The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-07-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - UDC HISTORIC PRESERVATION (2)Agenda Item: '12- CITY !2CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: David Peterson DATE: July 12, 2011 SUBJECT: 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. DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council open the public hearing and provide direction to staff on any modifications to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance and continue the public hearing until August 23, 2011. BACKGROUND On September 9, 2008, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita adopted Ordinance 08-14 establishing an interim Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance). At that time, the City Council directed staff to return to the City Council at a later date with a more comprehensive ordinance. In 2008, staff began working with the historic preservation consultant, Historic Resources Group (HRG) to draft an ordinance to replace the existing interim ordinance. In summary, the proposed ordinance would: • Establish a process and findings for the designation of a historic landmark and identifying the property owner, Director of Community Development, the Planning Commission or the City Council to initiate the process to designate a historic landmark. Designation of property would be subject to City Council approval. • Establish a process and findings for the alteration, relocation and/or demolition of designated historic landmarks. This entitlement, called a Certificate of Appropriateness Co�in uedT�� (COA), would be subject to Planning Commission approval. Note that most property maintenance activities are exempt from the COA process. • Establish penalties for the illegal alteration, relocation and/or demolition of potentially historic or designated historic landmarks. Relocation and/or demolition would be subject to City Council approval. • Establish a set of incentives for property owners of designated historic landmarks. These incentives include Mills Act tax relief, having no fees associated with the COA entitlement process, and use of the California Historic Building Code. HRG conducted an evaluation of 45 properties identified by the City's General Plan and the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan. Each property was evaluated using established criteria by the State of California (California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523 forms). Those properties that met these criteria were then identified as properties eligible to receive a historic designation by the draft ordinance. HRG worked closely with the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society (Historical Society) while completing the property reports. HRG's survey concluded that 27 of the 45 properties are eligible for a historic designation. The list of eligible properties is attached to this staff report as "Exhibit A." The list of properties not deemed eligible is attached to this staff report as "Exhibit B." Designated properties would be consistent with the City's new general plan. Properties that carry a Sate or federal historic designation of any kind were not considered by the survey. Examples include the Pioneer Oil Refinery, Beale's Cut, and Lyons Station. Following the survey, HRG completed a comprehensive report on its findings. This report included an additional list of over 100 properties submitted by various stakeholders throughout the Santa Clarita Valley that could be considered for evaluation at a future date. Additionally, HRG provided recommended language for a proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. Planning Commission Recommendation On February 15, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at its regularly scheduled meeting. At that time, the Planning Commission heard a presentation regarding the Ordinance and public testimony and continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow staff more time to gather information on four specific topics. The topics were: • Including an opt -out clause; • Including additional incentives; • Creating an independent Historic Preservation Committee; and • Including penalties for the illegal demolition of a designated historic structure. On May 17, 2011, staff returned to the Planning Commission and presented the information that had been requested. Based on deliberation, input from the community and the staff report, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 0 • Adopt the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance; • Include an opt -out clause in the Ordinance for designation of historic properties; • Include additional incentives for owners of historic properties including technical assistance and streamlined permitting; • Include penalty language for the illegal demolition of historic structures; • Include a historic plaque/monument program to identify properties that have historic significance but whose owners have opted out of the designation process; and • Include language that would exempt underlying property owned by Los Angeles County or the State of California from the Ordinance. Staff has included this recommendation in the proposed Ordinance language. Although not included in the motion, the Planning Commission discussed the following at length: • Creating a qualified, independent Historic Preservation Committee instead of having the Planning Commission serve that function. The Planning Commission concluded that if the Ordinance contains an opt -out clause that there is no need for an independent committee; and • That any penalties included in the Ordinance should exceed those penalties that currently exist for illegal demolition of non -historic properties. Community Meetings Between November, 2010 and the present, City staff has conducted 13 meetings with the community. These include meetings with property owners and stakeholders, the City Council Subcommittee on Economic Development and Redevelopment, the Newhall Redevelopment Committee, the Historical Society, the Old Town Newhall Association and two public hearings before the Planning Commission. Staff has received several letters from the community including five property owners who wish to be removed from the list of potentially designated