitigate potential impacts to school or park facilities as a
result of the increased population.
Therefore;.. a Jess, than, significant impact to public services is
anticipated as a; result of the proposed amenidments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan:
XIV. RECREATION
a. -b.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed changes to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan willnot result in the approval of any
entitlement or authorize the construction of any development project
and'vwill fdiIh:ef..trot authorize theaddition of any new residential
units. While the majority: of the Plan Area is non-residential in
nature, - redevelopment within the Plan Area could consist of
70
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 35 of 37
additional residential units that would increase the need for additional
recreational facilities. At this time it is too speculative to anticipate
the number of residential units that could forseeably be developed in
the Plan Area. Any approval for development would be required to
evaluate the impacts to recreational facilities and would be required
to pay the appropriate statutory fees to the City for the establishment
of additional recreational facilities within the City in accordance with.
the Parks and Recreation Element ;in the City's General Plan, the
City's Unified Development Code, the Downtown Newhall Specific
Plan, and would be subject to the,City's park impact fees.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to recreational facilities is
anticipated. with - - the :proposed • amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan at this time. .
Xy, a. -b.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
TRANSPORTATION,/ the Newhall Red'evel'opment Plan are regulatory in nature, extending
TRAFFIC• the :City's eminert (domain authority for the potential acquisition of
Area: The proposed amendments are not
property within the Plan
anticipated to have 'immediate .,developmental impacts that alter
traffic: load- or capacity on street systems. Future development
activity in the. Plan Area would. be - regulated by the City's UDC,
General Plan; Downtown Newhall Specific .Plan, and all applicable
transportation policies. Further, any future development.. or
redevelopment projects as a result, of the proposed amendments are
speculative at this time .and can riot be adequately evaluated. At the
time . projects: are.. proposed, additional CEQA review will be
conducted to _determine project related impacts to any traffic capacity
or level of. service standards.
:Therefore; a less than: significant impact to the traffic load, capacity,.
and level of service standards is anticipated at this time.
c.) No Impact .— The Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area is not
located near any airports and. will therefore not impact any air traffic-
patterns,-
raffic
patterns: Further; the proposed amendments do not entitle any
development at this time; they only authorize a regulatory expansion
to the City's eminent domain authority within the Plan Area.
. Therefore; no,. imgact_to air traffic pattens is anticipated .with. the
proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area.
d. -h.) Less :than Simificannt ,Impact:: The proposed amendments to
the Newhall Redevelopment. Plan extend the City's eminent domain
authority and do - not authorize •any development at this time.
Therefore, the proposed amendments would have no impacts on City
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 36 of 37,
traffic systems * . including, emergency routes, parking capacity,
pe , destrian or bicycle routes, or increase hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible use. Any development and/or redevelopment
that would occur in the Plan Area would still need to comply with the
Circulation Element , of the GeneralPlan, the Downtown
Newhall
.Newhall Specific Plan, the City's roadway design,.aad parkway
' '
and all adopted standair d pted policies, plans, and programs supporting
J .;., : t- .
alternative transportation.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan are anticipated to have a less than significant. impact to
transportation and traffic.
UTILITIES AND
a. -g) Less than Significant Impact The Newhall Redevelopment
,XYL
,SERVICE SYSTEMS
''Plan area is 16cafed in a primuily urbanized portion of the City that is
currently serviced by existing utility and ser -vice systems including
stormwater drainage systems, -wastewater treatment facilities, and
solid waste treatment facilities. The proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan extend the City's eminent domain
authority and does not approve any land use entitlements or include'
any development' at this time that would impact these existing utility
and service systems. 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 less than significant impact to utilities or service systems
is anticipated with approval of the proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan,
XVII. MANDATORY
a. -c.) Less than Significant Impact - The proposed amendments to
FINDINGS OF
the Newhall Redevelopment Plan are not anticipated to have a
SIGNIFICANCE
significant impact on the environi-nent that 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 at this time. The.
proposed 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 ainendi-nents, the proposal
would not contribute to any cumulative impacts. and would not cause
envirolunental effects that would adversely affect humans. Rather,
the proposed amendments are intended to extend the City's eminent
domain authority to allow for the potential future acquisition and
Amendment No, Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 37 of 37
redevelopment of property in the Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact that could result in a
Mandatory.Findings of Significance.
XVIII. DEPARTMENT
a.) No Impact'— The legislative intent of the Department of Fish and'
OF FISH AND GAME
Game `De Minimus' Finding is. "to extend the current user -based
`D'E MINIMUS'
funding system by allocating the transactional .costs of wildlife
FINDING
protection and management to those who would consume those
resources throughurbanization and development..." (AB 3158,
Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990; effective January 1, 1991, Section
1(c)). ' The proposed arnendmn6nt`s' ,would not entitle any new
development; and any future development proposal seeking
discretionary approval would`re:main subject to CEQA and the CDFG.
Code. Since, the proposed amendments are not, anticipated to have a
significant adverse effect either individually or cumulatively, oil fish
and wildlife resources, the project's impacts on fish'�and wildlife are
de minimus;
11
n
U
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 VALENCIA BOULEVARD
SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355
O RSG
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
wNw.webrsg.com
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO
NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Santa Clarita
March 24, 2009
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
INTRODUCTION
3
•
PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS
3
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
3
CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT
5
REASONS FOR THE AMENDMENT
6
OVERVIEW
6
REASONS FOR THE AMENDMENT
6
DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC BLIGHTING CONDITIONS
IN THE PROJECT AREA
10
OVERVIEW
10
Physical Blight
10
Economic Blight
10
ANALYSIS OF BLIGHTING CONDITIONS
11
Physical Blight
11
Economic Blight
43
Physical and Economic Burden on the Community
50
METHOD OF RELOCATION
52
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
53
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
54
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT
55
Relocation
55
Traffic Circulation
55
Environmental Quality
55
•
Availability of Community Facilities and Services
56
Effect on School Population and Quality of Education
56
Property Taxes and Assessments
56
Low and Moderate Income Housing Program
56
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS HOUSING LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS EXPECTED TO BE
DESTROYED OR REMOVED BY THE PROJECT
56
NUMBER OF PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME EXPECTED TO BE DISPLACED
57
GENERAL LOCATION OF REPLACEMENT LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING TO BE REHABILITATED,
DEVELOPED, AND CONSTRUCTED
57
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS HOUSING PERSONS OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME PLANNED FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR REHABILITATION OTHER THAN REPLACEMENT HOUSING
57
PROJECTED MEANS OF FINANCING REHABILITATION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING FOR LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
57
PROJECTED TIMETABLE FOR MEETING THE PLANS RELOCATION, REHABILITATION, AND REPLACEMENT
HOUSING OBJECTIVES 57
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES 58
APPENDIX A 59
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NEW HALL REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECTAREA 59
APPENDIX B 62
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 62 •
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
INTRODUCTION
• The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita ("Agency') has proposed to modify its eminent
domain authority by Amendment No. Three to the Redevelopment Plan ("Amendment") for the Newhall
Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"). The Agency's eminent domain authority within the Project Area
will expire on July 8, 2009. The proposed Amendment would permit the use of eminent domain proceedings
as a method for the Agency to acquire property, including two specific non -owner occupied residential
structures in the Project Area for a period of 12 additional years. A map is included on the following page that
identifies the Project Area. [A copy of the proposed Amendment is included as Appendix A herein.)
PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS
The proposed Amendment will be considered by the Agency and the City Council at a joint public hearing
currently scheduled for May 12, 2009. It is important to note that this date could change based on the City
Council and Agency Board's final decision to move forward. Notice of the joint public hearing will be
published and mailed to all Project Area property owners and affected taxing agencies, along with residents
and businesses where mailing addresses are reasonably available, not less than 30 days prior to the public
hearing. After the public hearing, the Agency and City Council may consider adopting the proposed
Amendment.
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
The 913.63 -acre Project Area is located in the southwest portion of the City and comprises approximately
three percent of the City's total area. It consists of retail, industrial, public and residential properties generally
located along the Lyons Avenue and Railroad Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road) corridors. Table i-1
shows a breakdown of land uses within the Project Area.
Land Use
Table i-1
• Newhall Redevelopment Project Area
Land Use Acreage
%
Parcels
%
Commercial 114.82
13%
231
18%
Industrial 90.82
10%
46
4%
Residential 209.93
23%
725
56%
Public/Inst/Rec/Misc 41.72
5%
73
6%
Agricultural 0.07
0%
1
0%
Vacant 241.13
26%
218
17%
Unknown (1) 4.44
0.5%
2
0.2%
Right of Way (2) 210.70
23%
Total 913.63 100% 1,296 100°/%
The Project Area contains nearly 2,000 residential units within the Project Area boundaries as well as two
special planning areas: the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan Area and the North Newhall Specific Plan Area.
Amenities in the area include the Newhall Metrolink station and convenient access to Interstate 5 and
Highway 14. A map of the Project Area is included on the following page.
is
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Exhibit i-1
Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. City of Santa Clarita
tragi c t}r Pkwy
Valencia Blv
McBean Pkvty
s+�
oon St
Oak Orchard RA
i,AS001. ,
01., 5- Flarerytan $'vo
Lyons Ave
K N
-9
g Q
c i Bih St \
- Project Area
City Boundary
0 0.25 as
I
1 Miles s
in
c
11lu u
4
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT
• This document is the Agency's Report to the City Council ("Report") for the proposed Amendment and
generally describes the reasons for and implications of the proposed Amendment. The contents of this
Report are prescribed by Sections 33352 and 33457.1 of the Redevelopment Law and provide information,
documentation, and evidence to assist the City Council with their consideration of the proposed Amendment
and in making the various determinations in connection with its adoption.
The scope of the proposed Amendment is limited to reinstituting the Agency's use of eminent domain; no
other changes are proposed. Consequently, several elements required by Section 33352 of the
Redevelopment Law for this Report do not apply to the proposed Amendment and are not included in this
Report, as Section 33457.1 of the Redevelopment Law requires that this report shall contain the information
as warranted by the proposed amendment. These excluded elements are the following:
• Reasons for selecting the Project Area (Section 33352(a)): The proposed Amendment would not alter
boundaries or authorize specific projects within the Project Area. The proposed Amendment would only
authorize the Agency to commence eminent domain proceedings within the Project Area for a period of
12 additional years.
• Implementation plan that describes specific goals and objectives of the Agency, specific projects
proposed by the Agency, and description of how these projects will improve or alleviate conditions
(Section 33352(c)): On June 26, 2007, the Agency adopted its current Five Year (2007-08 through 2011-
12) Implementation Plan for the Project Area, which is not affected by the proposed Amendment, since
the proposed Amendment only alters acquisition authority and does not propose new projects or
programs.
• Proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area (Section 33352(e)): The proposed
Amendment would not change any aspect of financing or change the analysis prepared at the time the
Redevelopment Plan was adopted.
• Analysis of the preliminary plan (Section 33352(g)): The boundaries of the Project Area would not change
with the proposed Amendment; therefore, analysis of a preliminary plan is not necessary.
• Report and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Section 33352(h)): Because the proposed
Amendment does not affect the Redevelopment Plan's land use provisions, and the Redevelopment Plan
was previously determined to be in conformance with the adopted City of General Plan, it was not
deemed necessary to require the Planning Commission to make additional findings for the proposed
Amendment.
• Conformity with the City's General Plan (Section 33352Q)): The proposed Amendment would not alter the
Redevelopment Plan's conformity with the adopted City General Plan, and findings made by the Planning
Commission and City Council at the time of the adoption of the ordinance approving the Redevelopment
Plan would not be altered by the proposed Amendment.
• Report of the County Fiscal Officer (Section 33352(1)): Because the proposed Amendment would not alter
the boundaries of the Project Area, it was not necessary for the Agency to request a base year report
from the County of Los Angeles pursuant to Section 33328 of the Redevelopment Law and the
Amendment does not alter the Project Area's 1996-97 base year value.
The contents of this Report are presented in seven sections, which generally correspond to the subdivisions
in Section 33352 of the Redevelopment Law. The sections included in this Report are as follows.
• Reasons for the proposed Amendment (Section 33352(a))
• Description of the physical and economic blighting conditions in the Project Area (Section 33352(b))
• Method of Relocation (Section 33352(f))
• Proceedings of Project Area Committee (Section 33352 (1))
• Environmental Review (Section 33352(k))
• Neighborhood Impact Report (Section 33352(m))
• Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies (Section 33352(n))
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CRY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
REASONS FOR THE AMENDMENT
OVERVIEW
The Agency was created by the City of Santa Clarita City Council ("City Council") on November 28, 1989, by
Ordinance No. 89-27, to undertake redevelopment activities that remove physically and economically blighted
conditions that inhibit private development and continue to plague the City. The Redevelopment Plan ("Plan")
for the Project Area was adopted on July 8, 1997, by Ordinance No. 97-12. The Plan has been amended
twice since its adoption.
The first amendment, adopted by the City Council on June 26, 2007, by Ordinance No. 07-05, addressed
Senate Bill 53 ("SB 53") for the Project Area. SB 53, codified in Section 33342.7 of the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq., "Redevelopment Law"), required the
City Council to adopt an ordinance describing the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita's
("Agency") program to acquire real property by eminent domain.
The second amendment, adopted by the City Council on May 13, 2008, by Ordinance No. 08-6, amended
certain time limitations with respect to the Project Area pursuant to the provisions of Section 33333.2 of the
Law. As a result, the Plan was amended to extend the time limit on the effectiveness of the Plan to July 8,
2028.
•
This third amendment has been proposed by the Agency to modify the Plan's eminent domain authority as
described herein. Pursuant to the Plan, the authority of the Agency to initiate condemnation proceedings to
acquire property expires on July 8, 2009. As authorized under Redevelopment Law, the Agency proposes to
amend the Plan to extend this time limit by twelve years, or to July 2021. If adopted as proposed, the third
amendment would permit the use of eminent domain to acquire non residential property in the Project Area as
currently authorized by the Plan since 1997, plus extend eminent domain authority to two specific rental
residential parcels located at the southwest corner of Magic Mountain Parkway and Bouquet Canyon/Railroad
Avenue and the northwest corner of Drayton Street and Springbrook Avenue. No other existing residential •
units would be subject to eminent domain if the Amendment is adopted as proposed. A map has been
included on the following page to identify the two non -owner occupied rental residential structures.
REASONS FOR THE AMENDMENT
The proposed Amendment would allow redevelopment of the Project Area to proceed pursuant to the goals of
the Redevelopment Plan. The Community Center, Farmer's Market, acquisition of the Moore's property for
reuse, and improvements to Railroad Avenue are just a few of the successful projects that the Agency has
been involved with.
However, redevelopment of the Project Area has not been completed and several Redevelopment Plan goals
established in 1997 remain unfulfilled such as improving the parking supply and creating a "Main Street"
environment along Main Street. As identified in more detail in the following section of this Report, physical
and economic blighting conditions remain in the Project Area. Specifically, buildings in the Project Area are
unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work; conditions of lots in the Project Area hinder their viable use or
capacity; property values are impaired by hazardous waste; the Project Area has abnormally low lease rates
and high business vacancies; and the Project Area has a high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to
the public safety and welfare.
Conditions in several critical areas of the Project Area create hazardous conditions and severe blight. For
example, several properties on Springbrook and Drayton Avenues have inadequate infrastructure, parking
that leads to safety or hindered use issues, and vehicular access due to parcels that are of an insufficient size
to support the intensity of their uses. Other serious problems include unsafe and unhealthy properties due to
dilapidation and deterioration caused by long term neglect and high business vacancies and low lease rates
that exceed City and County averages.
•
R:�.G
•
E
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Exhibit A-1 Residential Parcels Subject to Eminent Domain
Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, City of Santa Clarita
""391
1
'Tf A,-
Valencia Blvd
McBean Pkwy
1c f3_;a
Q'
I •mnnay ..ap I
a
F+S7re��S.BHtl
- Resldenbai Parcers Subtect to Enment Donsa,n
(2 Pamx s ictal)
- Fmdect Area
City Boun0ary
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
7
Lyon; A.e
c"-
a
-q" to�'
(n
rA
'"'If.
p
O
Q
I.3A'. $ i
EthSt
G`\ea
6
- Resldenbai Parcers Subtect to Enment Donsa,n
(2 Pamx s ictal)
- Fmdect Area
City Boun0ary
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
7
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CRY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CRY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
As a result, the proposed Amendment would help accomplish the following Redevelopment Plan goals in the •
Project Area.
• Expand the convenience and comparison/specialty economic niches.
• Create an attractive "Main Street" environment on Main Street (formerly San Fernando Road) to
attract new shoppers and businesses.
• Create an attractive, memorable image that expresses Newhall's history and character.
• Establish programs to promote private sector investment.
• Enhance the role of Newhall as a community center.
• Maintain and capitalize on the visibility and access associated with through -traffic.
• Improve the parking supply.
• Pursue opportunities for special facilities that attract a wide visitor base.
