Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - HISTORIC PRESERVATION (2)Agenda Item: 1,2. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Dave Peterson DATE: September 27, 2011 SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MASTER CASE 11-120, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 11-003, TO AMEND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.03.145 REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 APPROVING MASTER CASE 11-120, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.03.145 REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE 'DECLARATION. BACKGROUND During the public participation portion of their regularly scheduled meeting on August 23, 2011, the City Council heard testimony from the owner of 24322 Main Street in the City of Santa Clarita. The property is designated as a Potential Historic Resource. under the City's current Historic Preservation Ordinance (Unified Development Code Section 17.03.145). Testimony from the property owner indicated that the current historic designation had negatively impacted their ability to sell the property. Under the proposed new Historic Preservation Ordinance, City staff recommended to the City Council at their regularly scheduled meeting on August 23, 2011, that the property not receive a historic designation due to the compromised historic integrity of the structure. The City Council affirmed staffs recommendation at that time. Ordinance passed to Second reading The City Council directed staff to return on September 13, 2011 with an item to remove the property from the designated properties under the current Historic Preservation Ordinance. However, because of legal noticing requirements associated with the public hearing, City staff was not able to bring the item before the City Council until September 27, 2011. The proposed amendment would modify the Definitions portion of the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance (Santa Clarita Unified Development Code Section 17.030.145.2(B)). Specifically, the amendment would remove the property located at 24322 Main Street from the definition of a "Potential Historic Resource." Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study was conducted and determined that the proposed amendment would result in no significant impacts. Based on these results, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other actions as identified by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is associated with this action. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance Initial Study and Negative Declaration ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MASTER CASE 11-120, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 11-003, TO AMEND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.03.145 REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita General Plan requires the implementation of the City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code (UDC) to be in compliance with the Government Code of the State of California; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita's Historic Preservation Ordinance (UDC Section 17.03.145) defines a potential historic resource as "....structures and site features of any property listed in the historic survey documents included in either the environmental impact report or the text or appendices of either the Santa Clarita General Plan or the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan..."; WHEREAS, the property located at 24322 Main Street in the City of Santa Clarita is identified in the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan as a historic site and is therefore a Potential Historic Resource; WHEREAS, the historic integrity of the structure located at 24322 Main Street was found by the City Council at their regularly scheduled meeting held on August 23, 2011 to be compromised; WHEREAS, the owner of the property located at 24322 Main Street in the City of Santa Clarita testified at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on August 23, 2011 that the current Potential Historic Designation has negatively impacted the value of the property; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita directed City Staff to remove the designation of Potential Historic Resource from the property located at 24322 Main Street in the City of Santa Clarita at their regular meeting on August 23, 2011; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with and further implement the Goals and Policies of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The proposed amendment to the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code is consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. SECTION 2. The amendment shall replace the current Santa Clarita Unified Development Code Section 17.03.145.2(B) as follows: "Potential Historic Resource shall mean structures and site features of any property listed in the historic survey documents included in either the environmental impact report or the text or appendices of either the Santa Clarita General Plan or the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, except for properties upon which such previously identified structures and site features no longer exist as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section and the property located at 24322 Main Street in the City of Santa Clarita. A listing of sites will be available with the Community Development Department." SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings in the Initial Study prepared for the project, the City Council further finds, approves, and determines as follows: a. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The document was posted and advertised on September 6, 2011, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from September 6, 2011 until September 27, 2011. C. Staff found that there were no signficiant impacts created as a result of the proposed project and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the CEQA. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita. d. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based is the Master Case 11-120 project file within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. e. The proposed change is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code, the General Plan and the development policies of the City. The historic integrity of the structure located at 24322 Main Street has been compromised. SECTION 4. That if any portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid, that portion shall be stricken and severed, and the remaining portions shall be unaffected and remain in full force and effect. VA SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its passage and adoption. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) 1, Sara Gorman, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 11- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 27th day of September, 2011. