HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-09 - ORDINANCES - AMEND PLAN EMINENT DOMAIN (2)ORDINANCE NO. 09-7
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, on file in the Community Development Department, 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.
-- - - -- — --- — --- --- --- --- ----- - --- --- ------------------------ -- -- -- - — ---------------------- -
1
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 (attached as 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 necessary to
effectuate the public purposes declared in the California Community Redevelopment Law; and
- - — - - - - - - --- - 3
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
-- - - -- - - ----------- -- — - ----------------- - ----- ----- -- - --------- - ---- ----------
1
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, (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.
5
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 9th day of June, 2009.
ATTEST:
a
1��
A
CITY CLERK
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 Ordinance No. 09-7 was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of May, 2009. That thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 9th day
of June, 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
RECUSED: COUNCILMEMBER:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
McLean, Ender, Kellar, Ferry
None
Weste
None
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. 09-7 and
was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806).
--) 9'W'u-,
CA
CITY CLERK
�(aqfo�
Dated
on
1
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Ordinance No. 09-7, adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, CA on June 9, 2009, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
,20—.
Sharon L. Dawson, MMC
City Clerk
By
Susan Caputo, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
1
7
Exhibit A
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 subject to the limitations described
below.
(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 existina as of the date_ of this Amendment.
(ii) Notwithstanding the above and subject 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 spec_ ific parcels upon which
any persons resides as listed below.
a. Southwest 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 Sprjngbrook 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
Plan—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
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)
1
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.
1
1
Exhibit C
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 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 MAN R
Prepared by: Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner
Si ature) (Name/Title)
Approved by: Sharon Sorensen, S-eniat-Planner ---
(Signature) (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:
S NCD\CURRENn12009\RDA Negative Declaration doc
1
1
1
1
1
1
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
A
TM
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.
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:
1
J.
�x
"q
rP-
W "§ "Ic
a niam
Pas kway
:L
"N-7 'i erSlrr
YN4,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A
-lot
-,4
S.&.7.
N'i, -
'I
ql� X�
T
fv
40OW
1pf# qs°pYyt
--fiiwfiafl Avenue
Newhall Redevelopment Plamn Ar
E Redevelopment A a Boundary 'w
1
1
1
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
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Agriculture Resources
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water
Materials Quality
[ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Geology / Soils
[ ] Land Use / Planning
[ ] Population / Housing
[ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation / Traffic
[ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
B. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
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 'ick Leclair, Associate Planner Date
Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner
Date
1
1
1
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?
G) Involve other changes in the existing environment [ ] [ J [I [X]
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 8 of 37
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Signifi cant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
d)Other [] [J [J I
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] [ J
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] [ ] IN [ J
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of [ ] [ ] [X] [ J
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 [ ] [ ] [XJ [ J
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [ ] [ ] [X] [ J
number of people?
f)Other [] [] [] []
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or [ ] [ ] [X] [ J
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?
1
1
1
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
[ ] [ J [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
[ ] [ ] [X] [ J
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
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
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 [] []
I []
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 [ ] [ ]
IN [ ]
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
1
1
1
1
1
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- [ ] [ ]
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [ ] [ J
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
fl Change in topography or ground surface relief [ ] [ ]
features?
g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ J
yards or more?
h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [ ] [ ]
10% natural grade?
i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ] [ ]
unique geologic or physical feature?
j)Other []. []
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ]
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
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 environment
(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] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
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 project 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] [ ]
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 13 of 37
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil pipelines)?
j)Other [] [] [] []
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste [ ] [ ] [X] [I
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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] [ 1
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course
and direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river?
1) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the
following,ways:
i) Potential impact of project construction and
project post -construction activity on storm water
runoff?
ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials
storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or
equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage,
delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor
work areas?
iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in
the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful
increases in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
11 1]- [Xl 11
[] 11 [X1 11
[] [] [X1 11
[] []
1X1 11
[] [] [X1 11
[1 [] [X1 11
[] [] [X] 11
11 11 1X1 [1
[] [] [X] 11
[]
11 [X] 11
1
1
1
1
1
Amendment No Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 15 of 37
v) Storm water discharges that would significantly
impair or contribute to the impairment of the
beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that
provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian
corridors, wetlands, etc.)
vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of
drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions
for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials
both during construction and after project
occupancy?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established
community (including a low-income or minority
community)?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I [X] I
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, [ ]
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ]
plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the
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?
[] [X] []
[] [X] []
[] [X] []
[] [X] []
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 [ ]
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] []
[] [X] []
1
1
1
1
1
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 performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
XIV. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
[] [] [X] []
[] [] [X] H
[] [] [X] []
[J [] [X] []
[] [� [X] []
[] [] [XI []
[] [] IN H
H [] [X] []
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 [ ]
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 [ ]
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 [ ]
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 [ ]
(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? [ ]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [ ]
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ]
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
[] [X] []
[] [] [X]
[] [X] []
[] [X] []
[] [X] []
[] [X] []
[] [X] []
1
1
1
1
1
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?
fJ 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] I
[] [] [X] []
[] [] IN []
[] [] IN []
[] [] [X] []
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 20 of 37
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `DE MINIMUS' FINDING
a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife
resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose
of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants,
fish, amphibians, and related ecological
communities, including the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends for it's continued viability."
1
7
1
1
1
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 1-210 Freeway interchange to the SR126/Newhall Ranch Road
interchange and the SR 126 from the City's boundary at the 1-5 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
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 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
n
1
1
1
1
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 not convert
any farmland to non-agricultural use.
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
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.
1
1
1
1
1
1
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;
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
1
1
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.
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 28 of 37
1
1
11
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.-£) 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.
1
1
11
1
1
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
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 Sillnificant 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
1
1
1
1
1
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
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 32 of 37
1
1
1
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, groundborne
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 proposed at this time are regulatory in nature and do not
1
1
1
1
1
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 on
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
Amendment No, Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 34 of 37
1
1
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 sign_i_ficant.
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
1
1
1
1
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 future 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
Amendment No. Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 36 of 37
1
1
1
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 the potential future acquisition and
1
1
1
1
1
Amendment No, Three to the Newhall Redevelopment Plan
May 2009
Page 37 of 37
S.\CD\CURRENTV2009\Initial Study - RDA Amendments,doc
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
`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\CURRENTV2009\Initial Study - RDA Amendments,doc