properties. At meetings with property owners and stakeholders, staff received the following feedback: • Any new Historic Preservation Ordinance include an opt out clause for designation of historic properties. The Planning Commission also recommends an opt out clause; • Any new Historic Preservation Ordinance should include the creation of a Historic Preservation Committee independent of the Planning Commission with all or part of its membership comprised of credentialed individuals in the fields of law, architecture, real estate and/or history. The Planning Commission also recommends an independent, qualified committee; • Any new Historic Preservation Ordinance should establish a three to five year moratorium on building permits for the illegal demolition of historic structures. The Planning Commission did not recommend a specific penalty; • Any new Historic Preservation Ordinance should include more incentives. The Planning Commission recommends including technical assistance and streamlined permitting; and • That the entirety of the City be noticed regarding any additional community meetings held on the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Planning Commission recommendation does not address this issue. At its meeting on May 2, 2011, the Newhall Redevelopment Committee passed the following motions: • A recommendation to the City Council to adopt a new Historic Preservation Ordinance. The motion passed seven votes to zero. The Planning Commission also recommends the adoption of a new ordinance; • A recommendation to the Planning Commission that the ordinance not include an opt -out clause for the designation of historic properties. The motion passed four votes to three. The Planning Commission recommends including an opt out clause; • A recommendation to the Planning Commission that the ordinance include the creation of an independent, qualified Historic Preservation Committee. The motion passed seven votes to zero. The Planning Commission also recommends an independent, qualified committee; and • A recommendation to the Planning Commission that the ordinance include a five-year moratorium on building permits for designated structures that are demolished illegally. They also recommend the property owner pay triple the building permit fee for any new construction on the property. The motion passed seven votes to zero. The Planning Commission did not recommend a specific penalty. TERNATIVE ACTION Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Properties Recommended for Designation Exhibit B: Properties Not Recommended for Designation Exhibit C: Draft Ordinance Community Correspondence available in the City Clerk's Reading File City Comparison Matrix available in the City Clerk's Reading File Neg Dec and Initial Study available in the City Clerk's Reading File FA "EXHIBIT A" PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION NO Address I I iloric Name Property Name Current Photograph #6) Tom Mix Minsterio Lluvias s 24247-24251 Cottages #1 de Gracia; Main Street and #2 The Needleworks; 1, (formerly San Antiques Fernando Road) Tj #7) Beneficial Loans Envios de Dinero; 24307-24311 Newhall Coin Main Street Laundry; Boost S` (formerly San Mobile; Nagco Fernando Road) Glass NOTE:NRC recommends removing from list. #8) Frew Blacksmith Joyeria 24311-24313 Shop Electronics; Main Street Envios de Dinero; (formerly San film rental store Fernando Road) #9) Army Surplus; 24317-24321 Vallaryha Main Street Services; Army (formerly San Surplus; National l Fernando Road) Glass; Kar-lins Krafts; Preferred NOTE: NRC Glass recommends removing from list. #10) Newhall 24322 Main Street Hardware (formerly San Fernando Road) NOTE: Property owner wishes to have property removed from list. 1 1, 22908-22916 Market Street NOTE: Property owner wishes to have property removed from __ — list. #12) Callahan's Callahan's 24151 Newhall Schoolhouse; Schoolhouse; Avenue (formerly Little Red School Little Red School San Fernando House House Road), Heritage Junction Historic Park #13) Edison House Edison House 24151 Newhall Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road), Heritage Junction Historic Park #14) Kingsburry Kingsburry House 24151 Newhall House Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road), Heritage Junction Historic Park #15) Mitchell Adobe Mitchell Adobe 24151 Newhall Schoolhouse Schoolhouse Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road), Heritage Junction Historic Park #16) Newhall Ranch Newhall Ranch 24151 Newhall House House Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road), Heritage Junction Historic Ijlllllllll Park • #17) Ramona Chapel Ramona Chapel 24151 Newhall Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road), Heritage Junction Historic Park #18) First Baptist Queen of Angels 24244 Newhall Church of Church; Church Avenue Newhall of Christ; Seventh Day NOTE: Property Adventist Church ; owner wishes to i have property removed from list. #19) Melody Ranch Melody Ranch 24757 Oakcreek Avenue NOTE: Property owner wishes to have property removed from list. #20) California Star 24148 Pine Street Oil Company and Standard Oil House #21) Santa Clarita Railroad Cafd 24307 Railroad Courthouse; Avenue Masonic --- Lodge • #22) Old Newhall Jail 24522 Spruce Street k(ldress Historic Name Property Name Current Photograph #23) American Legion 24527 Spruce Hall; Street formerly American Theater Company; SAM Rocket monument — #24) 24326 Walnut 4 �" Street #25) 24328 Walnut Street y = #26) Emile Chaix Boy Scouts 24338 Walnut Residence Service Center Street NOTE: Property owner wishes to have property removed from _ list. #27) Erwin Bungalow 24287 Newhall Avenue 9 "EXHIBIT B" PROPERTIES NOT RECOMMENDED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION Address t1istoric Name Property Name Current Photograph #1) Newhall Tan Medical 24237 Main Street Community Group (formerly San Hospital Fernando Road) 6w #2) Canyon Theatre 24242 Main Street Guild (formerly San Fernando Road) ` #3) Doty Garage The Source 24254 Main Street (formerly San Fernando Road) #4) Mercado Jalisco 24258 Main Street (formerly San Femando Road) #5) Newhall Sundries; 24263 Main Street Farmacia (formerly San Mexicana; Fernando Road) Fantasy Flowers /b Address Historic Name Property Name Current Photograph #6) Kelly's Bar Sofia