Many of the projects currently under consideration by the City in the Project Area, especially the downtown
Newhall area, have some level or component of Agency or City assistance as part of the development
program. Many properties in the Project Area are too small to build modern commercial or industrial
developments and are in mixed ownership. These hindering factors will be discussed in greater detail in
subsequent sections of the Report. Parcel consolidation has often proven difficult for the private sector to
accomplish alone, and is more easily facilitated through Agency assistance with the potential use of eminent
domain authority. Because the Agency's eminent domain authority expires on July 8, 2009, the Agency will
lose its ability to facilitate land assembly and acquisition, unless the proposed Amendment is adopted.
As witnessed throughout the Project Area, property owners have failed to make needed investments in their
properties that have a direct negative impact on surrounding properties as well. The Downtown Newhall
Specific Plan makes specific mention of properties which are allowed to remain in a state of disinvestment by •
landlords. This matter was of significant importance at the community outreach meetings for the Downtown
Newhall Specific Plan, and attendees agreed that eminent domain was a valuable tool to address these
issues. By negatively affecting other properties and the Project Area as a whole, it is essential to have
eminent domain as a potential economic tool with which to exercise the Agency's authority to redevelop the
Project Area.
Relying on the voluntary sale of properties by the private sector alone can often prove to be infeasible,
especially in instances in which absentee owners have little invested in a property. In addition, when a private
developer alone enters into negotiation with land owners in a large parcel assembly, one land owner's
unwillingness to sell often jeopardizes the entire proposed project. With the Agency's proposed extension of
eminent domain authority within the Project Area, as proposed by this Amendment, the Agency could help
negotiate land acquisition and land assembly transactions necessary to facilitate private development and
redevelopment within the Project Area. Absent this ability, large scale development on multiple parcels could
become severely limited.
One example of how Agency involvement with the private sector is critical for large-scale redevelopment
efforts, the Agency is currently working with property owners in the downtown area as part of a larger project
involving a new library. Without the Agency's ability to utilize eminent domain as a tool, this project may
never have been possible. Eminent domain has not been used to condemn any properties as of the date of
this report. However, eminent domain has been contemplated and authorized in limited instances which
ultimately resulted in a settlement agreement with the property owner. This is one example of how Agency
involvement via potential eminent domain action in redevelopment is necessary to bring multiple property
owners together and the type of project that could not be accomplished by the private sector alone.
Another reason for why this Amendment is needed is the prevalence of dilapidated and deteriorated buildings,
depreciated and stagnant property values, and other adverse physical and economic conditions present in the
Project Area. These conditions are described in further detail in subsequent sections. These conditions are •
significant because they are affecting individual private properties and are themselves a direct indicator that
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
• the private sector alone has been unable to marshal the private debt and equity resources necessary to
overcome such problems. The private sector needs a catalyst, in the form of strategic redevelopment
investment by the Agency, to overcome these adverse private properly conditions. The power of eminent
domain is just the type of tool the Agency can utilize to provide this type of catalyst.
The extension of the Agency's eminent domain authority is necessary to help acquire and consolidate parcels
to make the Project Area more attractive and feasible for private redevelopment. In accordance with other
Redevelopment Plan goals, there is an identified need to develop programs and incentives for the
rehabilitation of old, obsolescent, and deteriorating structures in the Project Area. The Redevelopment Plan
also called for the consolidation of parcels, as needed, to induce new or expanded commercial development.
The level of lot consolidation required to achieve the scope and type of development in the City and Agency
wishes to achieve in the Downtown Newhall area is such that without eminent domain as a tool, development
potentially could come to a standstill in the Project Area.
With the proposed Amendment, the Agency's extended eminent domain authority would enable the Agency to
facilitate land acquisition and assembly, which would prove to be the most efficient means to accomplish the
private development and redevelopment of the Project Area. As described in more detail in the following
section, deteriorating structures and a need for consolidation of parcels for effective redevelopment are still
critical goals in the Project Area. Through the extension of the Agency's eminent domain authority, the
proposed Amendment would help facilitate the consolidation of lots, remove obsolescent and deteriorating
structures in the Project Area, and provide a power catalytic tool to help spur private sector investment.
•
is
O R -SG
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC BLIGHTING CONDITIONS IN THE •
PROJECT AREA
1'0Pl 1yil 1
Sections 33030 and 33031 of the Redevelopment Law describe the conditions that constitute blight in a
redevelopment project area. A blighted area is one that necessitates the creation of a redevelopment project
area because the combination of conditions in the area constitutes a burden on the community that cannot be
alleviated by private enterprise and/or governmental action.
Section 33333.2 (a)(4) provides that the twelve year time limitation on the power of eminent domain may be
extended only by amendment of the redevelopment plan after the Agency finds, based on substantial
evidence, both of the following:
• That significant blight remains within the Project Area; and
• That this blight cannot be eliminated without the use of eminent domain.
For the purpose of the Amendment, the definition of "significant" is assumed to be "of a noticeably or
measurable large amount" to warrant Agency assistance.' For the purpose of this Report, blight findings will
be analyzed in terms of the current definition of blight. Blighting conditions found in the Project Area include
unsafe and unhealthy buildings, conditions on lots that hinder their viable use or capacity, impaired property
values due to hazardous wastes, abnormally high business vacancies and low lease rates, and a high crime
rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare.
Physical Blight
• Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These conditions may be caused
by serious building code violations, serious dilapidation and deterioration caused by long-term neglect,
construction that is vulnerable to serious damage from seismic or geologic hazards, and faulty or •
inadequate water or sewer utilities.
• Conditions that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. These
conditions may be caused by buildings of substandard, defective, or obsolete design, or construction
given the present general plan, zoning, or other development standards.
• Adjacent or nearby incompatible land uses that prevent the development of those parcels or other
portions of the project area.
• The existence of subdivided lots that are in multiple ownership and whose physical development has
been impaired by their irregular shapes and inadequate sizes, given present general plan and zoning
standards and present market conditions.
Economic Blight
• Depreciated or stagnant property values.
• Impaired property values, due in significant part to hazardous wastes on property where the agency may
be eligible to use its authority as specified in Article 12.5 of the Redevelopment Law (commencing with
Section 33459).
• Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, or an abnormally high number of
abandoned buildings.
• A serious lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including
grocery stores, drug stores, banks and other lending institutions.
• Serious residential overcrowding that has resulted in significant public health or safety problems. As used
in this paragraph, "overcrowding" means exceeding the standard referenced in Article 5 (commencing
with Section 32) of Chapter 1 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations.
' "Significant' Merriano-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 10" ad. 1998.
(q R 10
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
• An excess of bars, liquor stores, or adult-oriented business that has resulted in significant public health,
• safety, or welfare problems.
• A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare.
Section 33030(c) of the Redevelopment Law also states that a blighted area may be one that contains
inadequate public improvements or inadequate water or sewer utilities when other blighting conditions are
present.
ANALYSIS OF BLIGHTING CONDITIONS
Today, physical and economic blighting conditions remain in the Project Area and are summarized below.
Details are described later in this section of the Report.
• Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work
• Conditions that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots
• Impaired property values, due in significant part, to hazardous wastes
• Abnormally low lease rates and high business vacancies
• A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to public safety and welfare
The detailed analysis of blighting conditions is based on the definition of blight contained in the
Redevelopment Law and consists of field inspections of the Project Area parcels that would be subject to
eminent domain, discussion with City officials and real estate brokers, and research and analysis of local and
regional economic data.
Field surveys of the Project Area were conducted on November 25, 2008, and January 28, 2009, by
consultants trained in identifying and analyzing blight. The primary focus of the blight survey concentrated on
• the Project Area parcels that would be subject to eminent domain. Because this proposed amendment is for
the extension of eminent domain, and the Agency does not wish to utilize this power on other residential
properties other than the two previously described, the field survey team did not evaluate the remaining
residential properties for conditions of blight.
The purpose of the field surveys was to locate and evaluate those exterior blighting conditions prevalent
throughout the Project Area. Properties were evaluated based upon the physical condition of the structure,
the condition of the lot, the land use, and the land use compatibility with surrounding uses. Only serious
problems were noted. Properties needing repainting, new signage, or general cleanup were not included
because these conditions are not deemed to be a reliable and consistent measure of physical and economic
blighting conditions.
The following individuals were consulted: Paul Brotzman, Director of Community Development; Armine
Chaparyan, Redevelopment Manager; Alex Hernandez, Administrative Analyst; Teresa Sullivan, Project
Technician; Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner; Norm Sieger, Community Preservation Officer; Tim Crissman,
Crissman Commercial Services; and Mark Oliver, Oliver Commercial.
The following reports and data sources were consulted: Business Analyst Online by ESRI; United States
Census; City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code; California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor
Database; California Water Resources Control Board Geotracker Database; Environmental Protection
Agency CERCLIS Database; Crime statistics for Santa Clarita obtained from the City; local real estate market
reports from real estate brokerage firms; Loopnet Commercial Real Estate Online; and Los Angeles County's
2008-2009 Assessor's Role from First American Real Estate Solutions MetroScan.
Physical Blight
The Project Area exhibits physical blighting conditions consisting of unsafe and unhealthy buildings and
conditions on lots that hinder their viable use or capacity.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Buildings in the Proiect Area are Unsafe and Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work. •
Serious dilapidation and deterioration of structures has a negative effect on the economic development of the
area. Businesses are less successful in an area that is dilapidated and deteriorated due to customer
concerns about health and safety. Most buildings in the Project Area are occupied by commercial, industrial,
and residential uses. The median age of commercial and industrial structures in the Project Area is 40 years,
and at least one-quarter of the structures are over 50 years of age. The two residential parcels that would be
subject to eminent domain under this amendment are 52 and 78 years of age.
As discussed previously, the Project Area covers 913.63 acres. Of this total, 114.82 acres contain
commercial land uses and 90.82 acres contain industrial land uses. The field survey, which was conducted
from the public right-of-way, revealed that five percent of commercial and industrial parcels in the Project Area
contain seriously dilapidated and deteriorated structures. According to County Assessor's data from First
American Real Estate Solutions MetroScan, eight (8) of the fifteen (15) structures identified as seriously
dilapidated and deteriorated are over 50 years of age, and all but one (1) are over 30 years of age. Due to
the age of the structures in the Project Area, it is likely that more structures suffer from serious dilapidation
and deterioration than was evident from the public right-of-way. Over half of the structures with this condition
are on Railroad Avenue. According to the Building and Safety Division, buildings in the Project Area are older
and have a significant problem with inadequate maintenance and unpermitted improvements like electrical,
plumbing and other installations that have not been inspected for safety and compliance with State Codes.
Proper maintenance is key to maintaining required safety levels for occupancy of buildings. Lack of proper
maintenance typically starts becoming problematic when buildings are older than 20 to 30 years, and
buildings in the Project Area are overall much older than that. During routine inspections conducted within the
past year, observed problems include buildings having improper electrical installations, leaky roofs, faulty
plumbing, inefficient or inadequate installation of mechanical equipment for heating and cooling, illegal
detached structures, and inadequate ADA/accessibility for the disabled.
Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work can be caused by serious dilapidation •
and deterioration caused by long-term neglect and serious building code violations, among other things.
Dilapidation and deterioration is caused by neglect, deferred maintenance, and aging. For example, if
exterior surfaces are not properly maintained to remove wood rot or replace cracked or missing siding or
stucco, this lack of maintenance could expose the interior framing and foundation to the elements, weakening
the structural integrity of the building. Deterioration of roofing materials, doors, and windows can make
framing, rafters, and interior wiring susceptible to water damage and increases the deterioration of the entire
structure, leaving it susceptible to fire and other damage. Water leakage resulting from deterioration also
poses serious health risks to occupants by exposing them to dangerous molds and fungi. Examples of these
conditions are shown in photos in this section of the Report.
Dilapidation and deterioration is considered serious when the physical condition of the structure is such that it
could cause bodily harm to those within or near the structure. If proper regular maintenance is not done, first
minor and then major failures will result over time, as demonstrated in Exhibit B-1 below. As the cost of
renovating the building goes up over the years, structural failures occur and the building cannot be recovered.
As Exhibit B-1 on the following page shows, the process of dilapidation and deterioration can be self-
perpetuating. The presence of properties that exhibit signs of deterioration may deter neighboring business
owners from improving and maintaining their properties because it appears any benefit that might accrue to
their properties will be diminished or negated due to the condition of surrounding properties. When
deteriorating conditions are prevalent throughout an area, it can be difficult for a properly maintained property
to attract a buyer because the area's degenerating conditions send a message of apathy to potential
investors, which presents a risk in terms of possible decreases in property values if these conditions persist.
(q —1 C 12
• Exhibit 11-1
Structural failures occur
Structure not usable _—
Start of major failures
A
B
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CRY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
C '
--J(-I Major repair
I
Minor repair
Preventive
Time in years ► maintenance
Total cost of major repair (C)
Total cost of minor repair (B)
Total cost of preventive maintenance (A)
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (bottom line) not only costs markedly less in aggregate than repairing
building failures, it reduces human wear and tear. A building whose systems are always breaking or
threatening to break is depressing to the occupants, and that brings on another dimension of expense.
This diagram is adapted from PrevenrNe Maintenance of Buildings (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,
1991), p.3.
• Evidence of serious dilapidation and deterioration in the Project Area includes deteriorated roofing materials,
rusted and deteriorated roofing and wall materials, cracked exterior walls, and holes in exterior walls. Specific
examples of dilapidated and deteriorated structures are shown in the photographs on the following pages and
summarized in a map on the next page as Exhibit B-2.
13
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Exhibit B-2 Unsafe & Unhealthy Properties
Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. City of Santa Clarita
tyouns Ave ----ILL—
,
Unsafe & Unhealthy
® Project Area
City Boundary
G 0.15 0.3 0.6 Mlles
J;iam S Ha
Park
2
14
•
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
•
•
APN 2855 016 039, 24757 Railroad Avenue
This building suffers from several gaping holes in the fanade which have been left unrepaired and no attempt
has been made to cover them. Moisture, rodents, insects, and all other natural elements are allowed free
access to the framing and interior of this structure which leads to serious health and safety issues such as
exposure to mold and mildew. Clearly, proper investment in this property has not occurred. Without action
on the part of the property owner or the Agency, this building will deteriorate further and lead to other safety
issues.
(q RSG
15
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2831 003 027, 24605 Railroad Avenue
This building exhibits severe signs of external building material damage and deterioration. The building
facade is damaged and cracked from exposure to the elements, and the foundation also shows signs of
distress. Several windows are broken or out of alignment, presenting a building in serious need of repair.
The owner of this property has neglected to make needed repairs.
•
•
0
•
r 1
Li
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO, THREE
APN 2827 002 026, 23870 Pine Street
This parcel contains both an industrial building and an office or residential structure. The industrial building
has dilapidated corrugated metal for fencing, building and roofing material. Broken windows are clearly
visible, and a variety of materials and vehicles are being stored outside. In addition, a small building which
appears to be currently utilized as an office or a residential structure exhibits severe external building
damage. The overhang has broken plywood panels, exposing the interior beams to the elements, and the
gutter and eaves system are faulty.
O RSG
17
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2830 001 208, 25075 Peachland Avenue
The roofing materials on this building are beginning to show signs of damage and deterioration. Sections of
the eaves and gutters are exposed and have begun to rot from water damage. Should these conditions
persist, water damage to the roof and ultimately the building itself will lead to a health and safety issue.
18
•
I 11
L -A
•
r t
P
APN 2830 001 208, 25075 Peachland Avenue
The roofing materials on this building are beginning to show signs of damage and deterioration. Sections of
the eaves and gutters are exposed and have begun to rot from water damage. Should these conditions
persist, water damage to the roof and ultimately the building itself will lead to a health and safety issue.
18
•
I 11
L -A
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2830 014 005, 23228 Lyons Avenue
• This building shows signs of weather damage from exposed building materials. Buckling and rotting roofing
materials of this building pose a significant health and safety issue. These undesirable conditions will
ultimately affect the building's value and lease rate.
•
19
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2830 016 032, 22950 Lyons Avenue
This small retail location appeared to be vacant from the public right-of-way. Portions of the external building
materials have begun to show serious signs of weather damage that need more than basic maintenance and
a coat of paint to be repaired. These conditions lead to a lower building value, impacting the marketability of
the structure and having a direct impact on surrounding property values.
OR�-G 20
•
•
•
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
L
pill
APN 2831 006 003, 24522 Railroad Avenue
This property has several issues. The City has noted that portions of the structure and additions to the
building exist over the public right-of-way. In certain portions, the City is unable to construct adequate road
and sidewalk improvements due to this encroachment. The buildings themselves show signs of damaged
external building materials, damaged eaves and gutters as a result of inadequate weather protection, and
broken windows.
21
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
f
APN 2831 018 011, 24219 Railroad Avenue
These pictures show the front and rear of a boarded and vacant property. The structure has damaged
external building materials from faulty weather protection. Its eaves and wooden platform at the rear of the
building are cracked and damaged and show signs of wood rot.
