HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - ORD ANNEXATIONS SECTION (2)Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by: Sharon Sorensen
DATE: May 25, 2010
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA TO
CREATE SECTION "17.01.080.G ANNEXATIONS" OF THE CITY
OF SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT. CODE
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council introduce and pass to second reading, an ordinance entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT, AND APPROVING
MASTER CASE. 10-023, CONSISTING OF UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT 10-001, AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) TO
ADD SECTION 17.01.080.G ANNEXATIONS".
BACKGROUND
Staff has been contacted by various developers on the eastside of the City who have received
entitlements from the County for various residential and/or commercial projects, and are
interested in annexing into the City of Santa Clarita. Section 66413(b) of the Subdivision Map
Act requires that tentative maps comply with the City's standards upon annexation. However, the
City's Unified Development Code (Section 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code) does not
specifically authorize the City to accept County -approved tentative maps that do not meet the
City's development standards. Further, the Unified Development Code does not include
provisions for processing requests for modification to County -approved entitlements that annex
to the City. Unified Development Code Amendment 10-001 includes an additional provision to
clarify how the City can address these issues.
Ordinance passed to I
Second reading
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
The following code section is proposed to be incorporated into Section 17.01 Administration of
the UDC to address County -approved entitlements that later annex to the City:
Section 17.01.080 Enforcement
G. Annexations
1. After conducting a public hearing_ pursuant to Section 17.01.100 of the Unified
Development Code and subject to CEQA, the City Council, at its sole discretion, may
grant exceptions to the following provisions of this title in accordance with
County -entitled projects that annex to the City pon a finding that the impacts of such
minor exceptions are consistent with the General Plan, and proposed prezoning and
will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses or residents:
a. Permitted Uses
b. Parkin
c. Setbacks
d. Floor area ratio
e. Signage
£ Architectural design elements
g_ Right-of-waimprovements
h. Landscaping
i. Hillside development
2. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, the determination shall
be made whether a request for a major modification to a Count -approved entitlement
or subdivision map is greater than 50% deviation from the approved project and/or
shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act
and qpplicable City standards in effect at the time such request is deemed complete.
The City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Element establishes Goals and Policies to
implement the Land Use Element. Specifically Goal 1 of the Land Use Element addresses
growth management in the City and seeks, "To preserve the character of the communities and the
integrity of the Santa Clarita Valley by permitting orderly growth through the synchronization of
development with the availability of public facilities such as roads, sewers, water service and
schools needed to support it." Further, Policy 1.7 seeks to, "Pursue an annexation policy that
brings tangible benefits to City infrastructure and provides a self supporting tax base."
Projects that have been entitled in the County can be built as they are approved regardless of
annexation into the City. While the City may choose to accept County -approved entitlements in
which certain development standards or mitigation measures may not match or be as stringent as
the City's, annexing these projects into the City prior to their construction could provide
opportunities for positive community -wide benefits that may not otherwise be realized. First,
Z
annexation prior to construction could provide the City the opportunity to require additional
right-of-way dedications, street improvements, or increase the size of backbone infrastructure,
and/or potentially modify a project's mitigation measures, provided such modifications are in
compliance with CEQA. Incorporating these types of improvements may bring certain aspects of
a project more in tune with the desires of the City as well as comply with the City's General Plan.
Second, when development takes place in the unincorporated County and later annexes, the City
then becomes responsible for providing City -level municipal services to these areas without the
benefit of receiving City -level development impact fees. When property is annexed prior to
construction, it is more fiscally beneficial to the City's general fund and gas tax revenues
generated through property tax, transfer fees, and vehicle license fees, helping to make these
areas more self sustaining by partially offsetting the cost of providing municipal services. As
new businesses in the City apply for permits from the California State Board of Equalization,
they designate the City as point of sale for sales tax generated as a part of their business, which
also benefits the City. Therefore, it may be in the City's interest at the time annexation is
initiated for the Council to also consider accepting these County -entitled projects "as -is" or with
some modification, provided they meet the intent of the City's General Plan.