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the I I`h day of October 2011, 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Ordinance 11- , adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, CA on October 11th, 2011, which is now on file in my office. Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of 2011. City Clerk By Deputy City Clerk M40 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: Master Cased 1-120 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Unified Development Code Amendment 1 1-003 APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Valencia, CA 91355 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 Municipal Code (the Unified Development Code or UDC) that would change the definition of a potential historic resource. 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 [X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached Lisa M. Webber, AICP PLANNING MANAGER t• Prepared by: -,.._ \, C _ 1---Dav-id-Peterson, Assistant Planner I (Signature) --- _ (Name/Title) Approved by: / r�-� Jeff Hogan, Senior Planner ignature) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From 9/6/11 To 9/27/11 Public Notice Given On 9/6/11 [X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: SACD\CURRENT\!2010\10-135 (UDC 10-008 Historic Pres)\Historic Pres Neg Dec.doc INITIAL. STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Project Title/Master Case Number: Master Case 11-120 City of Santa Clarita Historic Preservation Program — Recommended Code Amendment Lead Agency name and address: Contact person and phone number: Project location: Applicant's name and address: General Plan designation: Zoning: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 David Peterson Assistant Planner II (661) 255-4330 Citywide City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Various Various Description of project and setting: The City of Santa Clarita is preparing an amendment to Chapter 17 of the City's Municipal Code (the Unified Development Code or UDC) that would change the definition of a potential historic resource. The amendment is not anticipated to either directly, or indirectly, result in any future, foreseeable development. All future development affected by these change will be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine their impacts on the environment pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the findings in this Initial Study relate only to the UDC change themselves. The amendment contained in Master Case 11-120 replaces UDC Section 17.03.145 B.2 and consist of the following: rol Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 2 of 31 17.03.145.8.2 "Potential Historic Resource" shall mean structures and site features of any property listed in the historic survey documents included in either the environmental impact report or the text or appendices of either the Santa Clarita General Plan or the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, except for properties upon which such previously identified structures and site features no longer exist as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section and the property located at 24322 Main Street in the City of Santa Clarita. A listing of sites will be available with the Community Development Department. " Surrounding land uses: N/A Other public agencies whose N/A approval is required: A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Less than Significant with Mitigation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ J Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Biological Resources [ J Cultural Resources [ ] Geology / Soils [ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water [ ] Land Use / Planning Materials Quality [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise, [ ] 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. 0 Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 4 of 31 [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR -or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. \� J6_1 I David Peterson, Assistant Planner II Date Je f Hogan, Senior Planner Date Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 5 of 31 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation I. AESTHETICS- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c). Substantially degrade the existing visual character or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 6 of 31 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation d) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ] [X ] concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? f) Other IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species- in . local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [] [X] [] 13 Master Case I 1-120 UDC 11-003 Page 7 of 31 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 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 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 protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? h) Other V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] I [X] I Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 8 of 31 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 [ ] [ ] [ J [X] paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] outside of formal cemeteries? e)Other [] [] [] [] VI. GEOLOGY, AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial [ J [ ] [X] [ ] adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] iii) Seismic -related ground. failure, including [ ] [ ] [X] [] liquefaction? iv) Landslides? [ ] . [ ] [XJ [ ] b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [ ] [ ] [XJ [ ] loss of topsoil, either on or off site? /_5 Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 9 of 31 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] or that would become unstable as 'a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- [ ] [ ] [X] [] - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [ J [ ] [X] [ ] use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Change in topography or ground surface relief [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] features? g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] yards or more? h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 10% natural grade? i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] unique geologic or physical feature? j)Other [] [] [] [] VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project: J a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses? Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 10 of 31 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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 [ J [ ] [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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? /7 Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 11 of 31 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? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] I [] [X] 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? [] [] [X] [] [] [X] d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or -off-site? [X] [X] F50 Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 12 of 31 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation e) Create or contribute runoff water which would I [ ] [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? [ ] g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as [ ] mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures [ ] which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ] loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course [ ] and direction of surface water and/or groundwater? i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] 1) Impact Stormwater Management in any 'of the [ ] following ways: i) Potential impact of. project construction and [ ] project post -construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials [ ] storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or. loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] a [] [X] [] S Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 13 of 31 iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase i the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? .Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation n [] I [X] I 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 proj ect occupancy? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [ ] community (including a low-income or minority community)? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, [ ] or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ] plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] [X] [] 2o Master Case I 1-120 UDC 11-003 Page 14 of 31 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation XI. 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? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally [ ] important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ ] inefficient manner? XII. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels [ J 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? a) Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 15 of 31 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 16 of 31 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace, substantial numbers of existing housing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] necessitating the construction. of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [ ] the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govenunental 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? XV. RECREATION - Would the project: [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] �) [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] 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? 2,5 Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 17 of 31 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) 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? [ ] XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ] applicable Regional Water Quality Control -Board? [ ] - [X] [ ] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] 2'f Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 18 of 31 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ] wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm [ ] water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [ ] project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ] treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ] capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and [ ] regulations related to solid waste? XVIII. 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] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] Master Case 11-120 _ UDC 11-003 Page 19 of 31 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? XIV. 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." 2� Master Case 11=120 UDC 11-003 Page 20 of 31 D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS: Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts I. AESTHETICS a.) No 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 modification to the Unified Development Code (UDC) would amend the definition of a potential historic resource within the , boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. No scenic vistas are identified as a potential historic resource. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendment would have no impacts on scenic vistas. b.) No Impact: The only roadway within the City of Santa Clarita that is identified in the California Department of Transportation's State Scenic Highway program is the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway, which is designated as an "Eligible State Scenic Highway". This designated eligible segment of the 1-5 Freeway extends from the I- 210 Freeway interchange to the SR126/Newhall Ranch Road interchange. SR 126 from the City's boundary at the I-5 west to SR 150 in Ventura County is also designated an "Eligible State Scenic Highway". The proposed UDC amendment will not affect existing City development standards, codes and ordinances regarding development of or near Scenic Highways. Therefore, the proposed amendment would have no impacts on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c.) Less than Significant Impact: The amendment would apply to one of identified potential historic resources. Projects based on the amendment would be evaluated to prevent the inappropriate alteration of a site and its surroundings and would aim to support and improve the historic character of the City's planning area. Therefore, the proposed amendment would have a less than significant impact on the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings. 02,1 Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 21 of 31 d.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendment does not alter the City standards for outdoor lighting and would not be a new source of light or glare. The proposed amendment is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on light and glare. II. AGRICULTURE a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed modification would amend the RESOURCES definition of a potential historic resource within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. No farmland or agricultural use is identified as a historic resource or potential historic resource. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendment would have no impacts on any farmland identified by the California Resources Agency, conflict with existing zoning for farmland designated under a Williamson Act Contract, and will not convert any farmland to non-agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY a.) 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. 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 and 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. Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 22 of 31 The proposed change to the UDC will not alter any of the aforementioned measures directly. The amendment is consistent with, and will have no effect on, the growth expectations for the region and is therefore consistent with the 2007 AQMP. Regardless, subsequent projects will be required to adhere to the General Plan and standards set forth in the UDC. Future projects are therefore also anticipated to be consistent with the AQMP and are expected to result in less than significant environmental impacts. b.) No Impact: Santa Clarita is located in a non -attainment area, an area that frequently exceeds national ambient air quality standards. However, the proposed UDC amendment does 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. Therefore, no impact to air quality standards is anticipated as a result of the proposed UDC. c.) No Impact: As discussed is Section III.b), the proposed amendment 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 proposed amendment to the UDC does not propose development; however, any future development will be evaluated pursuant to CEQA and assess project related air quality impacts. Therefore, no impact to ambient air quality is anticipated as a result of the proposed UDC amendment. d.) No 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 amendment does not include any physical development at this time. The proposed UDC amendment may apply to future projects within the City. However; the proposed amendment does not remove any odor -related regulations and would not foreseeably lead to a change in the generation of odor. Additionally, the proposed amendment would not place sensitive land uses adjacent to substantial air pollution sources. Therefore, the proposed amendment Master Case 1 I-120 UDC 11-003 Page 23 of 31 would have no air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. e.) No Impact: The proposed UDC amendment would not locate any land use adjacent to an odor producing facility or use. The proposed amendment is regulatory in nature and all future land uses must comply with all applicable regulations of the AQMD and the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and UDC. Therefore, the proposed amendment would have no odor -related impacts. IV. BIOLOGICAL a. -d.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed change to the RESOURCES UDC does 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 change will not have any adverse affect on any riparian habitat or wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.. There is no proposed alteration to any wildlife corridor or migratory fish corridor proposed and no change to any regulation or code protecting such resources. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendment would not cause significant impacts to sensitive species, sensitive natural community, riparian habitat, or wetlands. e.) Less than Significant Impact — The City of Santa Clarita has an Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance that regulates the development adjacent to and under oak trees. No additional modifications to the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance are proposed with these UDC amendment. Therefore, less than significant impacts to oak trees are anticipated with the proposed amendment: f. -g.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed UDC modification proposes no alterations to any local or regional habitat conservation plan. In addition, the proposed UDC modification 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. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated with respect to any SEA or SNA as identified on the City's ESA map. V. CULTURAL a.) Less Than Significant Impact — The proposed change to the RESOURCES UDC would amend the definition of a potential historic resource within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. Specifically, one structure identified as a potential historic resource would be removed from the current list of potential historic resources. The removal is due to the building's lack of historic integrity. Reduction of the current list of 45 potential historic resources by one structure does not Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 24 of 31 constitute an adverse change in the number of potential historic resources identified by the City of Santa Clarita. Therefore, impacts from the proposed UDC amendment are considered less than significant. b.) Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed change to the UDC would amend the definition of a potential historic resource within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. Record searches of recent environmental impact reports have not identified any archaeological sites within the City's planning area. If excavation or grading activities yield any evidence of archaeological resources, state law requires work to stop until the significance of the find can be determined. Therefore, impacts from the proposed UDC amendment is considered less than significant. c.) No Impact — No known paleontological resources are located within the City's planning area, therefore, there is no impact. d.) Less Than Significant .Impact — If excavation or grading activities yield any evidence of archaeological resources, state law requires work to stop until the significance of the find can be determined. Therefore, impacts from the proposed UDC amendment is considered less than significant. VI. GEOLOGY AND a. i -iv) 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 (magnitude 8.3) along the San Andreas Fault. This could result in ground failure and liquefaction. However, the proposed modification to the UDC would not change any land use entitlements, and would not change the requirements of future development to follow all state and City building codes/regulations. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendment would have a less than significant impact related to exposure of people or structures to any adverse effects of seismic activity. bA.) Less that Significant Impact — The proposed UDC modification would not result in any erosion or location of structures on of near unstable soil, expansive or otherwise. No modification to the UDC will be made with respect to the impact to any topographical features, movement of earth, development on slopes with greater than 10% natural grade, or any over -covering of any physical or geological feature. Furthermore, the proposal would not affect requirements of future developments to comply with all state and city building codes/regulations. Therefore, the proposal would Master Case l 1-120 UDC 11-003 Page 25 of 31 have a less than significant impact with respect to erosion, unstable or expansive soil, or any topographical features. 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 (COA methane, and nitrous oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (COze). 