O 22
11
F- -I
L J
•
E
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2831 023 045, 24048 Newhall Avenue
While the appearance of the structure might be striving to achieve a visual theme, the conditions of the
external building and roofing materials show signs of severe damage. Rusted and warped corrugated metal
covers portions of the roof, sections of the eaves and gutters are beginning to sag and buckle, and the
exposed wood fagade shows signs of deterioration that a simple coat of paint would not rectify.
(q R G
23
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2836 008 001, 23109 Drayton Street
This building is suffering from damaged eaves and roofing materials. Two unsecure ventilation units on the
roof also pose a serious safety risk to people and the building itself. This property also has substandard
parking and inadequate vehicular access that poses a safety risk to pedestrians and drivers. There is no
separation between the roadway and the area where vehicles are parked. These conditions can be
dangerous for people trying to enter or exit the building. Vehicles at the end of the parking area were also
parked well into what should be the right-of-way and stick partially out into the roadway.
O R`G
24
•
•
•
E
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2855 012 034, 24933 Railroad Avenue
This building has visible cracks along its foundation. If left unrepaired, these cracks and openings allow
moisture to penetrate the foundation, causing further damage to the structure itself. This lack of investment in
the property is seriously impacting the value, and to those surrounding properties as well.
0 RSO
25
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2855 013 044, 24811 Railroad Avenue
•
•
The buildings in this shopping center have damaged overhangs. Portions of untreated wood are exposed to
the elements, which can lead to wood rot.
•
O 26
J
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT. NO. THREE
APN 2855 016 037, 24747 Railroad Avenue
The main door of this building had been broken and replaced with plywood that is beginning to rot and
deteriorate from exposure to the elements. The balcony on this building appears to be buckling and is poorly
supported. The entire length of the foundation has visible cracks and signs of moisture penetration.
(q
RSG
27
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CRY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2855 016 038, 24743 Railroad Avenue
This building shows signs of serious external building damage and neglect. A broken window is visible at the
far right of the picture, allowing for moisture and other natural elements to freely enter the structure. Large
cracks are visible in the fagade and along the foundation.
•
Is
11
•
J
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2861 003 001, 23208 Magic Mountain Parkway
This is a non -owner occupied residential structure that would be covered under the Agency's proposed
extended eminent domain authority. Laundry can be seen hanging on the back porch area. The property has
a broken door that has been boarded with wood. The building is beginning to show signs of external physical
damage and the roof shows signs of deterioration. This property is adjacent to and on the same parcel as a
used automotive dealer, posing a serious health and safety risk as well as incompatible use. Furthermore,
the property is not zoned for a residential use, and does not correspond with the Agency's plan for
redevelopment in the area.
• 29
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Conditions of Lots in the Project Area Hinder Their Viable Capacity or Use •
Conditions that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots, given the present
general plan, zoning, or other development standards, is considered a blighting condition. Certain physical
and ownership conditions of lots in the Project Area have hindered the viable use or capacity of these lots.
Physical conditions include undersized and oddly configured lots, while ownership conditions include multiple,
separate ownership of adjacent small or oddly configured lots.
The Project Area is primarily zoned for commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Each of these zones has
certain development standards, including area requirements and intensity limitations pursuant to the City's
General Plan and Municipal Code. Parcels that have smaller than required area standards or exceed
established intensities are of inadequate size for their present uses, a condition that likely hinders the viable
use or capacity of the parcel.
The City's Municipal Code does not set minimum lot size requirements for commercial and industrial uses.
However, minimum required street frontage is 5 to 10 feet and the maximum intensity of development shall be
equal to or less than a floor area ratio of .375 for most commercial uses and .675 for most industrial uses.
The Municipal Code also includes requirements for setbacks depending on adjacent land uses, along with
requirements for off-street parking and certain quantities based on building size and use.
Several commercial and industrial lots may be inadequately sized for their present uses. According to the
2008-09 County Assessors Roll from First American Real Estate Solutions MetroScan, 37 percent of Project
Area commercial and industrial properties (93 commercial and 9 industrial) exceed the maximum floor area
ratio defined in the City's Municipal Code, which suggests the lot sizes are too small Z. These properties are
shown in Exhibit B-3. They are mainly concentrated around Downtown Newhall, west of Railroad Avenue
between Lyons Avenue and Park Street. Many of these businesses lack adequate off-street parking, have
inadequate vehicular and pedestrian access, and have unscreened outdoor storage and production, which is
additional evidence that lot sizes are too small. Of these lots, 90 are individually owned and the buildings
have already exceeded the capacity of the lots, therefore it is unlikely that those properties will be able to •
expand and grow, or redevelop. Businesses that do not have the space to expand may relocate to another
city that has the space to accommodate the growing business. Mark Oliver, a local real estate broker for the
area, said that inadequate parking in Downtown Newhall is a factor in lower lease rates.
As shown on the next page in Exhibit B-3 and in the photograph on page 32, there are specific parcels along
Railroad Avenue that are very long and narrow. These lots are approximately 3,272 feet long and 43 feet
wide. Currently, these lots are being used for small commercial businesses including hot tub sales. The hot
tubs are all being stored outside. While these lots are of sufficient size to accommodate structures of 7,000 to
50,000 square feet, this could only be accommodated by developing unconventionally long and narrow
structures. Compared to a conventional rectangular parcel, this awkward shape is not efficient and further
hinders the viable use of the lots.
The 107 lots of inadequate size and/or irregular shape described in this section of the Report are owned by
92 different individuals, creating challenges to redevelopment. This represents 39 percent of all commercial
and industrial parcels in the Project Area; 44 percent of commercial and industrial lots within the Downtown
Newhall portion of the Project Area are of inadequate size. If those lots that are clustered together were
under common ownership, redevelopment of these parcels to make them conform to present development
standards and market conditions would be more feasible because a single developer could spread costs over
a number of lots and take advantage of economies of scale.
The following photographs show examples of how inadequate lot size hinders the viable use and capacity of
lots, such as inadequate parking and access and outdoor storage.
' Other land uses vere not analyzed because commercial and industrial uses are the main properties affected by the proposed Plan
Amendment
ORc,G 30
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Exhibit B-3 Conditions Hindering Viable Use - Exceeds Maximum Floor Area Ratio
Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, City of Santa Clarita
_ _77 ___
_ _
2
4�� Mr Fr
'-`M4a.1 31A
n 5!
s
s �
i
McBean PAAy
Ors` 1126
51
O
,i Irregularly Shaped
- Exceeds hlaxmimum FAR
® Project Area
City Boundary
I
0 028 0.5 hAifes
PSC
19
f
o
3 -The affected parcel In Area 3 Is:
AP'N 2825 016 133. 25235 Wiley Canycn Rd
This is unade to fit or, the same map
31
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2834 001 902, 24852 Railroad Avenue
•
This long and narrow parcel shows signs of substandard design and suffers from a lack of parking. The
picture shows how vehicles must park in such close proximity to fast moving traffic along Railroad Avenue, •
posing a serious safety risk for customers exiting and entering their vehicles. The lot is so shallow that only
limited commercial uses are possible. Jacuzzis and hot tubs, which appeared to be the primary product for
sale, were all stored outside.
•
32
U
is
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARrrA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Along Springbrook Avenue.
For many of the properties located along Springbrook Avenue, commercial, recreational and personal
vehicles are left parked in a haphazard and potentially dangerous manner to pedestrians in the area. No
clear areas were marked for parking and pedestrian walkways and sidewalks were non-existent. It was also
evident that adequate parking for employees, let alone customers, was not available on-site and cars were
left parked along the shoulder of the road. These arrangements lead to conditions that hinder the viable use
and capacity of lots and surrounding parcels. Eleven properties on Springbrook Avenue exceed the
maximum floor area ratio, and one has a short and narrow lot.
33
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Vicinity of APN 2836 007 021, 25787 Springbrook Avenue
•
The industrial area on the north side of the Project Area lacks adequate pedestrian and vehicular •
infrastructure to support the intensity of these uses. Vehicles are parked directly up against the sides of most
of the buildings, and the area lacks any sidewalks or clearly marked pedestrian pathway system. Vehicles
are forced to back directly onto the busy roadway that is used by all types of car and truck traffic. The
Agency's options in addressing these conditions would be limited without the ability to consolidate parcels or
acquire parcels for off-street parking. In addition, redevelopment funding could be used to improve the
infrastructure in the area to meet current design standards.
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Vicinity of 2836 008 011, 23051 Drayton Street
This is another example of problems caused by high intensity development on inadequately sized lots.
• Vehicles are parked directly up against the sides of most of the buildings, and the area lacks any sidewalks or
clearly marked pedestrian pathway system. Vehicles are forced to back directly onto the busy roadway that is
used by all types of car and heavy truck traffic.
•
O RSG
35
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2836 007 042, 25665 Springbrook Avenue
•
Although this parcel does not exceed maximum floor area ratio requirements, it has been impacted by
overflow from surrounding parcels that are of inadequate size. The storage of all types of vehicles and
materials were clearly visible from all segments of Springbrook Avenue. In this picture, semi trucks and
trailers are being stored for an indeterminate amount of time. Garbage disposal units were also visible and •
stored outside in what appeared to be in significantly large numbers. These conditions point to a complete
lack of uniform design, health or safety standards.
r1
L_J
,�,� 36
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
i,
APN 2836 007 042, 23644 Springbrook Avenue
This picture shows large amounts of building materials being stored outside. Given any visible signs of
• covering or shelter, these materials would seem to be suffering from sun and moisture damage as a result of
direct exposure to the elements. These types of conditions can frequently lead to vermin and insect problems
which can have a direct impact on the health and safety to workers and people in the immediate area.
•
O PSG
37
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2836 008 003, 25813 Springbrook Avenue
Not only is unscreened outdoor storage a problem along Springbrook, but many parcels such as this one
contain mobile homes and other recreation vehicles left parked outside. This makeshift and haphazard
storage scheme can lead to rodent and insect problems which lead to health and safety concerns.
O P v 38
•
•
L_J
•
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2836 008 008, 25835 Springbrook Avenue
Many automotive repair businesses are clustered along Springbrook Avenue. Given the small size of the
parcel, there is inadequate room for a building, parking, and storage areas. This picture shows severa
inoperable vehicles waiting to be completely rebuilt. Without adequate covering and shelter, these vehicles
can leech harmful chemicals, toxins, and automotive fluids into the ground which can have a direct impact on
the health and safety of those that work on or near this parcel.
kJv 39
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2836 008 018, 25838'/2 Springbrook Avenue
Outdoor storage can lead to health and safety problems. In this case, this picture shows outdoor storage
being piled up to or above the roof of the building. The items appear to be heavy metal automotive
components. Should these items shift, let alone become unstable during an earthquake, the safety of those
working or visiting this parcel would be in jeopardy. The parcel itself is entirely consumed by either building or
storage areas. The van shown here on the left was parked outside the property along Springbrook Avenue.
The parcel was devoid of on-site parking and left employees and customers to park out on a busy road with
heavy truck traffic. These types of conditions lead directly to a lack of adequate and safe access for vehicles
and pedestrians.
O K: G
40
•
•
•
E
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2834 009 047, 24622 Pine Street
• This parcel is located in an area where many properties contain structures whose total building area exceeds
the maximum allowed by the City's Municipal Code. It contains a large u -shaped building with many
individual garages that are being rented by different automotive repair businesses. The majority of on-site
parking is devoted to storage of vehicles in some state of repair. Employees and customers are all forced to
park off-site and along the street (see next picture). These parking arrangements can pose serious access
and safety issues for people trying to cross the street and enter these businesses.
is
O RSG
41
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APN 2834 009 052. 24604 Pine Street
This picture shows a lack of adequate infrastructure in this area. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters are completely
lacking in this area. Additionally, the parcels do not provide adequate parking. When leaving, these vehicles
must back directly into oncoming traffic. To make effective improvements in this area, the Agency would
need to consolidate parcels to allow for buildings and parking that meet current design standards.
42
\J
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Why Redevelopment?
• The private sector alone has been unable to eliminate the blighting conditions of the Project Area. Many
properties are too small to build modem commercial and industrial developments, which typically require
more space, and/or are in mixed ownership. As a result, businesses move out of the area to parcels that are
of an adequate size to accommodate their needs and lease rates are lower for businesses that lack parking
and have other inadequacies.
Through the tools of redevelopment, the Agency can implement programs to provide incentives to facilitate
additional development and redevelopment projects in instances where such projects are otherwise
infeasible. For example, land needed for effective redevelopment and parcel consolidation could be
addressed through the Agency's ability to utilize eminent domain -led efforts to create more developable lots.
Economic Blight
Today the Project Area is characterized by impaired property values due to hazardous wastes, abnormally
high business vacancies and low lease rates, and a high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the
public safety and welfare.
Project Area Property Values are Impaired by Hazardous Wastes
Pursuant to CRL Section 33031(b)(2), impaired property values due, in significant part, to hazardous wastes
is an economic blighting condition. Redevelopment Law defines hazardous waste as any hazardous
substance that is defined in Section 25281(h) of the California Health and Safety Code.
The Department of Toxic Control Substance's ("DTSC") EnviroStor3 database, the State Water Resources
Control Board's ("SWRCB") Geotracker° database, and the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA")
CERCLIS5 database list properties that have open and closed cases of hazardous waste contamination and
remediation. The Project Area has four open cases in these databases. Table B-1 lists the sites and provides
• a description of the nature of contamination.
3 EnviroStor is an online research and Geographic Information System tool that allows you to search for information on investigation,
cleanup, permitting, and/or corrective actions that are planned, being conducted or have been completed under DTSC's oversight
' The SW RCB's Geotracker is a similar online research tool as Envirostor but pulls information from different databases, such as
Leaking Underground Storage Sites ("LUST') and Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups ("SLIC").
' CERCLIS is the acronym for the EPA's comprehensive environmental response, compensation. and liability information system.
CERCLIS is the national database and management system that the EPA uses to track activities of hazardous waste sites considered for
• cleanup under the Comprehensive Endronmental Response and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), which is commonly know as Superfund.
Superfund sites are land within the United States that has been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a
candidate for remediation because it poses a risk to human health and/or the environment
43
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Active Hazardous Waste Sites (1) Table B-1
Newhall Redevelopment Project Area •
Site Name Site Address Type of Site/Cleanup Contaminant Media Affected
Santa Clanta Greenwaste Fire Pine St & Newhall Ave Federal Superfund Not identified in data sources
Saugus Industrial Center 26000 Springbrook Ave
Federal Superfund &
Unspecified Aqueous
Contaminated
State DTSC
Solution, Oxygenated
Surface/Structure,
Solvents, Organic
Soil Vapor, Soil,
Monomer Waste,
Under Investigation
Including Unreacted Res,
Halogenated Solvents,
Vinyl Chloride
Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Co 25655 Springbrook Ave
Federal Superfund &
Chromium VI,
Contaminated
State DTSC
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Surface/Structure,
(PCBS)
Soil Vapor, Soil
CalTrans Truck Maintenance 23922 Newhall Ave
State Cleanup Program
Diesel
Under Investigation
Yard
(1) Al cases were active as of February 12, 2009
Table B-2 compares the average assessed value by lot square footage of sites with active hazardous waste
cases to those without active cases within the Project Area that are of the same land use. Two properties
with active cases are not analyzed because one does not have a specific address available and the other is
owned by a public agency thus has a zero assessed value.
Active Hazardous Waste Site Property Value Analysis (1) Table B-2
Newhall Redevelopment Project Area
Average Assessed Value Per Lot Square Footage •
(1) Does not include the Santa Clarda Greenwaste Fire site (exact address unknown) or the CalTrans Truck
Maintenance Yard (the assessed value is zero because it is owned by a public agency).
Hazardous waste contamination has significantly impaired property values on these sites. The assessed
value per lot square footage of active hazardous waste sites within the Project Area is 43 percent lower than
Project Area sites without hazardous waste.
The presence of hazardous waste contamination can often be a major impediment to the redevelopment of a
property. Hazardous waste contamination can severely delay the disposition and development of a property
due to testing, remediation, difficulty in resolvin�q existing or potential liability issues, and difficulty in obtaining
financing. According to author Glen R. Muellerp, private developers have difficulty with up -front cleanup costs
and have trouble finding capital investors willing to take on the risk associated with these types of
investments. J.C. Norby & Associates' has shown that case histories document devastating consequences
for many who have purchased, invested in, or made loans on real estate impaired by chemicals and toxic
compounds. In many cases, the cost of remediation exceeds the property's market value. As a result,
properties that contain hazardous waste contamination are often left underutilized and difficult to redevelop as
a result of the lengthy and costly process to remediate a hazardous waste site.
If these hazardous waste sites are not remediated, they can also have a negative effect on surrounding
property values and perpetuate a lack of investment by property owners and private enterprise. Karen
c Mueller, Glenn R "Brownfelds Capital -Unlocking Value in Environmental Redevelopment" Journal of Real Estate Portfolio •
Management. 2006.
J.C. Norby & Associates is a professional real estate appraisal company.