Currently, once a County approved project has annexed to the City, the UDC does not
sufficiently identify the parameters for processing major modifications to projects that do not
meet the City's standards. The proposed UDC Amendment provides that revisions in excess of
50% would be required to be consistent with all City standards. The Director of Community
Development would make the determination if a requested modification meets this threshold,
which is consistent with Sections 17.05.020.1) and E of the UDC relating to expansion of legal
non -conforming uses and structures. These provisions currently allow the Director to make a
determination whether a request to expand a non -conforming use or structure will not increase
the degree of non -conformity. The proposed provision would provide a better understanding of
the process for revising a County -approved project. Major modifications to County -approved
entitlements would be brought into compliance with the current provisions of the City's UDC, the
Subdivision Map Act, and any applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
NOTICING
All noticing requirements for a public hearing and the proposed Negative Declaration have been
completed. A 1/8th page advertisement was placed in The Signal newspaper on May 4, 2010.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The Initial Study determined that all impacts related to the proposed modifications are
considered to be less than significant. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared in
accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA.
0
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On April 20, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to discuss the
proposed changes to the Unified Development Code (UDC) to add "Section 17.01.080.G
Annexations" to the UDC. At that hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report,
staff presentation, and public comment regarding the proposed amendment and voted 5-0 to
recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Negative Declaration prepared for the
project and approve the proposed amendment to the UDC.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct fiscal impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed amendment to the Unified
Development Code. However, the proposed amendment may have the potential to facilitate the
annexation of property into the City of Santa Clarita in the future. At this time, those future
annexations, and their fiscal impact are speculative and can not be anticipated. However, the
amendments proposed at this time will not change the policy established by the City Council to
consider annexations that are revenue positive or revenue neutral to the City of Santa Clarita
General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance -
Negative Declaration
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING and NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
APPLICATION: Master Case 10-023; Unified Development Code Amendment 10-001
PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Santa Clarita is proposing an amendment to Chapter 17 of the City's
Unified Development Code to create Section "17.01.080.G Annexation". This Section would: 1) provide the City
Council with the discretion to grant exceptions from specific provisions of the City's Unified Development Code
(UDC) (ie: Permitted Uses, Parking, Setbacks, Floor Area Ratio, Signage, Right -of -Way Improvements,
Landscaping, and/or Hillside Development) for properties proposed for annexation to the City consistent with
County -approved entitlements upon a finding that such minor exceptions are consistent with the General Plan and
proposed prezoning and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses or residents; and 2)
establish a provision for processing requests for modifications to County -approved entitlements that annex to the
City of Santa Clarita in accordance with existing similar provisions in the City's UDC and the Subdivision Map
Act, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date:
DATE: May 25, 2010
TIME: 6:00 p.m. or later
LOCATION: City of Santa Clarita, Council Chambers
23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this project. A copy of the Draft Negative
Declaration and all supporting documents is available for public review at the Permit Center located in the City
Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 and at the Valencia Library, 23743
W. Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355.
Interested persons may appear at the public hearing before the City Council and be heard on this matter.
Further information may be obtained by contacting the Community Development Department, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; (661) 255-4330, Patrick Leclair, Associate
Planner.
If you wish to challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered
to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Dated: May 4, 2010
Sarah P. Gorman, Esq.
City Clerk
Publish Date: May 4, 2010
SICITY\Public Hearings\2010\10-023 CC Notice of Public Hearing.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 10 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE
PROJECT, AND APPROVING MASTER CASE 10-023, CONSISTING OF UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 10-001, AMENDING THE UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) TO ADD SECTION 17.01.080.G ANNEXATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does
hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. The City of Santa Clarita periodically prepares updates to the Unified
Development Code (UDC);
b. The City of Santa Clarita (the "Applicant") initiated a proposal (Master Case
10-023, UDC 10-001) to amend the UDC to include Section 17.01.080.G
Annexations (the "Project") to authorize the City Council to grant certain
exceptions from the development standards and establish a threshold for
approving major modifications to County -approved entitlements;
C. It has been the City's experience that when development takes place in the
unincorporated Los Angeles County in the Santa Clarita Valley, property owners
often later desire to annex to the City in order to have easier access to government
services, more local representation, increased police services, higher park
maintenance and lower registration fees for City -sponsored recreation programs;
d. Upon annexation, the City becomes responsible for providing municipal services
such as police protection, zoning enforcement, street maintenance and recreational
and arts programs and other community services to serve the area, sometimes at
significant cost to the City;
e. The City receives less revenue when development occurs in the unincorporated
County and later annexes than when construction takes place in the City;
f. In general,, it is fiscally beneficial to the City if property is annexed prior to
development in order to increase the City's general fund and gas tax revenues
received from property tax and transfer fees and vehicle license fees, which help
offset the cost of providing municipal services;
g. Section 17.01.080 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code is amended to include
S
"Section G. Annexations" as follows:
Section 17.01.080 Enforcement
G. Annexation
1. After conducting a public hearing pursuant .to Section 17.01.100 of the
Unified Development Code and subject to CEQA, the City Council, at its sole
discretion, may grant exceptions to the following provisions of this title in
accordance with County -entitled projects that annex to the City upon a finding
that the impacts of such, minor exceptions are consistent with the General
Plan, and proposed prezoning and will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to adjacent uses or residents:
a. Permitted Uses
b. Parking
c. Setbacks
d. Floor area ratio
e. Signage
f. Architectural design elements
g. Right-of-way improvements
h. Landscaping
i. Hillside development
2. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, the
determination shall be made whether a request for a major modification to a
County -approved entitlement or subdivision map is greater than 50%
deviation from the approved project and/or shall be subject to review and
approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and applicable City
standards in effect at the time such request is deemed complete.
h. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on
April 20, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, California;
At the hearing described above, the Planning Commission considered a staff
presentation, staff report, public testimony on the Unified Development Code
Amendment, and the Negative Declaration prepared for the Project. At the public
hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council
adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approve Master Case
10-023 consisting of Unified Development Code Amendment 10-001; and
j. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on May 25,
2010, at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita,
California. The project was noticed in accordance with the public hearing
2
G
noticing requirements of the Unified Development Code, and a 1/8th-page
advertisement was placed in The Signal Newspaper on May 4, 2010.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based
upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita hereby find as
follows:
a. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared 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 Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on March
30, 2010, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from
March 30, 2010, through April 20, 2010;
C. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on
the environment. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of
the City of Santa Clarita;
d. The documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is made is the Master Case
10-023 project file located within the Community Development Department and
is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and
e. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds that the
Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with
CEQA.
SECTION 3. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT FINDINGS. Based
upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita hereby find as
follows:
a. That the proposed zoning code amendment is consistent with the objectives of this
development code, the General Plan, and development policies of the City
The Unified Development Code Amendment 10-001 is consistent with the objectives
of the Unified Development Code, development policies of the City, and the General
Plan including Goal 1 of the Land Use Element which seeks, "To preserve the
character of the communities and the integrity of the Santa Clarita Valley by
Permitting orderly growth through the synchronization of development with the
availability of public facilities such as roads, sewers, water service and schools
needed to support it," and Policy 1.7 of the Land Use Element which seeks to "Pursue
an annexation policy that brings tangible benefits to City infrastructure and provides a
self supporting tax base". Further, the code amendments will enable the City to
3
obtain additional general fund revenues from the gas tax, property tax, vehicle license
fees, and possible sales tax revenues from projects built in the City, making them
more self-supporting, and will have the potential to get improvements to backbone
infrastructure that would otherwise not be improved if the projects were built in the
County.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its
passage and adoption.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, 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 hereby declares that it would have adopted this
Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences,
clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause a summary thereof to be published within fifteen (15) days of the adoption, including the
vote for and against the same, in accordance with Government Code § 36933.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of May, 2010.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
M
MAYOR
AM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance 10- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of May, 2010. That thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day
of June, 2010, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance and
was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806).
CITY CLERK
E
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
1, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby
certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Ordinance 10- , adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Clarita, CA on June 8, 2010, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
2010.
City Clerk
By
Deputy City Clerk
6 /o
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final .
MASTER CASE NO: Master Case 10-023
PERMIT/PROJECT
NAME: Unified Development Code Amendment 10-001
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302.
Valencia; CA 91.355
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT: Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT: The City of Santa Clarita.is.preparing an amendment to Chapter 17 of the
City's Unified Development Code to create Section "17.01.180 Annexation'.'. This Section would provide the
City Council with (1) the discretion to grant exceptions from specific provisions of the City's Unified.
Development Code (UDC). (i.e., permitted uses, parking; setbacks, floor area ratio, signage, architectural design .
elements, right-of-way improvements, landscaping, and/or hillside.development) for properties proposed for.
annexation to the City in accordance with entitlements approved by Los Angeles County; and (2) the ability to
approve modifications to these projects in accordance with the existing provisions of the City's UDC, and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the
requirements of Section 15070 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
Negative Declaration shall be adopted:pursuant to Section. 15070 of CEQA. _ ._ _ .....___...............