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 1990 levels. The proposed amendment to the Unified Development Code would amend the definition of a potential historic resource within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. Therefore, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have a less than significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. VIII. HAZARDS AND a. -d.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed change to the HAZARDOUS UDC would not directly expose people to health hazards or MATERIALS hazardous materials and would not interfere with any emergency response plans. Future developments in the city would be required to comply with the City's General Plan and development codes and Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 26 of 31 federal, state, and local hazardous material regulations. Furthermore, no development is associated with this UDC modification, and potential future effects would only occur as a subsequent affect of future on-site development. Therefore, a less than significant impact to hazardous materials is anticipated with the proposed UDC modification. e.-£) No Impact — The proposed amendment includes no change to land use or development standards for land within 2 miles of an airport and airfield or otherwise within an airport land use plan. Further, no airport of airfield is located within 2 miles of the City boundaries. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendment would not affect the risks of land uses adjacent to airports or airfields and the proposal would have no related impacts. g.) No Impact — The proposed UDC amendment would amend the definition of a potential historic resource within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. The amendment would not affect the implementation of emergency response plans, and would have no .impact. h.) No Impact — The proposed UDC amendment would not directly increase the risks of wildland fires, and would not change the regulations or development standards governing development adjacent to wildlands. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendment would have no impact. i.) No Impact — The proposed UDC amendment would not directly expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendment would have no impact. IX. HYDROLOGY a. -b.) 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 for a land use provision, and will not be responsible for direct development impacts. However, subsequent development projects 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 project will have a less than significant impact to water quality or ground water supplies. c.-1.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed change to the UDC is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on any 100 - year flood hazard area, tsunami, drainage pattern, or runoff of Stormwater Management systems. As mentioned previously, the .33 Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 27 of 31 proposed project is an.amendment for a land use provision, and will not be responsible for direct development impacts. However, subsequent development projects in the revised UDC areas would be required to comply with the standards put forth in the City's General Plan and all Clean Water Act Requirements, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Furthermore, the proposed UDC amendment would not change any hydrology or water quality -related codes, laws, permits, -or regulations. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact. X. LAND USE AND a.) No Impact: No established community would be disrupted or PLANNING physically divided due to the proposed amendment, and therefore, no impact would occur. b.) Less than Significant Impact: The -proposed change would amend the definition of a potential historic resource within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. No development activity will be authorized at this time. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to land use and planning are anticipated with the proposed amendment to the UDC. c.) No Impact: The proposed amendment does not affect current City standards regarding habitat conservation plans, natural. community preservation plans, and/ or the policies of agencies with jurisdiction over resources and resource areas within the City. Any future development project under this amendment would be subject to the standards and regulations established by the City and other agencies. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendment would have no impact on conservation plans. XI. MINERAL AND a. -c.) No Impact — Gold mining and oil production historically have ENERGY been the principal mineral extraction activities in and around the RESOURCES 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. No modifications to the UDC are proposed at this time with respect to current mining operations within the city and will not affect mineral resources in the city. Therefore, no impact related to mineral and energy resources is anticipated. XII. NOISE a. -d.) No Impact — The proposed modification to the UDC will not expose persons to the generation of excess noise levels, groundborne vibration, or increase ambient noise in the City of Santa Clarita. The UDC amendment does not propose any development at this time and therefore, there would be no impact to noise levels in the city. The proposed amendment may apply to future development projects Master Case I I-120 UDC 11-003 Page 28 of 31 3 S within the City. The proposed amendment does not remove any noise -related regulations and would not foreseeably lead to a change in the generation of noise at this time. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with relation to noise. e. -f.) No Impact — There are no airports, airfields, or airport land use plans within the City. Therefore, the proposed -UDC amendment would cause no impacts related to airport noise. XIII. POPULATION a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed modification to the UDC does not AND HOUSING induce substantial population growth in the City, either directly or indirectly, nor would any of the proposed activities cause displacement of existing homes or people. The proposed amendment is regulatory and do not include any development activity at this time. The proposed UDC modification would not alter the City's population projections and are consistent -with the City's General Plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact to population and housing. XVI. PUBLIC a)i. Less than Significant Impact — The proposed project will not SERVICES 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 amendment is not anticipated to have an immediate impact on fire protection services, and future development would remain subject to development fees, the project would have a less than significant impact to fire services. a)ii. Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendment is 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 ,amendment would have no immediate impact on police services, and future development would remain subject to development fees, the project would have a less than significant impact to police services. 