O 44
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Swanson of the National Association of Realtors reports that, "The presence of hazardous waste and its
• associated stigma can have serious ramifications on the value of the subject property, not to mention the
values of surrounding properties and neighborhoods.' Authors Michael Greenberg and Justin Hollanders
wrote in the Appraisal Joumal that superfund hazardous waste sites have a negative stigma70, which reduces
the value and marketability of a site as well as adjacent land. Both Greenberg and Hollander argue that the
time it takes to remediate a site, proximity to a contaminated site, and the type of contamination are major
constraints that can negatively impact the value and/or marketability of the contaminated site and surrounding
properties.
Remediation of these active hazardous waste sites is necessary to facilitate redevelopment in the Project
Area. The existence of active hazardous waste sites will continue to impair property values in the Project
Area. Exhibit B-4 on the following page illustrates active and closed hazardous waste sites located in the
Project Area.
•
° Swanson, Karen. "Field Guide to Effects of Hazardous Wastes of Property Values". National Association of Realtors. March 2007.
° Greenberg, M. and J. Hollander. "Neighborhood Stigma Twenty Years Later: Revisiting Superfund Sites in Suburban New Jersey."
• Appraisal Joumal. 2006.
1p According to Greenberg and Hollander, Stigma is defined as an environmental condition that reduces the value and/or marketability of
a site and sometimes adjacent land.
O RSG
45
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
Exhibit B-4 Active Hazardous Waste Sites
Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, City of Santa Clarita
A
Vafencia alvd
H
s�
CESS9
Qtr
7—
���\
�C''�126
1 e �6�q ,_ Oak OrohardR r
jtos SIV'! l 1
v
76
� 4;
7Z
Lyons Ave v. .s`3 4
grog
7° a 4
a°'i c ID - Qe ti c
3 ¢ > 6th St • �c x\e�
77
11.
q�g 41
! Active Hazardous Waste Sites -
Project Area N
City Boundary
W—
E
a 0.25 0.5 1 Miles s .1-N
46
•
•
is
•
L1
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
The Project Area has Abnormally High Business Vacancies and Abnormallv Low Lease Rates
Vacant businesses present several problems to communities. First, they give the community a distressed
appearance, particularly when located on primary streets or in highly visible locations within the community.
Second, vacant businesses tend to attract vandals and vagrants because they are often unmonitored. The
building and other properties can more easily be damaged or destroyed and become targets for graffiti.
Several instances of graffiti and other property vandalism were noted in the Project Area. Finally, vacant
businesses can be a disincentive for potential business owners to locate to the area, who may view such
properties as evidence it is difficult to make a living and remain in business in the community.
RSG reviewed and analyzed several sources to compare the rate of office, industrial, and retail vacancies in
the Project Area with City and Los Angeles region averages. Vacancy rates for Los Angeles County as a
whole are from the published real estate market report identified in Table B-3 below. RSG calculated the
Project Area's business vacancies by comparing the number of vacant office, industrial and retail facilities
offered on LoopNet Commercial Real Estate Online with the number of parcels zoned for those uses.
Area Vacancy Rate Comparisons Table B-3
Area vs. Santa
Retail
Vacancy
Market Area Rate
Project Area (1) 36.1%
Santa Clarita (2) 11.4% 217%
Los Angeles County 7.8% 363%
40.0%
35.0%
y 30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
n
� 15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Project Area Santa Clarita Los Angeles County
Market Area
(1) Does not include all vacancies observed during RSG's field surveys.
(2) Average rates for Santa Clarita/Palmdale/Lancaster
Percent difference of Project Area from region
Sources: LoopNet, Metro Scan, Marcus & Millichap Market Update, 3Q 2008
47
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
The Project Area has 231 commercial parcels, comprising 13 percent of the Project Area. As Table B-3 •
demonstrates, the Project Area vacancy rate for retail/commercial space is abnormally high. The rate is 217
percent higher than the City and 363 percent higher than the County average. The Project Area office and
industrial vacancy rates are not abnormally high compared to the City.
Lease rates in the Project Area for office, industrial, and retaiVcomrrercial space were compared with lease
rates for properties with the same use in the City, Los Angeles North, and the County. "Los Angeles North"
includes Santa Clarita, Simi Valley, and parts of Ventura and San Fernando. RSG calculated the average
asking monthly rate per square foot based on data from Loopnet Commercial Real Estate Online. Results are
shown in Table B4. Asking lease rates are typically higher than actual lease rates after a property is leased.
Area Lease Rate Comparisons Table B-4
vs. Santa
Office Lease Rate
oho.
Project Area (1) $2.08
Santa Clarita (2) $2.60 -20%
Los Angeles North (3) $2.57 -19%
S $3.00
0
m $2.50
o $2.00
N
IL $1.50
m
� $1.00
z
$0.50
m
$0.00
Project Area Santa Clarita Los Angeles North
Market Area
(1) Asking lease rates based off listings on LoopNet. Actual lease rates are
typically lower than asking lease rates.
(2) Average rates for the Santa Clarita Valley
(3) Average rates for Los Angeles North, which includes Santa Clarita, Simi
Valley, and parts of Ventura and San Fernando.
* Percent difference of Project Area from region
Sources: LoopNet, Metro Scan, Grubb & Ellis Market View Reports, 4Q 2008
As Table B-4 demonstrates, average lease rates for office space in the Project Area are 20 percent lower
than the City and 19 percent lower than Los Angeles North. Approximately four percent of Project Area
parcels have an industrial use. Average lease rates for industrial and retail uses are not abnormally low in the
Project Area compared to the City.
•
According to several brokers who were interviewed for this Report, lease rates for office and retail space in
the Downtown Newhall Area in particular are lower than other parts of the City and surrounding areas. The
age of the buildings, lack of adequate infrastructure and insufficient parking were all noted as conditions that •
led to lower lease rates in the downtown. Given this feedback, lower lease rates in the Project Area are not
due simply to the national economic downturn; they are a symptom of undesirable physical blighting
O 48
•
•
•
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
conditions. The combination of low lease rates and high business vacancies suggests the Project Area is a
less desirable area for businesses to locate.
High Crime Rate
Section 33031(b)(7) defines a high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare
as an economic blighting condition.
Table B-5 presents the number of Part I and II crimes in the Project Area and the City from 2004 to 2008.
Part I and Part II crimes are categories used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports
classification system. Part I crimes are violent and property crimes, including murder, manslaughter, robbery,
forcible rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part II crimes are
less serious offenses, including but not limited to simple assault, disorderly conduct, driving under the
influence, drug offenses, fraud, gambling, liquor offenses, prostitution, public drunkenness, sex offenses,
stolen property, vandalism, vagrancy, and weapons offenses.
Crime Comparison Table B-5
Newhall Redevelopment Project Area vs. City
Year Project Per 1000 City Per 1000 % in % Higher
2004
681
29
3,536
21
19%
35%
2005
830
35
3,916
23
21%
49%
2006
713
30
3,861
23
18%
30%
2007
690
29
4,183
25
16%
16%
2008
631
27
3,530
21
18%
26%
Total
3,545
149
19,026
114
19%
31%
Part II Crimes
2004
1,018
43
4,691
28
22%
52%
2005
1,115
47
5,131
31
22%
53%
2006
1,304
55
5,593
33
23%
64%
2007
1,357
57
5,711
34
24%
67%
2008
1,185
50
5,313
32
22%
57%
Total
5,979
251
26,439
158
23%
59%
Acreage 914 36,352 3%
Population (1) 23,783 167,047 14%
80%
70%
60%
's 50%
40%
30%
20%
= 10%
0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total
■Part I Crimes ■Part II Crimes
(1) Population based on U.S. Census 2005 estimates. The figure reported
under Project Area is the population of 16 census block groups that overlap the
Project Area, which includes areas outside the Project Area.
Source.' City of Santa Clanta, ESRC GIS Census Data
49
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
The Project Area has a high rate of serious crime in relation to the City. Although the Project Area constitutes •
only 3 percent of the City's total area and approximately 14 percent of the population, it had 19 percent of the
City's Part I crimes and 23 percent of Part II crimes over the last five years. The rate of Part I crimes per
1000 persons over the last five years is 31 percent higher in the Project Area than the City. The rate of Part II
crimes is 59 percent higher in the Project Area than the City. The high rate of violent and property crimes in
the Project Area over the last five years pose a serious threat to the public safety and welfare.
Brokers interviewed for the amendment report a perception of higher crime in Newhall and the downtown area
compared to other surrounding markets. Several instances of graffiti and other property vandalism were
noted, particularly in the Downtown Newhall area. When prospective tenants or buyers feel the property they
are looking at is in a high crime area, they will in turn expect lease rates to be lower or will look elsewhere.
According to the brokers, people do not want to pay an average market rate for property in a high crime area
or a perceived high crime area when they can go elsewhere.
Why Redevelopment?
It is unlikely that new development or redevelopment within the Project Area will occur without assistance
from the Agency because business vacancies tend to lower the property values of the area, diluting any
economic incentive for developing the area. The disparity of the numbers of serious crimes that occur in the
Project Area compared to the City as whole is another blighting condition that can be remediated through
redevelopment. Furthermore, even though lease rates in the Project Area are lower than in the surrounding
areas, business vacancies remain high, which suggests business owners do not find the Project Area a
desirable area in which to locate a business. The Amendment would enable the Agency to continue to have
eminent domain available as a redevelopment tool and provide assistance to private sector in terms of
property acquisition and consolidation.
Because of stagnant property values and lower overall incomes, Project Area property owners do not have
the incentive or ability to develop their properties or make improvements. The power of eminent domain, •
however, would give the Agency a potential tool to acquire and assemble property to provide a catalyst for
private development. As the area's economic value increases, the related blighting conditions will be
alleviated.
Physical and Economic Burden on the Community
Pursuant to Section 33030(b) of the Redevelopment Law, to be blighted an area must meet the following
criteria. The Project Area meets each criterion and is therefore a blighted area.
The area must be predominantly urbanized.
The Project Area was found to be predominantly urbanized at the time the Redevelopment Plan was adopted.
Because the Amendment does not change the boundaries of the Project Area, a determination as to whether
the Project Area is predominantly urbanized is not required.
Physical and economic blighting conditions must be present.
As described in this section of the Report, the Project Area continues to exhibit unsafe and unhealthy
buildings due to serious dilapidation and deterioration caused by long-term neglect and serious building code
violations; lot and ownership conditions that substantially hinder their viable use or capacity; impaired property
values due to hazardous wastes; abnormally high business vacancies and low lease rates; and a high crime
rate that poses a serious threat to the public safety and welfare.
3. Blighting conditions must cause a lack of proper utilization of the area.
As shown throughout this section of the Report, the Project Area suffers from unsafe and unhealthy buildings,
lot conditions that hinder viable use or capacity, impaired property values due to hazardous wastes, low lease
rates, a high business vacancy rate, and a high crime rate. These characteristics inhibit the viability of
individually affected lots and structures, as well as the economic vitality of the entire Project Area. •
O - 50
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
• These blighting conditions do not act in isolation, but are dynamic and influence each other. For example, the
physical deterioration of a commercial building may contribute to lower lease rates, or may cause a tenant to
relocate. Or conversely, a business may wish to expand, but does not have the means to do so on its small
lot. This situation may cause the business to relocate, leaving a vacant building. The loss of lease income
may impair the property owner from performing structural upkeep on the building, leading to a physically
deteriorated unit. Dilapidated units tend to influence the value of neighboring properties as well. Thus, a
single blighting condition can escalate into much more pervasive issues, causing a lack of proper utilization of
the Project Area.
4. The improper utilization must be a serious physical and economic burden on the community.
Individual properties have a powerful influence on the value of neighboring lots, such that parcels where well-
maintained structures are adjacent to lots with dilapidated structures, both properties can experience lowered
market values. Lower property values, conditions of lots, and physical decline of structures cause the Project
Area as a whole to remain blighted.
Though structural dilapidation and business vacancies are easily observed, certain conditions of commercial
properties render sites obsolete and are a major factor in the economic welfare of the area. Private investors
would, in many cases, need to assemble several parcels in order to construct commercial buildings that meet
current development standards, including the structure of the building, adequate parking, and safe ingress
and egress. The industrial area on the north side of the Project Area is a perfect example of this scenario.
Thus, certain lot conditions discourage new development and make the Project Area uncompetitive with
neighboring communities.
5. The burden cannot be reversed by private enterprise alone, the public sector alone, or both together,
without redevelopment.
The blighting conditions found in the Project Area are not new, but the product of decades' worth of social and
• economic struggle. The private sector has had ample opportunity to improve the area through parcel
assembly or structural rehabilitation, but has not. The physical and economic conditions continue to deter
private investment.
In the most basic of terms, the overarching purpose of redevelopment is to make the Project Area a viable
area that can compete with neighboring communities for commercial and industrial uses. This requires a
holistic approach to improvements that stretches from traditional capital projects to those that make the area a
pleasant, safe place that businesses want to locate in. The presence of physical and economic blighting
conditions cause a reduction in utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious
physical and economic burden on the community. This has not been, and cannot reasonably be expected to
be, reversed or alleviated by private enterprise, governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. By
implementing projects to abate the blighting conditions affecting the Project Area, the public sector will signal
its confidence in the area and provide a catalyst for private investment.
C J
51
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CRY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
METHOD OF RELOCATION •
Section 33352(f) of the Redevelopment Law requires the Agency to prepare a relocation plan for families and
persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities within the Project Area.
In the event the proposed Amendment is adopted and implementation actions include relocation of residents
or nonprofit local community institutions, the Agency will adhere to the State Relocation Guidelines, consisting
of the State Relocation Law (Government Code 7260 through 7277), and the California Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines as established in the California Code of Regulations, Title 25,
Chapter 6 ("Relocation Guidelines").
If relocation is necessary to implement the Redevelopment Plan in order to eliminate blighting conditions, the
Relocation Guidelines ensure the Agency will meet its relocation responsibilities to any families, persons,
businesses, or nonprofit local community institutions to be temporarily or permanently displaced as a
consequence of the Redevelopment Plan's implementation.
No persons or families of low and moderate -income shall be displaced unless and until there is a suitable
housing unit available and ready for occupancy by the displaced person or family at costs comparable to
those at the time of their displacements.
The Agency's relocation responsibilities are not limited to eminent domain acquisition alone. For example,
the Agency may have relocation responsibility for displacement of residents if their properties are purchased
by voluntary sale.
•
•
OR' =,G 52
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
• PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Section 33385.3 of Redevelopment Law, a Project Area Committee ("PAC") is required if an
agency proposes to amend a redevelopment plan to: 1) grant the authority to the Agency to acquire by
eminent domain property on which a substantial number of low and moderate income persons reside; or 2)
add territory in which a substantial number of low and moderate income persons reside and grant the
authority to the agency to acquire, by eminent domain, property on which persons reside in the added
territory. A PAC does not exist for the Project Area and is not required as part of this amendment. However,
the Newhall Redevelopment Committee's ("NRC") purpose is to review, advise and make recommendations
to the Agency on redevelopment issues affecting the Project Area. Because the NRC performs many of the
same functions as a PAC, the Agency has worked with the NRC on the Amendment. The NRC is aware of
the Agency's long-term efforts to utilize all the tools available through redevelopment to revitalize the Project
Area. Staff has presented the Amendment process to the NRC and will continue to engage the NRC
throughout this endeavor. NRC members will be informed of the meeting to present and discuss the
Amendment at a community meeting, and the Agency's public hearing and may attend and participate
actively.
Overall, the Amendment would not subject a substantial number of residential units in which low and
moderate income persons reside to eminent domain. Field surveyors and City staff identified only two parcels
containing up to five units in the Project Area that may consist of possible living quarters potentially occupied
by low or moderate income persons. For these reasons, a PAC is not required.
•
•
53
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW •
Section 33352(k) of the Redevelopment Law requires the inclusion of the report prepared pursuant to Section
21151 of the Public Resources Code.
Reporting for the proposed Amendment consists of an Initial Study and Negative Declaration ("IS/ND")
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA" ). The IS/ND found the proposed Amendment would not have significant
impacts on the Project Area.
The IS/ND reviewed all potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Amendment. Topics
include: aesthetics; agriculture resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and
soil; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; mineral
resources; noise; population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation and traffic; and utilities
and service systems. The IS/ND also addresses all other topics and sections as required by CEQA.
The IS/ND was transmitted to the affected taxing entities on March 25, 2009. The 30 -day review period is
from March 25, 2009, through April 24, 2009. The City Council and Agency will consider the IS/ND at a joint
public hearing scheduled for May12, 2009. The IS/ND is included in Appendix B.
•
11
O R G 54
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
• NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT
Section 33352(m) of the Redevelopment Law requires that a Neighborhood Impact Report discuss the impact
the proposed Amendment would have on low- and moderate -income persons or families residing in the
Project Area in the following categories: relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of
community facilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education, property assessments
and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood.