Mitigation measures for this project
[.] Are Not Required [ ] Axe Attached [X] Are Not Attached
Lisa M. Webber, AICP
PLANNING MANAG
Prepared by: Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner
(Signature) (Naive/Title)
Approved by:Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner
(Signature) Y (Name/Title)
Public Review Period From March 30, 2010 To April 20, 2010
Public Notice Given On March 30, 2010
[X] Legal Advertisement . [) Posting of Properties [ ] Written.Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
S:\CD\CURRENI\!2010\10-023\10-023 DraftiVD.doc
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title Ml aster Case Number: Master Case 10-023
Unified Development Code Amendment (UDC 10-001)
Lead Agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact person and phone number: Patrick Leclair
Associate Planner
(661) 255-4330.
Project location: Citywide
Applicant's name and address: 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 an amendment to
Chapter 17 of the City's Unified Development Code to
create Section "17.01.180 Annexation". This Section
would provide the City Council with (1) the discretion
to grant exceptions from specific provisions , of the
City's Unified Development Code (UDC) (i.e.:
permitted . uses, parking, setbacks, floor area ratio,
signage, architectural design elements, right-of-way
improvements, landscaping, and/or hillside
development) for properties proposed.for annexation to
the City in accordance with entitlements approved by
Los Angeles County; and (2) the ability to approve
modifications to these projects in accordance with the
existing provisions of the City's UDC and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
These amendments will address approved projects that
have not been built at the time of annexation into the
City of Santa Clarita. Having been approved prior to
annexation, each of these projects would have been
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 2 of 29
reviewed incompliance with the CEQA under the
jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County. The proposed
revisions to the City's UDC would not modify either
the approval status of these projects, or any associated
CEQA approvals, unless specifically modified through
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or pre-
annexation agreement approved by the City Council.
The following language will be added to the City's
Unified Development Code:
Section 17.01.080 Enforcement
G. Annexation
1. After conducting a public hearing pursuant to
Section 17.01.100 of the Unified Development
Code and subject to CEQA, the City Council, at
its sole discretion may grant exceptions to the
following provisions of this title in accordance
with County -entitled projects that annex to the
City upon a finding that the impacts of any such
exceptions will not unreasonably impact
surrounding land uses:
a. Permitted Uses
b. Parking
c. Setbacks
d. Floor area ratio
e. Signage
f. Architectural design elements
g. Right-of-way im-provements
h. Landscaping
i. - Hillside development
2. At the discretion of the Director of Community
Development request for a major modification to
an approved entitlement or subdivision mab
deemed to be a greater than 50% deviation from
the approved project shall be subject to review
and Uproval by the City of Santa Clarita in
accordance with City standards and the
Subdivision Map Act in effect at the time of such
request.
13.
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 3 of 29
Surrounding land uses: N/A
Other public agencies whose N/A
approval is required:
/Y
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or a "Less than Significant with
Mitigation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality
[ ] Biological Resources . [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology / Soils
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous [J Hydrology / Water [ ] Land Use / Planning
Materials Quality
[ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population / Housing
[ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation / Traffic
[ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
D. 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.
[ J I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the enviroiunent, 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.
/S
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 5 of 29
[ ] 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
DECLARATIOINT, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
propoprojec nothing further is required.
313 Olt y
Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner Date
3/3o i o
Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner Date
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 6 of 29
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 [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
e) Other
H. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Fannland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 7 of 29
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Impact
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ] '
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
forest land to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
111. 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 [ ]
[ ] . IN [ ]
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ]
[ } IN [ ]
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a.cumulatively considerable net increase of [ ]
[ ] IN []
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 [ ]
[ ] IN [ ]
concentrations?
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 8 of 29
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
number of people?
0Other [] [] [] []
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
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?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
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] [ ]
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees?
Iq
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 9 of 29
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Impact .
- Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
fj Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ]
[ ] [X] 11,
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional;
or state habitat conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the [ ]
[ ] [X] []
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
h) Other [ J
[ ] [ ] [ ]
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?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ]
[] IN [ J
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to '15064.59
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique . [ ]
[] IN [I
paleontol"ogical resource or site or unique geologic
feature? .