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 futuie residential development would be subject to school development fees, which are established to compensate for growth. Since the proposed amendment would have no immediate 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. 3 S Master Case 11-] 20 UDC 11-003 Page 29 of 31 36 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 amendment would have no immediate impact on parks, and future development would remain subject to park impact fees, the amendment is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to parks. XV. RECREATION a. -b.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed change 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 development would be required to comply with the Parks and Recreation Element in the City's General Plan and would be subject to the City's park impact fees. Therefore, a less than significant impact to recreation is anticipated with the proposed UDC modification. XVI. a. -b.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendment to TRANSPORTATION / the UDC is regulatory in nature and are not anticipated to have TRAFFIC immediate developmental impacts that alter traffic load or capacity on street systems. Future development activity in the city would be regulated by the City's UDC, General Plan, and transportation policies. Future projects would be subject to additional CEQA review to determine project related impacts and potential mitigation measures. However, at this time, since no development is being approved, a less than significant impact to traffic is anticipated as a result of the proposed UDC amendment. c. -h.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendment to the. UDC does not authorize any development at this time. Therefore, the proposed amendment would have no impacts on City traffic systems including emergency routes, parking capacity, pedestrian or bicycle routes, air traffic patterns, or increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Future development projects would be required to comply with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, the City's roadway design and parkway standards, and all adopted policies, plans, and programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, the proposed amendment would have a less than significant impact on traffic. 36 Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 30 of 31 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. -g.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendment to the City's Unified Development Code does not include any development at this time. Therefore, the project would not result in the construction of new water facilities, expansion of existing facilities, affect drainage patterns, water treatment services, and furthermore, no impacts to the City's landfill capacity` would occur. Any subsequent development would be required to comply with the City's General Plan and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and all applicable utility purveyors. Compliance with these requirements would ensure all federal, state and local statutes and imposed regulations are met. Therefore, a less than significant impact to utilities or service systems is anticipated with the proposed amendment. XVIII. MANDATORY a. -c.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendment to FINDINGS OF the UDC are not anticipated to have a significant impact on the SIGNIFICANCE 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 UDC amendment may apply to future development projects within the City. However, the proposed amendment does not remove any established City regulations that protect any .plant and animal species. Due to the nature of the proposed UDC amendment, the proposal would not contribute to any cumulative impacts and would not cause environmental effects that would adversely affect humans. Rather, the proposed UDC amendment is intended to guide future development throughout the city. Therefore, the proposed project would have no significant impact that could result in a Mandatory Findings of Significance. XIV. 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)). However, the proposed UDC amendment 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 amendment 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. Master Case 11-120 UDC 11-003 Page 31 of 31 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPLICATION: Master Case I 1-120; Unified Development Code Amendment 11-003 PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Santa Clarita is preparing an amendment to Chapter 17 of the City's Municipal Code creating a Historic Preservation Ordinance. This subsection would amend the definition of a potential historic resource within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and is available for a public review period, during which the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department will begin receiving comments at 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2011. During the public review period a copy of the draft Negative Declaration and all supporting documents was -located at the Permit Center located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. A copy of the draft Negative Declaration (without all supporting documents) was posted at the City of Santa Clarita Library, Valencia Branch during the public review period noted above. The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: September 27, 2011 TIME: 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City of Santa Clarita, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita, at or prior to, the public hearing. For further information regarding this proposal, please contact the case planner at the City of Santa Clarita Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Project Planner: David Peterson, Assistant Planner Il. Dated: September 6, 2011 Sara Gorman City Clerk Publish Date: September 6, 2011 317 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting held August 23, 2011, continued a public hearing on MASTER CASE 10-35: AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 17.03.145 AND 17.07.010 AND ADDITION OF SECTIONS 17.01.180, 17.03.146 OF THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CREATE A NEW HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA — A request to the City Council for direction to staff on modifications to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. to a date uncertain. Dated this 24`" day of August, 2011. SARAH P. GORMAN, ESQ. . CITY CLERK *************************************************************** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA SARAH GORMAN, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on August 24, 2011,. she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. z -7 aZdLL. SARAH P. GORMA , SQ. CITY CLERK Santa Clarita, California SACIT)Allublic Iearings\Cominued P I I Historic to Dace Uncertain.doc