Additional issues the Neighborhood Impact Report must address include: the number of low- or moderate -
income dwelling units to be removed or destroyed; the number of low- or moderate income persons or
families expected to be displaced; the general location of housing to be rehabilitated, developed, or
constructed; the number of dwelling units planned for construction or rehabilitation to house persons and
families of low- or moderate -income (other than replacement housing); the projected means of financing the
aforementioned dwelling units; and the projected timetable for meeting a redevelopment plan's relocation,
rehabilitation, and replacement housing objectives.
RELOCATION
At this time, the Agency does not have any plans to relocate residents or businesses in the Project Area. It
relocation activities are undertaken, the Agency will handle those activities on a case-by-case basis, in
accordance with its method of relocation, as contained in this Report. As a public agency formed under the
provisions of State law, the Agency is required to adhere to the State Relocation Law (Government Code
Sections 7260 through 7277) and follow the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Guidelines as established in the California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 6 ("Relocation Guidelines").
Prior to commencement of any acquisition activity that may cause substantial displacement (other than an
insignificant amount of non-residential displacement), the Agency would adopt a specific relocation plan in
• conformance with the Relocation Guidelines. To the extent appropriate, the Agency may supplement those
provisions provided in the Relocation Guidelines to meet particular relocation needs of a specific project.
Such supplemental policies, if adopted in the Agency's sole discretion, will not involve reduction, but instead
enhancement of the relocation benefits required by State law.
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration ("IS/ND") was prepared to assess traffic and other environmental
impacts of the proposed Amendment, a copy of which is included in Appendix B of this Report. In general,
because the proposed Amendment addresses the manner in which eminent domain may be used in the
Project Area, the IS/ND concluded the proposed Amendment would result in no significant traffic impacts.
The Redevelopment Plan would permit the Agency to implement projects to improve traffic circulation. Such
projects would improve circulation, mitigate traffic deficiencies, and provide general benefits to the Project
Area consistent with the circulation element of the General Plan and other related documents.
The City's General Plan would control the land use designations and intensities of the Redevelopment Plan;
its implementation would not create locally or cumulatively significant impacts beyond what is anticipated
pursuant to the General Plan. The Redevelopment Plan would not alter or intensify the General Plan's land
uses, traffic generation, levels of service, or intersection capacities. Redevelopment Plan implementation
would not cause traffic or circulation impacts that were not considered and mitigated in the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report. The Agency, via the Redevelopment Plan, would adhere to policies in the
circulation element of the General Plan in lessening traffic and circulation impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The IS/ND reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Amendment and concluded the proposed
Amendment itself would not result in any significant impacts.
•
R ;y G 55
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
As stated in the Redevelopment Plan, all development must conform to the City's General Plan and other •
applicable State and local building codes and controls. Because the proposed Amendment does not propose
uses or intensities beyond the General Plan and other related land use policy documents, adherence to
adopted General Plan and land use policies will ensure that implementation of the proposed Amendment
would lessen or avoid potential impacts. This would ensure that quality of the environment is maintained.
During implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, specific redevelopment proposals may warrant further
environmental analysis as required by CEQA.
AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The IS/ND determined the proposed Amendment would not have a significant impact on public facilities
including fire protection, police protection, water, wastewater, storm drain, solid waste services, schools, and
parks. The proposed Amendment provides that any redevelopment activity is subject to, and consistent with,
the policies set forth in the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and local codes and ordinances, as they
now exist or are hereafter amended; the General Plan incorporates policies to mitigate impacts on public
services and facilities. Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and its proposed projects are expected to
improve the City's existing community facilities and services. The Redevelopment Plan would allow the
Agency to utilize tax increment revenues to provide for the upgrading of existing, and construction of new,
community facilities, which would benefit the Project Area.
EFFECT ON SCHOOL POPULATION AND QUALITY OF EDUCATION
The Project Area is served by the Newhall School District, Saugus Union School District, and William S. Hart
Union High School District (collectively, the "Districts"). The IS/ND assessed the direct and cumulative
impacts of the proposed Amendment on area schools and concluded adoption of the proposed Amendment
would not result in any significant impacts. Furthermore, Section 33607.5 of the Redevelopment Law
provides for statutory payments from generated tax increment to any affected school districts, irrespective of •
whether the district suffers impacts from the Redevelopment Plan. This revenue may be used for capital and
operational purposes, including school facilities.
PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS
The Redevelopment Plan calls for various methods of financing implementation, none of which are affected
by the proposed Amendment. Because redevelopment agencies do not have the constitutional authority to
impose taxes, implementation of the Redevelopment Plan would not cause an increase in property tax rates.
Rather, the principal method of financing redevelopment would be the utilization of tax increment revenues
generated by the Project Area. Tax increment financing reallocates property tax revenues generated by
increases in the assessed value of property in the Project Area. Although redevelopment of the Project Area
would increase assessed valuations, Project Area property owners would not experience increases in
property taxes beyond those normally allowed by other state law and state constitutional provisions.
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING PROGRAM
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS HOUSING LOW -AND MODERATE -INCOME HOUSEHOLDS EXPECTED
TO BE DESTROYED OR REMOVED BY THE PROJECT
The Agency does not have the authority to acquire owner -occupied residential properties by eminent domain.
In addition, there are two parcels with approximately five dwelling units between them that would be subject to
the Agency's eminent domain authority. The Agency anticipates that not more than five dwelling units could
be removed at some point in the next 12 years if the proposed Amendment is adopted. If redevelopment
implementation results in removal of housing units, the Agency would be responsible for providing relocation
assistance and ensuring replacement housing for occupants of affected units.
•
O RSG 56
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CRY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
NUMBER OF PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF LOW- AND MODERATE -INCOME EXPECTED TO BE
• DISPLACED
Based on the assumptions above, the Agency estimates that up to 15 persons of low and moderate income
could be displaced by project implementation if the proposed Amendment is adopted based on the average
number of persons per household in the City as reported by the 2000 United States Census.
GENERAL LOCATION OF REPLACEMENT LOW -AND MODERATE -INCOME HOUSING TO BE
REHABILITATED, DEVELOPED, AND CONSTRUCTED
For destruction or removal that occurs as a result of an Agency project pursuant to applicable sections of the
Redevelopment Law, it is the Agency's intention that replacement housing units be located within the Project
Area or in nearby areas that permit residential uses. Any new units may be constructed in areas within the
Project Area where such uses are permitted.
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS HOUSING PERSONS OF LOW -AND MODERATE -INCOME PLANNED
FOR CONSTRUCTION OR REHABILITATION OTHER THAN REPLACEMENT HOUSING
The Agency will invest its housing fund resources into a variety of housing programs. At this time, the Agency
does not have any specific plans for construction or rehabilitation of any low- and moderate -income housing
units in the Project Area.
PROJECTED MEANS OF FINANCING REHABILITATION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING FOR
LOW -AND MODERATE -INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
The Agency intends to utilize not less than 20 percent of its tax increment revenues to finance the
rehabilitation, construction, purchase, and mortgage assistance of housing for low- and moderate -income
households, in accordance with the provisions of the Redevelopment Law as it now exists or may hereafter
• be amended.
PROJECTED TIMETABLE FOR MEETING THE PLAN'S RELOCATION, REHABILITATION, AND
REPLACEMENT HOUSING OBJECTIVES
•
If any units are destroyed or removed as a result of an Agency project pursuant to applicable sections of the
Redevelopment Law, replacement housing would be completed within four years following the demolition of
any occupied affordable unit.
• 57
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CRY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES •
According to records from the County of Los Angeles Auditor -Controller, the following 15 taxing entities levy
taxes within the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area and are eligible to receive notice of the public hearing
on the proposed Amendment:
• County of Los Angeles
• City of Santa Clarita
• Los Angeles County Public Library
• Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department
• Los Angeles County Fire Department
• Los Angeles County Public Works
• Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District
• Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
• Castaic Lake Water Agency
• Newhall County Water District
• Los Angeles County Office of Education
• Newhall School District
• Saugus Union School District
• William S. Hart Union High School District
• Santa Clarita Community College District •
Because the proposed Amendment only reinstitutes the Agency's eminent domain authority and does not
change time or financial limitations of the Redevelopment Plan, the proposed Amendment would not
detrimentally impact the affected taxing entities. In accordance with Section 33452 of the Redevelopment
Law, notice of the public hearing on the proposed Amendment will be mailed to the governing body of each
affected taxing entity on March 25, 2009. In addition, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration was transmitted to
the governing body of each affected taxing entity on March 25, 2009.
To date, the Agency has not yet received any questions or comments from taxing entities regarding the
proposed Amendment, but will update the City Council at the staff presentation during the public hearing.
•
O R C 58
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
• APPENDIX A
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECTAREA
I. BACKGROUND
The Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") was
adopted on July 8, 1997, by Ordinance No. 97-12. The Plan has been amended twice since its adoption.
The first amendment, adopted by the Santa Clarita City Council ("City Council") on June 26, 2007, by
Ordinance No. 07-05, addressed Senate Bill 53 ("SB 53") for the Project Area. SB 53, codified in Section
33342.7 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.,
"Lav"), required the City Council to adopt an ordinance describing the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency's
("Agency") program to acquire real property by eminent domain. The second amendment, adopted by the
City Council on May 13, 2008, by Ordinance No. 08-6, amended certain time limitations with respect to the
Project Area pursuant to the provisions of Section 33333.2 of the Law. As a result, the Plan was amended to
extend the time limit on the effectiveness of the Plan to July 8, 2028.
A third amendment has been proposed by the Agency to modify the Plan's eminent domain authority as
described herein. Pursuant to the Plan, the authority of the Agency to initiate condemnation proceedings to
acquire property expires on July 8, 2009. As authorized under the Law, the Agency proposes to amend the
Plan to extend this time limit by 12 years, or to July 2021. If adopted as proposed, the third amendment
would permit the use of eminent domain to acquire Project Area property that is not occupied as a residence,
as well as two specific residential parcels located in nonresidential zones at the southwest corner of Magic
Mountain Parkway and Bouquet Canyon/Railroad Avenue and the northwest corner of Drayton Street and
•Springbrook Avenue.
The third amendment is consistent with Proposition 99. Pursuant to Proposition 99, which was passed by
California voters on June 3, 2008, State and local governments cannot use eminent domain to acquire an
owner -occupied residence to convey it to a private person or entity. State and local governments retain the
right to acquire non -owner occupied residential properties for similar purposes. Furthermore, State and local
governments may acquire owner -occupied residences to protect public health and safety, prevent serious and
repeated cdminal activity, respond to an emergency, remedy environmental contamination that poses a threat
to public health and safety, and for a public work or improvement.
AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN
Effect Upon the Plan. Unless otherwise expressly amended by this Third Amendment, the Plan remains
in full force and effect according to its terms. From and after the City Council's adoption of this Third
Amendment, wherever the terms "Plan" or "Redevelopment Plan" appear in the Plan, it shall be understood to
mean the Plan as amended by this Third Amendment.
The following identifies all of the proposed changes to the Redevelopment Plan.
Italicized sections indicate existing wording in the Redevelopment Plan.
Underlined sections indicate new wording in the Redevelopment Plan.
294kethrsugh sections indicate wording to be removed from the Redevelopment Plan.
Amendment to Section 321 of the Plan
321— Acquisition of Real Property
• The Agency may acquire, but is not required to acquire, any real property located in the Project
Area by gift devise, exchange, purchase or any other lawful method, including eminent domain
O - 59
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CRY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
subiect to the limitations described below.•• -
(i)
Eminent domain proceedings, if used, must be commenced within twelve (12) years from
Me effective date of Ordinance No. aoorovina
Such time limit may only be extended by further
The Agency is authorized to acquire structures without acquiring the land upon which those
structures are located. The Agency is also authorized to acquire any interest in Real Property
less than a fee.
Properties may be acquired and cleared by the Agency if a determination is made that one or
more of the following conditions exist
1. The buildings and/or structures must be removed in order to assemble land into parcels of •
reasonable size and shape to eliminate an impediment to optimal land development
2. The buildings and/or structures are substandard as demonstrated by an inspection of the
property by the Building and Safety Division of the City of Santa Clarita;
3. The buildings and/or structures must be removed in order to eliminate an environmental
deficiency, including, but not limited to, incompatible land uses and small and irregular lot
subdivisions;
4. The buildings and/ or structures must be removed to provide land for needed public facilities,
including among others, rights-of-way, public parking facilities, open space, or public utilities;
5. The acquisition of property is allowed by the California Community Redevelopment Law and
will promote the implementation of the Plan.
Other provisions of this section notwithstanding, the Agency shall not acquire from any of its
members or officers any property or interest in property except through eminent domain
proceedings.
Amendment to Section 330 of the Plan
330 — Relocation of Persons, Families and Businesses
The following provisions relative to the relocation of persons, families and businesses are
required by CRL. The Plan does not
•
O 60
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
(i) Contain authority for the Agency to acquire by eminent domain any property on which
• persons reside ' the exception of two o ifi namarc rfacrriharf in Co e n p1
(ii) Contain any public projects that will displace a substantial number of low- or moderate -
income persons.
C J
(iii) Include the recommendation that existing automotive businesses in the downtown
Newhall area be relocated, including, but not limited to, that recommendation as it is
described and found in the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program, April 1996 (the
Freedman Plan)
Amendment to Section 340 of the Plan
340 - Demolition, Clearance, Site Preparation, Project Improvements and Public Improvements
The following provisions relative to the demolition, clearance and site preparation are required by
CRL. The Plan does not
(i) Contain authority for the Agency to acquire by eminent domain any property on which
persons
1,., or;
(ii) Contain any public projects that will displace a substantial number of low- or moderate -
income persons.
- 61
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENT NO. THREE
APPENDIX B
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
•
•
•
0
•
PJ
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO: N/A
PERMIT/PROJECT
NAME: Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT: The Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area is generally located along Lyons
Avenue, and Newhall Avenue north to Magic Mountain Parkway.
DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT: The Third Amendment is being proposed at this time to extend the existing
eminent domain authority on non-residential property by 12 years, granting the Redevelopment Agency
eminent domain authority until July 2021. In addition, an amendment is proposed that would allow for a
limited expansion to the Redevelopment Agency's eminent domain authority to allow eminent domain powers
on two specific non -residentially designated properties that may have existing residential uses that appear to be
either illegal, or non -conforming with the City's General Plan land use designations. The two parcels that
have been identified at this time include the property located on the southwest comer of Magic Mountain
Parkway and Railroad Avenue (APN: 2861-003-001) and the property located on the northwest comer of
Drayton Street and Springbrook Avenue (APN:2836-008-002).
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the
requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X] CityCouncil [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Planning and Building Services
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
Lisa M. Webber, AICP
PLANNING MAN R
Prepared by:
Si ature)
Approved by:
(Signature)
Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner
(Name/Title)
Sharon Sorensen: Senior -Planner ----- --- -
(Name/Title)
Public Review Period From April 6, 2009 To May 12, 2009
Public Notice Given On April 6. 2009
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
SACD\CURREMMOOMMA Negative Declaration.doc
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title/Master Case Number: Amendment No. Three to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan
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)255-4030
Patrick Leclair
Associate Planner
(661)255-4349
Project location: Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area
(see attached map exhibit)
Applicant's name and address: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
General Plan designation: N/A
Zoning: N/A
Description of project and setting: The City of Santa Clarita is preparing the third
amendment to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan. The
Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Project area was
adopted on July 8, 1997, establishing the authority of
the City's Redevelopment Agency (RDA) to use
eminent domain as a tool to acquire non-residential
property. At this time, the City is proposing an
amendment to the Plan that would extend the
Redevelopment Agency's eminent domain authority by
12 years, or until July 2021.
0
0
The Redevelopment Agency currently possesses
eminent domain authority on non-residential property
within the 913.63 -acre Newhall Redevelopment Plan •
Area. The Third Amendment is being proposed at this
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 2 of 37
time to extend this existing authority on non-residential
property by 12 years, granting the Redevelopment
Agency eminent domain until July 2021. In addition,
an amendment is proposed that would allow for a
limited expansion to the Redevelopment Agency's
eminent domain authority to allow eminent domain
powers on two specific non -residentially designated
properties that may have existing residential uses that
appear to be either illegal, or non -conforming with the
City's General Plan land use designations. The two
parcels that have been identified at this time include the
property located on the southwest corner of Magic
Mountain Parkway and Railroad Avenue (APN: 2861-
003-001) and the property located on the northwest
corner of Drayton Street and Springbrook Avenue
(APN:2836-008-002). The Magic Mountain
Parkway/Railroad Avenue property totals 3.9 acres and
is identified as a "Restaurant" use on the Los Angeles
County Tax Assessor tax rolls with structures built on
the project site in 1931. The Drayton
Street/Springbrook Avenue property totals 0.13 acres
(5,497 square feet) and is identified as a "Quadruplex"
• on the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor tax rolls with
structures built in 1957. The Newhall Redevelopment
Plan primarily addresses land that has been previously
developed; however, undeveloped, vacant property east
of Railroad Avenue and north of 12`h Street is also
within the area affected by the Redevelopment Plan.
No other amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan are proposed at this time.