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred [ ]
[] [X] . []
outside of formal cemeteries?
e)Other [J
[] [J []
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:
ao
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 10 of 29
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
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?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18--
1-B of the Uniform. Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
yards or more?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I [X] I
[] [] [X] []
[]. I [X] I
[] I [X] []
[] [] [X] []
[] I [X] []
[1. [] [X] I
I I IN I
I I [X] []
;� I
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-00i
Page 11 of 29
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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I [X] I
J) Other
VTI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS- Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the [ ] [ ]
emissions of greenhouse gasses?
VIII. 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? .
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ]
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving explosion or the
release of hazardous materials into the environment
(including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ] [ ]
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is. included on a list of [ ] [ ]
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
[X] I
cQ: a
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 12 of 29
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ]
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ]
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [ ]
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ]
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil pipelines)?
j) Other
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
[] [X] []
[] [X] []
[ ] [X]' [ ]
[] C] [X]
[] I [X]
�
3
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 13 of 29
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Impact
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
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 . [ ]
.11 [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] [ ]
g) Place housing within a 1:00 -year flood hazard area as [ ]
[ ] .[X] [ ]
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard.
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures [ }
[ ] [X] [
which would impede or redirect flood flows? .
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ]
11. [X] [ ]
loss; injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
and direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ]
[ ] [X] [. ]
a
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 14 of 29
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?
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?
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[� I IN I
[X1 [1
[X1 [1
[X1 11
[X1 [1
[X1 [1
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 15 of 29
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Impact.
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
community (including a low-income or minority
community)?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or [ ] .
[ ] IN [ ]
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 [ ]
[] IN [ ]
plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss. of availability of a known mineral..: _ .. [. ] .
[ ] _... IN [�...
resource that would be of value to the region and the .
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally [ ]
[] IN 11,
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 [ ]
[ ] IN [I
inefficient manner?
XII. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels [ ]
[] [X] []
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [ ]
[ ] IN []
groundborne vibration or groundborne. noise levels?
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 16 of 29
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working'
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I IN []
XIII. 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?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project
result in:
[X]
a�
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 17 of 29
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
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. causesignificant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable. service
ratios, . response times or other performance..
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? [ ] [
] [X] [ ]
ii) Police protection? [ ] [
] [X] [ ]
iii) Schools? [ ] [
] [X] [ ]
iv) Parks? [ ] [
] IN [ ]
XV. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing .neighborhood and [ ] [
] [X] [
regional parks or other recreational facilities such.
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the [ ] [
] [X] [ ].
construction or expansion of - recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy [ ] [
] IN [ ]
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non -motorized travel and relevant-
elevantcomponents
componentsof the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and.
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 18 of 29
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant linpact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management [ ] [] [X] [ ]
program, including, but not limited to level of
service standard and travel demand measures, or
other standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including [ ] [ ]
[ ] IN
either an increase in traffic levels or a: change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ]
IN [ ]
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [ ] [ ]
[X] []
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the perforinance or
safety of such facilities?
g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ] 11.
IN [ ]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ] []
IN [ ]
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new stone [ ] []
[X] [ ]
water drainage facilities or expansion of. existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 19 of 29
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [ ] [ ] [X] . [ ]
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ]
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand' in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted. [ ]
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and. [ ]
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential .to degrade .the.. [ ]
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population. to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal,
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ]
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the. effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future;
projects)?
[X] I
IN I
ram
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 20 of 29
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
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."
31
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 21 of 29
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS ...
a. -d:) 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 Susana 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 much of 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 amendments to the City's Unified Development Code
address the annexation of properties into the City that have been
previously approved for development under the jurisdiction of Los
Angeles County, but have not been constructed at the time of
annexation into the City. The mass and scale of these projects will
not be altered and would therefore not have any additional visual
impacts than those identified under the CEQA documents completed
as a partof their approval process under the Los Angeles County. .
Following annexation, any revisions to a previously approved project
will be subject to review of the City at the time revisions are
requested with any further CEQA analysis completed at that time..
Therefore, a less than significant impact to aesthetics is anticipated
with this project.
II. AGRICULTURE
-a.-e.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed arriendments to
RESOURCES
the UDC will not affect any farmland. identified by the California
Resources Agency, farmland designated under a Williamson Act
Contract, and -will not convert any farmland to non-agricultural use.
Further, the amendments will not impact , any forest lands, or any
timberland zoned Timberland Production by the Government Code
Section 51104(g). The proposed 'amendments are regulatory in
nature and address the annexation of previously approved projects
that remain un -built upon annexation into the City. .
Therefore, the amendments are anticipated to. have a less than
significant impact on agricultural, farmland, or forest resources.
III. AIR. QUALITY
a. -e.) Less than Significant Impact: The .City of Santa Clarita is
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 22 of 29
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. 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
linplementation 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 AQMD.
The proposed amendments to the UDC will not alter any of the
aforementioned measures directly in that the proposed amendments
will address the annexation of projects that were previously approved
under the jurisdiction of. the Los Angeles County. Having already
been approved, these projects have been previously reviewed in
compliance with CEQA. Unless revisions are proposed to the
projects that would require subsequent environinental review by the
City after annexation, no further CEQA analysis would be required.
The potential impacts as a result of any future revisions would be
subject to the applicable air quality regulations under CEQA in place
at the time that future analysis is conducted. However, future
revisions and any associated impacts are speculative at this time and
can not be addressed.
Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated to air quality
as a result of the proposed amendments to the UDC.
33.
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 23 of 29
IV. BIOLOGICAL
a. -g.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
RESOURCES
the UDC, in and of themselves do not include the modification of any
habitat and would not otherwise affect any candidate, sensitive or
special status species identified by the Department of Fish and Game
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Further, the proposed UDC
- _ -
amendments will not have any. adverse affect on any riparian habitat,
wetlands as .defined by Section 404. of the Clean Water Act, or other
biological resources. The proposed UDC amendments address the
annexation of properties that were entitled prior to annexation into
the City of Santa Clarita. The amendments will not alter any wildlife
corridor, or migratory fish corridor and will not affect, any regulation
or code protecting., such resources.
Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments are anticipated to have.a
less than significant impact to biological resources.
V. CULTURAL
a. -d.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
RESOURCES
the Unified Development Code will not have any impact on cultural
resources in the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed amendments
will not alter any, unique geological feature, paleontological resource,
any human remains or affect any historical or archeological resource.
The proposed amendments will govern the annexation of properties
that were previously entitled prior to -annexation into the City. Any
revision to a previously approved project would. need to be reviewed
in compliance with CEQA. However, the potential impact of future
revisions -is too speculative to.evaluate at this time. Any MOU or
other pre annexation agreement approved by the City as a result of
this UDC amendment 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 anda sense of history as. well as CEQA.
Therefore, a less than significant impact to archeological, historical
or cultural resource would be caused by the proposed UDC
amendments.
VI. GEOLOGY AND
a. -i.) 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 (agnitude 8.3)
along the San Andreas Fault. This could result in ground failure and
liquefaction. However, the proposed amendments to the UDC would
not change the requirements of future development to follow all state
and City building codes/regulations. The proposed amendments
would address the annexation of properties into the City that were
3`1
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 24 of 29
previously approved under the Los Angeles County. These projects
would have been reviewed in compliance with CEQA at the time that
the projects were approved. Any major modifications to an approved
project would be required to comply with CEQA as well as the
applicable zoning regulations at the time that the project revisions
were requested.
Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments would have a less than
significant impact related to geology and soils.
VII. GREENHOUSE a. -b.) Less than Significant Impact - "Greenhouse gases" (so called
GAS EMISSIONS because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth)
emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change,
commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases
contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere.
The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane, and nitrous. oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured
as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor
vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single
largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half
of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are
the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about. one-
fourth of total emissions.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at
least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG
statues and executive orders (EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32,
Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO S-20=06
and EO S-01-07.
AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one
of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that
California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to
maintain California's reputation as a "national and international
leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship."
Most notably AB 32 mandates that by 2020, California's GHG
emissions be reduced to 1996 levels.
The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code address
the annexation of land into the city that has been previously entitled,
but have not been built prior to annexation into the City. The
proposed amendments would not result in major alterations to these
approvals. However, the proposed amendments would provide
certain exceptions from the provisions of the UDC that the City
3Si
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 25 of 29
Council could approve when considering the annexation of these
approved projects, and would establish a threshold for determining
when additional review is .required by the City for a major
modification to these previously approved projects. Any major
modification subject to additional review under this amendment
would be required to comply with the Unified Development Code in
effect at the time revisions are requested, including any applicable
CEQA regulations.