In 2005, the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan (DNSP)
was adopted encompassing 297.3 acres of the 913.63 -
acre Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area. The DNSP
enabled the redevelopment of a higher density
commercial and residential transit oriented
development around the existing Jan Heidt Metrolink
Station. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
prepared for the DNSP to address any environmental
impacts associated with the future development of the
DNSP. Therefore, future projects that are consistent
with the DNSP have been analyzed and will not require
further review under CEQA. The amendment to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan will not amend the
. DNSP. The amendment will only affect the eminent
domain authority within the Newhall Redevelopment
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 3 of 37
Plan Area, of which the DNSP is a part.
The proposed changes are regulatory in nature. No
changes to the physical environment or the existing
community are proposed with the amendment to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan; however, extending and
expanding eminent domain power as proposed is
intended to stimulate redevelopment within the land use
policies of the City's General Plan, DNSP, applicable
zoning ordinance, and other planning and development
standards. Therefore, approval of these amendments
could have an indirect impact on the environment.
Because it is not known what properties, if any, will
redevelop during the life of the plan, these impacts are
considered to be less than significant. Redevelopment
projects will be evaluated on a case by case basis as
redevelopment is proposed.
Surrounding land uses: The Magic Mountain Parkway/Railroad Avenue parcel
of land (APN:2861-003-001) is surrounded by vacant,
commercially zoned property to the north across Magic
Mountain Parkway, developed, industrial zoned
property to the east across Railroad Avenue and the •
Southern Pacific rail line, developed, commercially
zoned property to the south of the project site, and the
South Fork of the Santa Clara River to the west of the
project site.
The Drayton Street/Springbrook Avenue parcel
(APN:2836-008-002) is surrounded on all sides by
developed industrial zoned property.
Other public agencies whose N/A
approval is required:
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 5 of 37
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 [ ] Air Quality
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology / Soils
[ J Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water [ ] Land Use / Planning
Materials Quality
[ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population / Housing
[) Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation / Traffic
[ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ]
B. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
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.
11
0
0
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 6 of 37
is
[ ] 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
pro sed project, nothing further is required.
Pa 'ck Leclair, Associate Planner Date
Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner Date
•
11
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 7 of 37
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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
e) Other
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
•
•
Is
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 8 of 37
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?
D 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]
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 9 of 37
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 [ ] [ ] [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 [ J [ ] [X] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [X] []
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
h)Other [] [] I I
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?
0
•
•
LJ
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 10 of 37
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?
0
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 11 of 37
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- [] [] [X] [ ]
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
features?
g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
yards or more?
h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
10% natural grade?
i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
•
0
0
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 12 of 37
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?
0
11 [X]
[X]
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 13 of 37
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil pipelines)?
j) Other
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
11 11 1X1 []
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? [ ] [ ]
[X]
IN
•
•
•
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 14 of 37
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 [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
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? [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
and direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
1) 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 [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
• increases in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 15 of 37
•
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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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?
•
0
0
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 16 of 37
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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
groundborne vibration or groundborne 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
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, [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 17 of 37
XII. 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?
XIH. 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 govemmental 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?
[ ] [ J [X] [ ]
ii) Police protection?
[ ] [ ] (XJ [ ]
iii) Schools?
[ ] [ J IN [ ]
iv) Parks?
[ J [ ] [X] [ J
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?
0
0
•
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 18 of 37
b) Include recreational facilities or require the [ ] [ ] [X] [ j
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 [ ] [ ] [Xj [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [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] [ j
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
9
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 19 of 37
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?
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?
[] [X] []
[] [X] []
11 IN
[] [X] []
[] [] [X] []
0
•
E
0
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 20 of 37
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ]
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 [ ]
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."
[X]
[X]
[X]
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 21 of 37
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS a.) Less than Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is
located within Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is
bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the
Santa Susanna Mountains to the southwest, and the mountains of the
Los Padres and Angeles National Forests to the north. The
surrounding natural mountains and ridgelines, some of which extend
into the City, provide a visual backdrop for the City. Other scenic
resources within or visible from the City include the Santa Clara
River corridor, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons and
natural drainages in portions of the City.
The proposed modifications to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will
extend the eminent domain authority for the City's Redevelopment
Agency (RDA) by 12 years, including a limited expansion to the
eminent domain authority on the two non -residentially designated
properties (the Magic Mountain Parkway/Railroad Avenue parcel and
the Drayton Street/Springbrook Avenue parcel) to enable the
potential acquisition of land within the Plan Area. These
modifications in and of themselves will not affect any scenic vistas or
other scenic resources within the City of Santa Clarita. Rather, the
modifications proposed may further enable the RDA to improve
aesthetics within the Plan Area by assisting redevelopment within
blighted portions of the City. Future development proposals will be
evaluated on a project by project basis pursuant to the provisions of
CEQA.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.
b.) Less than Significant Impact: The Newhall Redevelopment
Plan Area is located in a primarily urbanized portion of the City.
While the segment of the Interstate 5 (I-5) Freeway extending from
the I-210 Freeway interchange to the SR126/Newhall Ranch Road
interchange and the SR 126 from the City's boundary at the I-5 west
to SR 150 in Ventura County are designated as "Eligible State Scenic
Highways" in the California Department of Transportation's State
Scenic Highway program, the proposed amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan affect properties that are not within this corridor
and will not have an impact on these vistas. Further, there are no
outcroppings, ridgelines, or trees approved for alteration with the
proposed amendments. Any impacts to these resources would be
i
0
E
0
0
0
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 22 of 37
associated with future development and
time approval is requested from the City.
at
One or more buildings with historic or potentially historic
significance are located within the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
area. However, the proposed amendments to the Redevelopment
Plan will not authorize, nor will the City authorize any development
or construction that would impact any historic structure within the
plan area with approval of these amendments.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would have a less than significant impact on scenic resources
within a state scenic highway, ridgeline, rock outcropping, tree, or
historic structure.
c.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan will enable the potential acquisition of
properties within the Plan Area for redevelopment of blighted
conditions. All future development within the Redevelopment Plan
Area would be required to comply with the development standards of
the City, including the Uniform Building Code, the City's Unified
Development Code and the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, and
would be subject to review at the time that permits are requested. As
previously stated, the proposed changes are regulatory in nature and
do not propose any changes to the physical environment or the
existing community. While extending and expanding eminent
domain power as proposed could stimulate redevelopment, it is not
known what properties, if any, will redevelop during the life of the
plan. Redevelopment projects will be evaluated on a case by case
basis as redevelopment is proposed.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to the visual character of the
plan area is anticipated with the proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
d.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments do not
alter the City standards for outdoor lighting and do not authorize any
new construction that would create a new source of light or glare in
the plan area.
The proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan are
anticipated to have a less than significant impact on light and glare.
II. AGRICULTURE a. -c.) No Impact — No farmland is located within the primarily
RESOURCES urbanized community of Newhall. Therefore, the proposed
amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will not affect any
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 23 of 37
farmland identified by the Californ:
designated under a Williamson Act
any farmland to non-agricultural use.
farmland
Contract, and will not convert
Therefore, no impact to farmland is anticipated as a result of the
proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
III. AIR QUALITY a.) Less than Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is
within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the
San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north
and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. More
specifically, the City of Santa Clarita is located in northern Los
Angeles County, generally between the Interstate 5 Freeway and
State Route 14 and south of Copperhill Drive. The air quality in the
SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD).
The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an
area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are
exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires
triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifies
region -wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards.
These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for
stationary -source polluters; facilitation of new transportation
technologies, such as low -emission vehicles; and capital
improvements, such as park-and-ride facilities and public transit
improvements.
The most recently adopted plan is the 2007 AQMP, adopted on June
1, 2007. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This plan is designed to implement the
California Clean Air Act an in turn implement the Federal Clean Air
Act administered by the EPA. The AQMP accommodates population
growth and transportation projections based on the predictions made
by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Thus, projects that are consistent with employment and population
forecasts are consistent with the AQMP.
The proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will
not alter the AQMP. The proposed amendments will extend the
Redevelopment Agency's eminent domain authority to allow for the
potential acquisition of commercial and specifically identified
residential parcels within the Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area to
facilitate redevelopment. Potential air quality impacts of any future
•
0
•
LI
0
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 24 of 37
redevelopment projects however, are too speculative to evaluate at
this time. Regardless, subsequent development projects will be
required to adhere to the General Plan, the Downtown Newhall
Specific Plan, and the standards set forth in the UDC, and must be
evaluated in compliance with CEQA.
Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated with respect to
any applicable air quality plan with the proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
b.) Less than Significant Impact: Santa Clarita is located in a non -
attainment area, an area that frequently exceeds national ambient air
quality standards. The proposed amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan area do not affect the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) land use, construction, and
mobile emission thresholds for significant air quality impacts,
according to the 1993 updated SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality
Handbook in and of themselves. The proposed amendments will
modify the City's eminent domain authority and will not authorize
any development or redevelopment within the Plan Area. Any air'
quality impacts as a result of any development or redevelopment
within the plan area are speculative at this time. Unless otherwise
evaluated under any previously certified CEQA document, any future
development would need to be evaluated in compliance with CEQA
at the time that development is proposed.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to any air quality standard is
anticipated as a result of the proposed amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan.
c.) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed is Section III.b), the
proposed amendments in and of themselves, would not exceed the
thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. The
SCQAMD established these thresholds in consideration of
cumulative air pollution in the SCAB. As such, projects that do not
exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds are not considered to significantly
contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. The amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan do not propose or entitle any
development at this time. However, future redevelopment projects
will be evaluated pursuant to CEQA, addressing project -related air
quality impacts.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to ambient air quality is
anticipated as a result of the proposed amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan.
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 25 of 37
d.) Less than Significant Impact: Certain residents, such as the
very young, the elderly and those suffering from certain illnesses or
disabilities, are particularly sensitive to air pollution and are
considered sensitive receptors. In addition, active park users, such as
participants in sporting events, are sensitive air pollutant receptors
due to increased breathing rates. Land uses where sensitive air
pollutant receptors congregate include schools, day care centers,
parks, recreational areas, medical facilities, rest homes, and
convalescent care facilities.
The proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan do
not include any physical development at this time. Further, the
proposed amendments do not remove any odor -related regulations
and would not foreseeably lead to a change in the generation of odor.
The proposed amendments would not place sensitive land uses
adjacent to substantial air pollution sources as no development is
proposed at this time. All future development or redevelopment will
be required to comply with all of the applicable provisions of CEQA.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would have a less than significant impact to air quality impacts
on sensitive receptors.
e.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan will not, in and of themselves, result in
locating any sensitive land uses adjacent to odor producing facilities
or uses. The proposed amendments are regulatory in nature and all
future land use proposals will be required to comply with all
applicable regulations of the AQMD, the City of Santa Clarita
General Plan, UDC, and the DNSP.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would have a less than significant impact due to objectionable
odors within the plan area.
IV. BIOLOGICAL a. -d.) Less than Significant Impact — The Newhall Redevelopment
RESOURCES Plan Area is located within a primarily urbanized portion of the City
of Santa Clarita. The amendments proposed at this time will extend
the eminent domain authority within the plan area to enable the
potential acquisition of non-residential property and specifically
identified properties with potential nonconforming residential uses to
enable development and redevelopment within the Plan Area.
The Plan Area is predominantly developed and does not contain
natural open spaces that will be affected by the proposed
amendments. There are endangered species located in the region;
Ll
11
•
•
•
0
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 26 of 37
however, no habitat for these species is known to be located within
the plan area. The proposed amendments will extend and expand the
City's eminent domain authority only and do not authorize any
development at this time. Any future development proposals would
be subject to further review under CEQA at the time permits are
requested. Further, the proposed amendments will not have any
adverse affect on any riparian habitat or wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, any wildlife corridor, or any
migratory fish corridor.
Therefore, the proposed amendment to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to sensitive
species, sensitive natural community, riparian habitat, and/or
wetlands.
e.) Less than Significant Impact — The City of Santa Clarita has an
Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance that regulates development
adjacent to and under oak trees that are found in the region. No
modifications to the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance are
proposed at this time. Further, the amendment to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan will not authorize any impact to an oak tree,
protected or otherwise, in the City. While oak trees are found in the
plan area, none are proposed for modification at this time. Any
future development involving an oak tree must comply with the Oak
Tree Preservation Ordinance and must comply with all requirements
of CEQA.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to oak trees is anticipated
with the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
f) No Impact — The amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan are consistent with to any local and regional habitat conservation
plans and would not result in any alterations to these plans. Further,
the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will
extend the City's eminent domain authority only and will not
authorize any construction or development that will have any
potential impact on the environment.
Therefore, no impact to any habitat conservation plan is anticipated
with the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
g.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan are regulatory in nature, extending the
City's eminent domain authority for primarily developed areas of the
community of Newhall. No new development or redevelopment will
be entitled or approved with the proposed amendments. The
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 27 of 37
proposed amendments will not affect any property designated as an
SEA (Significant Ecological Area) or SNA (Significant Natural Area)
on the City's ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Area) Delineation
Map. While the amendments proposed at this time could create the
opportunity for future development or redevelopment, potential
impacts are too speculative to evaluate at this time. Future
development proposals would need to be evaluated to determine their
impacts, if any, on the environment at the time development is
requested.
Therefore, a less than significant 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 Newhall Redevelopment
RESOURCES Plan is located in a primarily urbanized portion of the City of Santa
Clarita. Structures that are designated as having historical
significance exist in the Redevelopment Area, however, there are no
plans to disturb or modify these structures as a part of the
Redevelopment Plan. Further, the proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan are intended to extend the City's
eminent domain authority for the potential acquisition of property
within the plan area to enable redevelopment to occur and to reduce
blight. The proposed amendments have not identified any
development projects that could impact any buildings with the
potential for historical significance. However, as development
projects are proposed, the appropriate environmental work, including
a Cultural Study or other assessment detailing the historical
significance of structures in the project area, must be completed.
Further, the proposed amendments, in and of themselves, will not
alter any unique geological feature, paleontological resource, impact
any human remains, or otherwise impact any archeological resource.
While the proposed amendments will extend and expand eminent
domain authority of the Redevelopment Agency to encourage
redevelopment, it is unclear which properties will develop or
redevelop as a result of these amendments. Therefore, the potential
impact of future development is too speculative to evaluate at this
time. 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 resources would occur as a result of the approval of the
proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
•
L
u
•
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 28 of 37
VI. GEOLOGY AND
a. -i.) Less than Significant Impact — Southern California has
SOILS
numerous active and 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 along the San
Andreas Fault. This could result in ground failure and liquefaction.
However, the proposed amendment to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would not change any approved land use entitlements, and
would not change the requirements of future development to follow
all state and City building codes/regulations. Any future
development would be required to be evaluated in compliance with
CEQA, evaluating any potential impacts affecting soils and geology.
Therefore, the proposed amendment to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would have a less than significant impact related to exposure of
people or structures to any adverse effects of seismic activity,
erosion, unstable or expansive soil, or any topographical features.
VII. HAZARDS AND
a. -d.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
HAZARDOUS
the Newhall Redevelopment Plan would not directly, or indirectly,
MATERIALS
expose people to health hazards or hazardous materials and would
not interfere with any emergency response plans. The proposed
amendment to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will extend the
City's eminent domain authority for the potential future acquisition
of property within the Plan area to enable redevelopment within the
plan area. However, subsequent developments in the City would be
required to comply with the City's General Plan and development
codes and all federal, state, and local hazardous material regulations.
Furthermore, no new development is associated with these
amendments and potential future effects would be evaluated on a
case by case basis.
Therefore, a less than significant impact as a result of exposure to
hazardous materials is anticipated with the proposed amendment to
the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
e. -f) No Impact — The proposed amendments include 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 amendment to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan would not affect the risks of land uses adjacent to airports or
airfields and the proposal would have no related impacts.
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 29 of 37
g. -i.) Less than Significant Impact — The Newhall Redevelopment
Plan area is located in a primarily urbanized area of the City of Santa
Clarita. Property within the plan area is not located within proximity
to a natural wildland area and is not subject to any wildland fires.
Emergency services and plans are currently in effect in the plan area
and will not be affected by the proposed amendments to the
Redevelopment Plan. There are existing utility structures that are
known to be present in the Plan area including power transmission
lines, natural gas lines, and oil pipelines. The proposed amendments
to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will extend the eminent domain
authority of the City and will not authorize any development at this
time. Future development impacts are speculative at this time and
can not be evaluated with this project. Any future development will
be required to analyze any potential impacts associated with any
natural wildland areas, utility infrastructure, or any emergency plan
in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, any future impacts will be
addressed at the time development occurs.
The proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
would have a less than significant affect the on the implementation of
emergency response plans, wildland areas, or any existing utility
structures.