Therefore, the proposed amendments are anticipated to have a less
than significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions.
VIII. HAZARDS AND
a. -d. and g. -i.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed
HAZARDOUS.
amendments to. the UDC would not directly expose people to health
Mi ATERIALS
hazards or hazardous materials : and would not interfere with. any
emergency response plans. The proposed amendments address
projects that were approved, but not built, upon annexation .into the
City. Furthermore, no development is associated with these UDC
amendments. Therefore, a less than significant impact to hazardous
materials is anticipated with the proposed UDC amendments..
e. -f.) No Impact — The proposed amendments ' include no change to
land use or development standards for land within 2 miles of an
airport, an airfield, or otherwise within an airport land use plan.
Further, no airport of airfield is located within 2 miles of the City
boundaries. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments would not
affect the risks of land uses adjacent to airports or airfields and the
proposal would have no related impacts.
TX. HYDROLOGY
a.-1.) Less than Significant Impact - The proposed project would
AND WATER
not impact water quality standards, nor affect groundwater supplies.
QUALITY
The proposed project is an amendment to allow. milft r exceptions
subject to approval of the City Council for projects approved, but not
built, prior to the annexation into the City. The amendments will not
result in direct impacts on hydrology and water quality. Further, the
proposed amendments are not anticipated to impact any 100 -year
flood hazard area, tsunami; drainage pattern, or runoff of Stonxlwaier.
Management systems. Any major revisions to these projects would
comply with the zoning codes in place at the time that revisions are
requested, including any additional CEQA review.
Therefore, the proposed amendments are anticipated to have a less
than significant impact to hydrology and water quality.
X. LAND USE AND
a.) Less than Significant Impact: No established community would
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 26 of 29
PLANNING
be disrupted or physically divided due to the proposed amendments,
and therefore, impacts would be considered a less than significant
impact.
b.) Less than Significant Impact: The purpose of these
amendments is to provide exceptions to certain City requirements for
County -approved entitlements that subsequently annex to the City,
subject to City Council approval. The proposed amendments would
further clarify the process for approving major modifications to an
approved project following annexation. The proposed amendment to
the UDC is consistent with the City's General Plan in that exceptions
to certain standards would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in
order that annexations promote a self-supporting tax base. No
development activity will be authorized with these amendments.
Therefore, a less than significant impact' related to land use and
planning is anticipated with the proposed amendments to the UDC.
c.) Less than Significant Iinpact: The proposed amendments do not
affect current City standards regarding habitat conservation plans,
natural community preservation plans, and/ or the policies of agencies
with jurisdiction over resources and resource areas within the City.
Any major modifications to approved entitlements for annexed
properties would be subject to the standards and regulations
established by the City at the time revisions are requested.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on
conservation plans.
XI. MINERAL AND
a. -c.) Less than Significant Impact — Gold mining and oil
ENERGY
production historically have been the principal mineral extraction
RESOURCES
activities in and around the Santa. Clarita Valley. Other minerals
found in the planning area include construction aggregate, titanium,
and tuff. Mineral resources and extraction areas are shown in Exhibit
OS -5 of the City's General Plan. The proposed UDC amendment is
not expected to affect . mineral resources in the city. Therefore,
impacts related to mineral and energy resources are anticipated to be
less than significant.
XII. NOISE
a. -d.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
the UDC will not expose persons to the generation of a significant
increase in noise levels, groundborne vibration, or increase ambient
noise beyond what was evaluated at the time the County originally
approved the projects. The UDC amendment, in fact, does not
ro ose any development at this time and therefore, there would not
37
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 27 of 29
be an impact to noise levels in the city. The proposed amendments
may apply to revisions to previously approved projects within the
City, however, these projects have been previously approved and
reviewed in compliance with CEQA. The proposed amendments do
not remove any noise -related regulations and would not foreseeably
lead to a change in the generation of noise at this.time.
Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated with relation to
noise.
e:7f.) No Impact — There are no airports, airfields, or airport land use
plans within .the City. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments
would cause.no impacts related to airport noise.