VIII. HYDROLOGY a. -b.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
AND WATER the Newhall Redevelopment Plan would not impact water quality
QUALITY standards, nor affect groundwater supplies. The proposed.
amendments would extend the City's eminent domain authority for
potential acquisition of properties within the Plan area for the
purpose of redevelopment and therefore could have an indirect
impact on the envornment. Subsequent redevelopment projects are
unknown at this time and their impacts are therefore speculative;
however, they would be required to comply with the development
impact 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 proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan will have a less than significant impact to water quality or
ground water supplies.
c.-1.) Less than Significant Impact — The Newhall Redevelopment
Plan area is located in a primarily urbanized portion of the City.
However, there are areas within the plan area that are located in, or
adjacent to the Newhall Creek, a designated blueline stream. FEMA
is currently in the process of updating the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
•
•
E
•
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 30 of 37
(FIRM) within the City of Santa Clarita. The first step in this process
is digitizing the existing FIRM maps that the City and County of Los
Angeles currently use. This process has been completed and FEMA
has begun to re -study areas within the Santa Clarita Valley. This
process is currently underway and has not been finalized. However,
the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will
extend the City's eminent domain authority for the potential
acquisition of property within the plan area and will not directly
authorize the construction or development of any structure that will
impact a drainage pattern, stream, river, or stormwater drainage
system. Further, the amendment will not directly locate structures
within any 100 -year flood hazard area and will not expose people or
structures to significant risk due to flooding, any seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan will have a less than significant impact with respect to flooding,
drainage pattern, river or stream, or any stormwater infrastructure.
IX. LAND USE AND a.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments to the
PLANNING Newhall Redevelopment Plan will extend the timeline and expand the
existing eminent domain authority within the plan area to include two
potential additional properties. In and of itself, the proposed
amendments to the Redevelopment Plan will not directly result in
changes to the physical environment. The proposed amendments will
enable the potential acquisition of properties in the plan area to allow
for the potential redevelopment of blighted properties. Further, the
proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will not
authorize any construction. Any future development/redevelopment
will be required to be evaluated in compliance with CEQA and must
comply with the City's General Plan, Downtown Newhall Specific
Plan, and Unified Development Code.
Therefore, a less than significant impact in anticipated with respect to
any established community as a result of the proposed amendments to
the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
b.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments may
further enable development and/or redevelopment within the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan Area by extending the eminent domain authority
of the Redevelopment Agency to allow for the potential acquisition of
property within the plan area. Since the establishment of the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan, the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan has been
adopted within the Newhall Redevelopment Plan boundary. The
proposed amendments will further enable redevelopment consistent
with the City's General Plan and the development standards outlined
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 31 of 37
in the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and the City's Unified
Development Code. However, the proposed amendments will not
authorize the development of any property. Subsequent development
projects on property acquired by the agency must be reviewed in
compliance with CEQA to determine any environmental impacts and
would further need to be reviewed to be compliant with the City's
General Plan and zoning standards.
Therefore, a less than significant impact related to land use and
planning is anticipated with the proposed amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan.
c.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan 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. No development or
redevelopment is approved, and no entitlements granted with
approval of the proposed amendments. Development of any property
acquired as a result of the City's eminent domain authority would be
required to process the appropriate CEQA documentation to evaluate
the impacts on the environment associated with the specific projects.
At this time, any potential development is unknown, and therefore too
speculative to evaluate at this time. However, the proposed
amendments are consistent with, and do not directly impact any
conservation plan in and of themselves.
Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant
impact on conservation plans as a result of the proposed
modifications to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
X. MINERAL AND a. -c.) Less than Significant Impact — Gold, sand, and gravel mining
ENERGY along with oil production historically have been the principal mineral
RESOURCES extraction activities in and around the Santa Clarita Valley. The
City's General Plan and Zoning Code have identified locations within
the City that have historical oil and mining activities with a Mineral
Oil Conservation Area (MOCA) overlay zone. Other minerals found
in the Santa Clarita Valley include construction aggregate, titanium,
and tuff. Mineral resources and extraction areas are shown in Exhibit
OS -5 of the City's General Plan.
The amendments to the Redevelopment Plan will not affect mineral
and energy resources as the proposed amendments will only affect
the City's eminent domain authority within the Redevelopment Plan
Area. No modifications to current mining operations within the City
are anticipated at this time and therefore, will not affect mineral
•
is
•
�J
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 32 of 37
resources in the City. Further, no property within the Plan Area has
the MOCA zoning overlay designation.
Therefore, a less than significant impact related to mineral and
energy resources is anticipated with the proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
XI. NOISE
a. -d.) Less than Significant Impact — The amendments do not
propose or authorize any development at this time. Therefore, the
proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will not
expose persons to the generation of excess noise levels, groundbome
vibration, or increase ambient noise in the City of Santa Clarita. Any
future development would be required to conduct all applicable
environmental studies in accordance with CEQA, including noise
studies. The proposed amendments do not remove any noise -related
regulations, and therefore would not foreseeably lead to a change in
the generation of noise.
Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated with relation to noise
as a result of the proposed amendment to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan.
e. & £) No Impact — The Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area is not
located within an airport land use plan, two miles of an airport, or
within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Therefore, no impact relating to noise generated by an airport or
airstrip is anticipated to occur as a result of the approval of the
proposed amendments.
XII. POPULATION
a.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to the
AND HOUSING
Newhall Redevelopment Plan will extend the City's eminent domain
authority until year 2021 and add two potential residential structures
that could potentially be acquired by the RDA, and will not entitle or
approve new development at this time. However, the use of eminent
domain has the potential to create development opportunities in the
future. In 2005, the City adopted the Downtown Newhall Specific
Plan (DNSP) encompassing approximately 297 acres of the 913 -acre
Redevelopment Plan Area. The DNSP created greater flexibility for
land uses including the allowance for mixed use developments with
commercial, office, and retail uses incorporated with residential units.
Upon buildout of the DNSP it is anticipated that an additional 712
residential units could be developed which would increase the
population within the Redevelopment Plan Area. However, the
amendments pro osed at this time are regulatory in nature and do not
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 33 of 37
allow for development of these units at this time. Future
development within the DNSP, while possible, is too speculative to
be evaluated at this time. Development in the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan Area, outside of the DNSP, is foreseeable in the
future. However, the proposed amendments to the Redevelopment
Plan will not authorize any development at this time. Any future
development within the Newhall Redevelopment Plan area would
need to be evaluated in conjunction with each development
application to comply with CEQA. The Redevelopment Agency has
established a 5 year implementation plan that identifies the goals of
the Agency. This plan identifies the Agency's obligation to provide,
maintain, and replace affordable housing within the Redevelopment
Plan Area. The proposed amendments could affect the success of the
implementation plan by creating opportunities for additional
affordable housing units in the Plan Area. While the proposed
amendments could potentially assist in the future development and/or
redevelopment within the Newhall Redevelopment Plan area, it is not
possible at this time to anticipate the type or scope of development of
affordable housing that could potentially occur following approval of
these amendments, and therefore can not be adequately evaluated at
this time.
Therefore, a less than significant impact with respect to population
growth is anticipated as a result of the proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
b & c.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed modifications
to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan will extend the eminent domain
authority of the City. The City's current eminent domain authority
only applies to non-residential property. With the proposed
amendments to the Redevelopment Plan, the non-residential eminent
domain authority will be extended by an additional 12 years. In
addition, the eminent domain authority will be extended to two
specific commercially designated parcels (APN: 2861-003-001 &
2836-008-002) that appear to have been constructed without permits
or are legal non -conforming residential uses. The use of eminent
domain throughout the Plan Area has the potential to displace
residential units. At this time it is anticipated that up to five (5)
residential units could be affected by the proposed amendments.
However, it is anticipated that any units that would be displaced
would be units that may currently be illegal, or non -conforming with
the City's Unified Development Code, General Plan, and/or the
Downtown Newhall Specific Plan. Should residential units be
displaced as a result of the use of eminent domain, the City has
adopted a strategy for relocation and replacement of residential units
known as the Relocation Method that would serve as a blueprint for
0
u
E
0
•
LJ
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 34 of 37
the relocation of these residents. Further, Proposition 99 was passed
by California voters on June 3, 2008, to help protect residents.
Proposition 99 prohibits State and local governments from using
eminent domain to acquire an owner -occupied residence. Should
eminent domain be used by the Redevelopment Agency, all
applicable provisions of the State of California regarding the use of
eminent domain and relocation of affected residents must be
complied with. Due to the low number of housing units potentially
involved, and the adopted relocation and replacement plans in place,
the impacts associated with the proposed amendments are anticipated
to be less than significant.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan area anticipated to have a less than significant impact to the
displacement or replacement of people or housing units.
XIII. PUBLIC
a)i: iv. Less than Significant Impact —The proposed amendments to
SERVICES
the Newhall Redevelopment Plan project will not directly increase
the need for fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, or
parks within the Plan Area. The Plan Area is located in a primarily
urbanized portion of the City that is currently provided services by
the Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff Departments, the existing
school districts, and the City's Parks and Recreation facilities and
programs. The proposed amendments to the Redevelopment Plan
will affect the City's eminent domain authority within the Plan Area
and will not create additional demand for these services within the
Plan Area. Future redevelopment within the Plan Area could consist
of additional residential units that might increase the need for
additional schools and parks in the City. However, these projects are
unknown and therefore too speculative at this time and will be
evaluated at the time entitlements are requested. Further, any new
residential units would be required to pay the applicable statutory
fees to mitigate potential impacts to school or park facilities as a
result of the increased population.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to public services is
anticipated as a result of the proposed amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan.
XIV. RECREATION
a. -b.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed changes to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan will not result in the approval of any
entitlement or authorize the construction of any development project
and will further not authorize the addition of any new residential
units. While the majority of the Plan Area is non-residential in
nature, redevelopment within the Plan Area could consist of
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 35 of 37
additional residential units that would increase the need for additional
recreational facilities. At this time it is too speculative to anticipate
the number of residential units that could forseeably be developed in
the Plan Area. Any approval for development would be required to
evaluate the impacts to recreational facilities and would be required
to pay the appropriate statutory fees to the City for the establishment
of additional recreational facilities within the City in accordance with
the Parks and Recreation Element in the City's General Plan, the
City's Unified Development Code, the Downtown Newhall Specific
Plan, and would be subject to the City's park impact fees.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to recreational facilities is
anticipated with the proposed amendments to the Newhall
Redevelopment Plan at this time.
Xv. a. -b.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
TRANSPORTATION/ the Newhall Redevelopment Plan are regulatory in nature, extending
TRAFFIC the City's eminent domain authority for the potential acquisition of
property within the Plan Area. The proposed amendments are not
anticipated to have immediate developmental impacts that alter
traffic load or capacity on street systems. Future development
activity in the Plan Area would be regulated by the City's UDC,
General Plan, Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, and all applicable
transportation policies. Further, any fixture development or
redevelopment projects as a result of the proposed amendments are
speculative at this time and can not be adequately evaluated. At the
time projects are proposed, additional CEQA review will be
conducted to determine project related impacts to any traffic capacity
or level of service standards.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to the traffic load, capacity,
and level of service standards is anticipated at this time.
c.) No Impact — The Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area is not
located near any airports and will therefore not impact any air traffic
patterns. Further, the proposed amendments do not entitle any
development at this time; they only authorize a regulatory expansion
to the City's eminent domain authority within the Plan Area.
Therefore, no impact to air traffic patterns is anticipated with the
proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan Area.
d. -h.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments to
the Newhall Redevelopment Plan extend the City's eminent domain
authority and do not authorize any development at this time.
Therefore the proposed amendments would have no impacts on City
0
•
•
0
0
n
LJ
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 36 of 37
traffic systems including emergency routes, parking capacity,
pedestrian or bicycle routes, or increase hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible use. Any development and/or redevelopment
that would occur in the Plan Area would still need to comply with the
Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, the Downtown
Newhall Specific Plan, the City's roadway design and parkway
standards, and all adopted policies, plans, and programs supporting
alternative transportation.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Newhall Redevelopment
Plan are anticipated to have a less than significant impact to
transportation and traffic.
XVI. UTILITIES AND
a. -g.) Less than Significant Impact — The Newhall Redevelopment
SERVICE SYSTEMS
Plan area is located in a primarily urbanized portion of the City that is
currently serviced by existing utility and service systems including
stormwater drainage systems, wastewater treatment facilities, and
solid waste treatment facilities. The proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan extend the City's eminent domain
authority and does not approve any land use entitlements or include
any development at this time that would impact these existing utility
and service systems. 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 less than significant impact to utilities or service systems
is anticipated with approval of the proposed amendments to the
Newhall Redevelopment Plan.
XVII. MANDATORY
a. -c.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
FINDINGS OF
the Newhall Redevelopment Plan are not anticipated to have a
SIGNIFICANCE
significant impact on the environment that 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 at this time. The
proposed 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 amendments, the proposal
would not contribute to any cumulative impacts and would not cause
environmental effects that would adversely affect humans. Rather,
the proposed amendments are intended to extend the City's eminent
domain authority to allow for th potential future acquisition and
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 37 of 37
S:\CD\CURREN7V2009\1nitia1 Study - RDA Amendments.dm
0
0
0
redevelopment of property in the Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact that could result in a
MandatoryFindin sof Significance.
XVIII. DEPARTMENT
a.) No Impact — The legislative intent of the Department of Fish and
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 amendments would not entitle any new
development; and any future development proposal seeking
discretionary approval would remain subject to CEQA and the CDFG
Code. Since, the proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a
significant adverse effect either individually or cumulatively, on fish
and wildlife resources, the project's impacts on fish and wildlife are
de minimus.
S:\CD\CURREN7V2009\1nitia1 Study - RDA Amendments.dm
0
0
0
• CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AND
NOTICE OF COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING
PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND
THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
("City Council") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita ("Agency')
will hold a joint public hearing on Tuesday, May 12, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, to
consider and act upon the proposed Amendment No. Three ("Amendment") to the
Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Newhall Redevelopment Project
("Project" or "Project Area") and to consider all evidence and testimony for or against
the approval and adoption of the proposed Amendment. At any time not later than the
hour set forth above for the joint public hearing, any person may file in writing a
statement of objections to the proposed Third Amendment with the City Clerk of the
City of Santa Clarita. At the day, hour, and place of the hearing, any and all persons
having any comments on or objections to the proposed Amendment, or who question
the regularity of any of the prior proceedings, may appear before the City Council and
the Agency and state why the proposed Amendment should not be adopted.
• IN ADDITION, AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE, the City Council and the
Agency Board will hold a joint public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration
concerning the Amendment and all evidence and testimony for or against the approval
of the Negative Declaration. At the day, hour and place of the hearing, all interested
persons desiring to comment on, or having objections to; the adequacy of the Negative
Declaration may appear before the City Council and the Agency and be heard.
The purpose of the proposed Amendment is to modify the Redevelopment Plan's
eminent domain authority. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency's authority
to initiate condemnation proceedings to acquire property by eminent domain expires on
July 8, 2009. As authorized under Redevelopment Law, the Agency proposes to
amend the Redevelopment Plan to extend this time limit by twelve years, or to July 8,
2021. If adopted as proposed, the Amendment would permit the use of eminent
domain to acquire non-residential property in the Project Area as currently authorized
by the Redevelopment Plan since 1997, plus extend eminent domain authority to two
specific rental residential parcels located at 23208 Magic Mountain Parkway and 25803
Springbrook Avenue. No other existing residential units would be subject to
eminent domain if the Amendment is adopted as proposed.
A map of the boundaries of the Project Area, which also identifies the two
specific rental residential parcels described above, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and
made a part hereof. A copy of the legal description of the boundaries of the Project
• Area is available, free of charge, at the City of Santa Clarita City Clerk's reading file,
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California.
3/25/09
Interested persons may inspect and, upon payment of the costs of reproduction, •
obtain copies of the proposed Amendment, the current Redevelopment Plan, the
Agency's Report to the City Council on the proposed Amendment, the Negative
Declaration, and any other information pertaining thereto at the City of Santa Clarita
City Clerk's reading file, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California.
Should you wish to challenge in court the approval and adoption of the
Amendment, the approval of the Negative Declaration, or any related action or
document, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the joint public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered
to the City Clerk at or prior to the joint public hearing.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a community information meeting
regarding the proposed Amendment will also be held as follows:
DATE: Monday, April 27, 2009
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Hart Hall at William S. Hart Park
24151 Newhall Avenue
Santa Clarita, CA 91321
Any questions regarding this notice or the proposed Amendment, Negative Declaration
or related documents should be directed to Alex Hernandez, Administrative Analyst,
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, California 91355-2196, telephone (661) 286-4030. •
Este aviso esta disponible traducido en Espanol en la seccion de Re-desarollo
de la ciudad de Santa Clarita, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California
91355-2196, numero telefonico (661) 286-4141.
By order of the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita and the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Santa Clarita.