XIII. POPULATION
a. -c.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
AND HOUSING
the UDC are not anticipated to induce substantial population growth
in the Santa. Clarita Valley, either directly or indirectly, nor would
any of the proposed provisions cause displacement of existing homes
or people. Upon annexation of properties into the City, the City's
boundary will inherently change, however, the annexation of
previously approved projects will not necessarily alter the approval of
these projects unless specifically approved by the City Council. The
proposed project is a regulatory adjustment and does not include any
development activity at this time. The proposed UDC amendments
would not alter the' City's population projections consistent with the
.City's General Plan.
Therefore, the project would :have a less than significant impact to
population and housing.
XIV. PUBLIC
a)i: Less than Significant Impact = The proposed amendments will
SERVICES
not directly increase the need for fire protection services. However,
any future development would be subject to development fees, which
are established to compensate, for growth. Since, the proposed UDC.
amendments are not anticipated to have a direct impact on fire
protection services, and future development would remain subject to
development fees, the project would have no significant impact to.
fire services.
a)ii. Less than Significant Impact _ The proposed amendments are
not anticipated to directly increase the need for police services.
However, any future development would be subject to development
fees, which are established to compensate for growth. Since, the
proposed UDC amendments would have no direct impact on police
services, and future development would remain subject to
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 28 of 29
39
development fees, the project would have no significant impact to
policeservices.
a)iii. Less than Significant Impact — The proposed project is not
anticipated to directly. increase the population of the City of Santa
Clarita. - However, any future residential development would be
subject to school development fees, which are established to
compensate for growth. Since, the proposed UDC amendments
would have no direct impact on school services, and future
development would be subject to school development fees, the
project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to school
services.
a)iv. Less than Significant Impact — The proposed project is not
anticipated to directly increase number of persons using public parks.
However, any future. development would be subject to park impact
fees, which are established to compensate for residential growth.
Since, the proposed UDC. amendments would have no direct impact
on parks; and future development -would remain subject to park
impact fees, the amendments are anticipated to have a, less than
significant impact to parks.
XIV. RECREATION
a. -b.) Less. than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
the UDC will not have any impact on recreational amenities within
the City. of Santa Clarita. The proposed project is a regulatory
adjustment and does not include. any development activities at this
time. Any subsequent approvals would be required to comply with
the Parks and Recreation Element in the City's General Plan and
would be subject" -to the City's park impact fees. Therefore, no
significant impact to recreation is anticipated with the proposed UDC
amendments.
XV,
a. -g.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
TRANSPORTATION /
the UDC are regulatory in nature and are not anticipated to have
TRAFFIC
direct developmental impacts that alter traffic load or capacity on
street systems: Major modifications to approved entitlements would
be regulated by the City's. UDC, General Plan, and transportation
policies and would be subject to additional CEQA review to
determine project related impacts and potential initigation measures.
However, at this time,, since no new development is being proposed,
a less. than significant impact to traffic is anticipated as a result of the
proposed UDC amendments.
XVI. UTILITIES AND
a. -g.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
SERVICE SYSTEMS
the City's Unified Development Code do not include an new
39
Master Case 10-023
UDC 10-001
Page 29 of 29
SAMCURRENTV2010\10-023 UDC Amendments\10-023 Initial Study.doc
development at this time. Therefore, the project would not result in
the construction of new water facilities, expansion of existing
facilities, affect drainage patterns, water treatment services, and
furthermore, no impacts . to landfill capacity would occur. Any
subsequent major modifications 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 as
a result of the approval of the proposed amendments. .
XVII. MANDATORY
a. -c.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to
FINDINGS OF
the UDC will not have a significant impact on the environment that
SIGNIFICANCE
would lead to a substantial reduction in habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, or reduce or restrict, the number. of rare, threatened or
endangered species. The proposed amendments do not remove any
established City regulations that protect any plant and animal species.
The proposal would not contribute to any cumulative impacts and
would not cause environmental effects that would adversely affect
humans. Rather, the proposed UDC amendments are intended to
provide a mechanism for the.City to allow development of County=
entitled project following annexation.
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 I current user -based
`DE MINIMUS'
funding system by allocating the transactional costs of wildlife
FINDING:
prot ection 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)). However, the proposed UDC 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 eitherindividually or cumulatively, on fish
and wildlife resources, the project's impacts on fish and wildlife are
de minimus.
SAMCURRENTV2010\10-023 UDC Amendments\10-023 Initial Study.doc