Dated: March 25, 2009
3/25/09
EXHIBIT A
• MAP OF NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
®Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, City of Santa Clarita
Includes Residential Parcels Subject to Eminent Domain underAmendmentNo. Three
not
Valencia Blvd 't
on St
cffssa
r
9
�y o
7�
to
rr.uuay map 1
Ga
air
ey
yrPlaceritos
BAV�dl
Lyons Ave04
Park
O O
Projelt Area
City Boundary
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Exhibit A
3/25/09
CONSEJO MUNICIPAL DE LA CIUDAD DE SANTA CLARITA
• AGENCIA DE RE-DESARROLLO DE LA CIUDAD DE SANTA CLARITA
AVISO DE AUDIENCIA POBLICA CONJUNTA Y
AVISO DE REUNION COMUNITARIA INFORMATIVA
CORRECCION PROPUESTA NO, TRES PARA EL PLAN DE RENOVACION
PARA EL PROYECTO DE RE-DESARROLLO NEWHALL Y
LA DECLARACION DE NEGATIVA RELACIONADA CON ESTE
POR MEDIO DEL PRESENTE SE AVISA que el Consejo Municipal de la Ciudad
de Santa Clarita ("Consejo Municipal") y la Agencia de Re-desarrollo de la Ciudad de
Santa Clarita ("Agencia") realizaran una audiencia publica conjunta el martes, 12 de
mayo de 2009, a las 6:00 p.m., en la Camara del Consejo Municipal, ubicada en
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, para considerar y actuar con
respecto a la Correcci6n No. Tres propuesta ("Correccion") al Plan de Renovaci6n
("Plan de Renovaci6n") para el Proyecto de Re-desarrollo Newhall ("Proyecto" o "Area
del Proyecto") y para considerar toda la evidencia y declaraciones a favor o en contra
de la aprobaci6n y adopci6n de la Correcci6n propuesta. En cualquier momento antes
de la hora fijada arriba para la audiencia publica conjunta, cualquier persona puede
presentar por escrito una declaraci6n de objeciones a la Tercera Correcci6n propuesta
ante la Secretaria Municipal de la Ciudad de Santa Clarita. En el dia, hora y lugar de la
audiencia, cualquier persona que tenga algun comentario u objeci6n acerca de la
Correcci6n propuesta o que cuestione la regularidad de cualquiera de los procesos
•anteriores, puede presentarse ante el Consejo Municipal y la Agencia y declarar por
que la Correcci6n propuesta no deberia ser adoptada.
•
ADEMAS, A LA MISMA HORA Y EN EL MISMO LUGAR, el Consejo Municipal
y la Junta de la Agencia realizaran una audiencia publica conjunta para considerar la
Declaraci6n de Negativa relacionada con la Correcci6n y toda la evidencia y
declaraciones a favor o en contra de la aprobaci6n de la Declaraci6n de Negativa. En
el dia, hora y lugar de la audiencia, todas las personas interesadas que deseen
comentar u objetar acerca de la competencia de la Declaraci6n de Negativa pueden
presentarse ante el Consejo Municipal y la Agencia y ser escuchadas.
EI objetivo de la Correcci6n propuesta es modificar la autoridad del Plan de
Renovaci6n sobre el dominio eminente. Segun el Plan de Renovaci6n, la autoridad de
la Agencia para iniciar procesos de condena para adquirir propiedad a traves del
dominio eminente expira el 8 de julio de 2009. Segun to autorizado bajo la Ley de Re-
desarrollo, la Agencia propone corregir el Plan de Renovaci6n para extender este limite
de tiempo doce anos o hasta el 8 de julio de 2021. De adoptarse como se propone, la
Correcci6n permitiria el ejercicio del dominio eminente para adquirir propiedad no
residencial en el Area del Proyecto como to autoriza actualmente el Plan de
Renovaci6n desde 1997 y extenderia la autoridad para ejercer el dominio eminente
sobre dos terrenos residenciales de alquiler especificos ubicados en 23208 Magic
Mountain Parkway y 25803 Springbrook Avenue. Ninguna otra unidad residencial
existente estaria sujeta al dominio eminente si la Correcci6n es adoptada segun
la propuesta.
3/25/09
Un mapa de los limites del Area del Proyecto, que tambi6n identifica los dos •
terrenos residenciales de alquiler especificos descritos arriba, esta adjunto como
Prueba A y hace parte de este aviso. Una copia de la descripci6n legal de los limites
del Area del Proyecto esta disponible, sin costo, en el archivo de lectura de la
Secretaria Municipal de la Ciudad de Santa Clarita, en 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Santa Clarita, California.
Las personas interesadas pueden inspeccionar y, despues de pagar los costos
de reproducci6n, obtener copias de la Correcci6n propuesta, del Plan de Renovaci6n
actual, del Reporte de la Agencia para el Consejo Municipal acerca de la Correcci6n
propuesta, de la Declaraci6n de Negativa y de cualquier otra informaci6n relacionada,
en el archivo de lectura de la Secretaria Municipal de la Ciudad de Santa Clarita, en
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California.
Si desea impugnar ante el tribunal la aprobaci6n y adopci6n de la Correcci6n, la
aprobaci6n de la Declaraci6n de Negativa o cualquier otra acci6n o documento, puede
estar limitado a plantear solamente aquellos asuntos que usted o alguien mas haya
planteado en la audiencia publica conjunta descrita en este aviso o en correspondencia
escrita entregada a la Secretaria Municipal en la audiencia publica conjunta o antes de
ella.
POR MEDIO DEL PRESENTE SE AVISA TAMBIEN que se Ilevara a cabo una
reuni6n comunitaria informativa acerca de la Correcci6n propuesta, de la siguiente
manera:
FECHA: Lunes 27 de abrii de 2009 •
HORA: 7:00 p.m.
LUGAR: Sal6n Hart en el Parque William S. Hart
24151 Newhall Avenue
Santa Clarita, CA 91321
Cuaiquier pregunta acerca de este aviso o la Correcci6n propuesta, la Declaraci6n de
Negativa o cualquier documento relacionado debera dirigirse a Alex Hernandez,
Analista Administrativo, Agencia de Re-desarrollo de la Ciudad de Santa Clarita, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196, tel6fono (661) 286-4030.
Por orden del Consejo Municipal de la Ciudad de Santa Clarita y la Agencia de
Re-desarrollo de la Ciudad de Santa Clarita.
Fecha: Marzo 25, 2009
3/25/09
•
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita
WHAT IS HAPPENING?
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita (Agency) has started a process to prepare and consider an
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) to extend its ability to
utilize eminent domain. A map is included to identify the boundaries of the Project Area and to understand where eminent
domain could be utilized.
The Redevelopment Plan (Plan) currently does not authorize residential eminent domain. However, it does authorize eminent
domain on non-residential properties and has done so since the Plan was adopted in 1997. If approved by the City Council in
early summer 2009, the amendment would extend the Agency's eminent domain authority over non-residential property in the
Project Area for a period of 12 additional years and would also authorize eminent domain over the same time period on two
residential properties located at 25803 Springbrook Avenue and 23208 Magic Mountain Parkway. The proposed amendment
would make no other changes to the Plan.
WHY IS THE AMENDMENT BEING PROPOSED?
The Agency desires to continue revitalization of the Project Area in a manner consistent with the General Plan and other
specific plans. The City has relied upon the Agency to undertake affordable housing development projects, infrastructure
programs, and economic development projects that are outlined in these plans. Moving forward, the Agency needs the ability
to acquire property by eminent domain as a last resort to continue implementing these policies and plans.
T�ncy has had eminent domain authority over non-residential property in the Project Area since it was adopted in 1997,
a never used eminent domain for acquisition of a property. The Agency has contemplated using eminent domain for
property acquisition, but agreements have been reached with property owners to avoid eminent domain. In order to revitalize
the Project Area's commercial areas and remove blight, the Agency may need to acquire property in the future and eminent
domain may be a necessary tool.
HOW DOES THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AFFECT MY BUSINESS?
The current Redevelopment Plan has authorized the use of eminent domain over non-residential properties since 1997. The
Agency has gone to great lengths to ensure that eminent domain as a process is not taken lightly, and this is reflected in the
fact that eminent domain has never been used to acquire property. If the Amendment is approved by the City Council, then
this ability to acquire non-residential property will be extended for another 12 years. Should the Agency need to acquire your
property in the future for purposes of redevelopment, California Community Redevelopment Law clearly defines the
muni -phase process that the Agency must follow.
CAN THE AGENCY TAKE MY HOME?
There are two specific residential parcels that contain rental residential uses that eminent domain could be used which are
located at 25803 Springbrook Avenue and 23208 Magic Mountain Parkway. H you do not live on these two parcels, then the
answeris no. All other existing homes in the Project Area would be exempt from eminent domain.
HOW DOES THIS AMENDMENT COMPARE TO PROPOSITION 99?
By prohibiting the use of eminent domain on owner -occupied residential property in the Project Area, the proposed
amendment is consistent with Proposition 99. Proposition 99, which was passed by California voters on June 3, 2008,
prohibits State and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner -occupied residence to convey it to a
private person or entity. State and local governments retain the right to acquire non -owner occupied residential properties for
p*es of public improvements and redevelopment.
Page 1 of 2
HOW DOES EMINENT DOMAIN WORK?
To acquire property by eminent domain, the Agency would be required to comply with all legal requirements pertaining to
acquisition of real property by a public agency, including, but not limited to, noticing all affected property owners of any
proposed acquisition, relocation, payment of fair market value based on an independent appraisal, and public hearings held by
the Agency. The proposed amendment itself does not authorize acquisition of any property at this time.
HOW CAN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS?
There will be several meetings held during this process allowing for public participation. The first opportunity will come at a
community meeting scheduled for April 27th. The meeting will be held at 7:00 P.M. at Hart Hall, located in William S. Hart
Park. The second opportunity for public
participation will be at the public —
hearing for the Amendment on May Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, City of Santa Clarita
12th. This meeting will be held at 6:00 Residential Parcels Subject to Eminent Domain
P.M. at City Hall.
WHO CAN I CONTACT IF I HAVE "yah
QUESTIONS?
If you have any questions about the myton st
proposed amendment or your property r
specifically, please contact Alex
Hernandez at the City of Santa Clarita, a
at : (661) 286-4030 or at
ahernandez@santa-clarita.com.
dy
\� 9
=.126-
��s Z 1
419� o
Lvo-�s Ave
ci' Q a'
y dth st r :
Public
, Meetings
What: Community Meeting--------�—<35
When: April 27, 2009, 7:00 P.M. - Residential Parcels Subject to Eminent Domain a
Where: Hart Hall at William S. Hart (2 Parcels Total)
Park - Project Area N
What: Public Hearing City Boundary wE
When: May 12, 2009, 6:00 P.M. a 0.25 o.e 1 Miles s
Where: City Hall
Page 2 of 2
Enmienda del Plan de Renovaci6n para el Area del Proyecto de Redesarrollo Newhall
Agencia de Redesarrollo de la Ciudad de Santa Clarita
LQUE ESTA PASANDO?
La Agencia de Redesarrollo de la Ciudad de Santa Clarita (Agencia) ha comenzado un proceso para preparar y considerar
una correcci6n del Plan de Renovaci6n para el Area del Proyecto de Redesarrollo Newhall (Area del Proyecto) para extender
su capacidad de utilizar el dominio eminente. Hay un mapa incluido para identificar los limites del Area del Proyecto y
entender donde podria ejercerse el dominio eminente.
EI Plan de Redesarrollo (Plan) no autoriza actualmente el dominio eminente residencial. Sin embargo, autoriza el dominio
eminente para las propiedades no residenciales y to ha usado desde que el Plan fue adoptado en 1997. Si es aprobada por el
Consejo Municipal a principios del verano de 2009, la correccion extenderia la autoridad de la Agencia para ejercer el dominio
eminente sobre la propiedad no residencial en el Area del Proyecto por un periodo de 12 anos adicionales y tambien
autorizaria el ejercicio del dominio eminente durante el mismo periodo sobre dos propiedades residenciales ubicadas en
25803 Springbrook Avenue y 23208 Magic Mountain Parkway. La propuesta no haria ning6n otro cambio al Plan.
LPOR QUE ESTA SIENDO PROPUESTA LA ENMIENDA?
La Agencia desea continuer la revitalizaci6n del Area del Proyecto de una manera consistente con el Plan General y otros
planes especificos. La Ciudad ha dependido de la Agencia para Ilevar a cabo proyectos de desarrollo de vivienda social,
programas de infraestructura y proyectos de desarrollo econ6mico que estan enumerados en estos planes. En el futuro, la
Agencia necesita tener la capacidad de adquirir propiedades por dominio eminente como ultimo recurso para seguir
im mentando estas politicas y planes.
Lencia ha tenido autoridad para ejercer el dominio eminente sobre propiedades no residenciales en el Area del Proyecto
desde que fue adoptada en 1997 y nunca ha usado el dominio eminente para comprar una propiedad. La Agencia ha
considerado el use del dominio eminente para la adquisici6n de propiedades, pero ha Ilegado a acuerdos con los propietarios
para evitar el ejercicio del dominio eminente. Para revitalizar las areas comerciales del Area del Proyecto y acabar con el
deterioro, es posible que la Agencia necesite adquirir propiedades en el futuro y el dominio eminente puede ser una
herramienta necesaria.
4C6MO AFECTA LA CORRECCI6N PROPUESTA A MI NEGOCIO?
EI actual Plan de Redesarrollo ha autorizado el use del dominio eminente sobre propiedades no residenciales desde 1997. La
Agencia se ha esforzado mucho para asegurarse de que el dominio eminente como proceso no sea tomado a la ligera y esto
se refleja en el hecho de que el dominio eminente nunca se ha usado para condenar una propiedad. Si la Correcci6n es
aprobada por el Consejo Municipal, su capacidad para adquirir propiedades no residenciales sera extendida por 12 anos mas.
Si la Agencia Ilegara a necesitar adquirir su propiedad en el futuro para el redesarrollo, la Ley Comunitaria de Re-desarrollo de
California define claramente el proceso de multiples etapas que debe seguir la Agencia.
LLA AGENCIA PUEDE QUITARME MI CASA?
Hay dos terrenos residenciales especificos de use residencial de alquiler sabre los que podria ejercerse el dominio eminente y
estan ubicados en 25803 Springbrook Avenue y 23208 Magic Mountain Parkway. Si usted no vive en estos dos terrenos, la
respuesta es no. Todas las demes propiedades existentes en el Area del Proyecto estarian exentas del dominio eminente.
LC6M0 SE COMPARA ESTA CORRECCI6N CON LA PROPUESTA 99?
Al prohibir el ejercicio del dominio eminente en propiedades residenciales ocupadas por su propietario en las Areas del
Pcto, la Correccion propuesta es consistente con la Propuesta 99 que fue aprobada por los votantes de California el 3 de
j�Je 2008. Esta Law prohibe a los gobiernos estatales y locales ejercer el dominio eminente para adquirir una residencia
3 ada por su propietario para entregarsela a una persona o entidad privada. Los gobiernos estatales y locales conservan
el derecho de adquirir propiedades residenciales no ocupadas por sus propietarios con objetivos de mejoras y redesarrollo
publicas.
LCOMO FUNCIONA EL DOMINIO EMINENTE?
Para adquirir propiedades por dominio eminente, la Agencia tendria que cumplir con todos los requisitos legales relacionados
con la adquisicibn de propiedad raiz por parte de una agencia publica, incluyendo pero sin limitarse a avisar a todos los
propietarios afectados acerca de cualquier propuesta de adquisicibn, reubicacibn, pago de un valor justo de mercado basado
en una valoraci6n independiente y audiencias p6blicas realizadas por la Agencia. La correccibn propuesta en si no autoriza
la adquisicibn de ninguna propiedad en este momento.
1c6M0 PUEDE EL PUBLICO PARTICIPAR EN ESTE PROCESO?
Habra varias reuniones durante este proceso que permite la participaci6n del publico. La primera oportunidad de venir a una
reunion de la comunidad es para el 27
de Abril. La reuni6n sera a las 7:00 p.m.
en Hart Hall, situado en el Parque de Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, City of Santa Clarita
William S. Hart. La segunda Residential Parcels Subject to Eminent Domain j
oportunidad para la participaci6n del - ---
publico sera en la audiencia publica \
para la enmienda el 12 de Mayo. Esta
reuni6n sera a las 6:00 p.m. en el City
Hall. mytonSt 1 ,
j.A QUIEN PUEDO CONTACTAR SI
TENGO PREGUNTAS?
Si tiene alguna pregunta acerca de la
correcci6n propuesta o especificamente
acerca de su propiedad, por favor
contacte a Alex Hernandez en la
Ciudad de Santa Clarita, en el: (661)
2864030 o en
a he rna nde z@sa nta-cla rita.co m.
What: Community Meeting
When: April 27, 2009, 7:00 P.M.
Where: Hart Hall at William S. Hart
Park
What: Public Hearing
When: May 12,2009,6:00 P.M.
Where: City Hall
i
'1
fy ,
\ �, f26
4b F S. O
Cia � y5�0
7L
Y.
piyA
jj
- Residential Parcels Subject to Eminent Domain dsJ
(2 Parcels Total)
N
- Project Area
Clry Boundary we
0. I 0.5 1 Mlles
I I I i
rmu uay may
Page 2 of 2