J. Baitzar, 24264 Main Street DDS Family (formerly San Dentistry; Fernando Road) Newhall Photo Center #7) Newhall Bakery 24265 Main Street (formerly San Fernando Road) #8) Repertory East 24266 Main Street Playhouse; (formerly San Howdy Cleaners Fernando Road) #9) H&H Auto Parts Cookbooks; S&M 24267 Main Street Insurance = (formerly San ' wi Fernando Road) #10) Newhall Five & El Trocadero 24270-24274 Main Dime Restaurant; — Street Western States (formerly San Trophy Center; Fernando Road) Valencia Cyclery #11) Newhall Baking Planet Soccer 24331 Main Street (formerly San Fernando Road) NOTE:NRC recommends adding to Exhibit A. 1a Address Historic Name Property Name Current Photograph #12) Hubbard's Maria's Beauty 24333-24335 Main Salon; Botanica Street (formerly La Santisma; San Fernando Allards Dry Road) Cleaners #13) Bank of America Valley Worship 24346 Main Street Center (formerly San Fernando Road) #14) Valencia Bicycles; lit f 24353-24355 '/3 Soccer and More; Main Street Valencia Color f (formerly San Lab; H&R Block Fernando Road) #15) Discoteca 24363 Main Street (formerly San Fernando Road) #16) Newhall Radio & EI Mas Cafe 24367 Main Street TV (formerly San ; Fernando Road) #17) 24362 Walnut Street 1a EXHIBIT C PROPOSED ORDINANCE LANGUAGE WITH STRIKETHROUGHS NI�INIA�IMMIAI�INi 17Nr�� i I IY i NOW �lN�pll ly �� ..............�� lIII�it �. Fenejns 15 17.01.180 Demolition or Relocation of a Structure or Building Upon receipt of an application for a permit to demolish a building or structure, the building official shall forward the application to the Community Development Department. The Community Development Department shall determine if the building or structure is a designated Historic Landmark. A. Historic Resource Enforcement The following enforcement actions are applicable as described below: 1. Designated Historical Resource; If a designated Historic Landmark is demolished without a Certificate of Appropriateness, as required by this Chapter or a Demolition Permit, and is not restored or reconstructed as required by [17.03.146], no City building or construction -related permits shall be issued, and no City permits or use of the subject property shall be allowed, from the date of demolition for a period of ten (10) years. 16 Z. ■ . . - MOWN .. ...W MW 17.01.180 Demolition or Relocation of a Structure or Building Upon receipt of an application for a permit to demolish a building or structure, the building official shall forward the application to the Community Development Department. The Community Development Department shall determine if the building or structure is a designated Historic Landmark. A. Historic Resource Enforcement The following enforcement actions are applicable as described below: 1. Designated Historical Resource; If a designated Historic Landmark is demolished without a Certificate of Appropriateness, as required by this Chapter or a Demolition Permit, and is not restored or reconstructed as required by [17.03.146], no City building or construction -related permits shall be issued, and no City permits or use of the subject property shall be allowed, from the date of demolition for a period of ten (10) years. 16 2. Potential or Eliaible Historic Resource. If a Potential Historic Resource or any other building, structure or object that is eligible for designation as a Historic Resource is demolished without a Certificate of Appropriateness as required by this Chapter or a Demolition Permit, and is not restored or reconstructed as required by [17.03.146], no City building or construction -related permits shall be issued for a period of five (5) years. 3 All Other Structures. If a building, structure or object that is not a designated Historic Resource or Potential Historic Resource, and is not eligible for designation as a Historic Resource, is demolished without a Certificate of Appropriateness as required by this Chapter or a Demolition Permit, no City building or construction -related permits shall be issued for a period of twelve (12) months. This penalty applies solely to illegal demolition of primary structures on a site and does not apply to accessory structures. In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, failure to maintain a Historic Resource as specified shall constitute a public nuisance resulting in the issuance of an order that the owner perform the maintenance necessary to comply with this section. Any failure to comply with such an order shall entitle the City to cause the maintenance to be performed at the owner's expense and in addition to the penalties provided by this code for violation thereof, such cost may be recovered of such owner or occupant by civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. In addition, any such costs shall become a lien against the Owner's property. B. Application of Penalties. 1. For purposes of this Section, the demolition shall be presumed to have occurred on the date the City has actual knowledge of the demolition. The owner shall have the burden of proving a different date if one is claimed. 2. The Community Development Director shall provide notice by certified mail of the applicability of this section to the property owner and any other person known to have an interest in the property, as soon as practicable after having knowledge that the provisions of this Section are applicable to the subject property. The date the City first had actual knowledge of the demolition shall be stated in the notice. 3. The Community Development Director's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. 4. The Planning Commission may grant relief from the requirements of this section if the following findings are made: a) If the violation of this section did not involve a Historic Resource; or b) If it finds that the new construction serves an overriding public benefit and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the project site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare. /7 5. The applicant and/or Owner may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. 6. The City Council shall consider the appeal at a public hearing noticed and conducted in accordance with 17.01.100 The City Council's action on the appeal shall be final. 17.03.145 Historic Landmark Designation A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide procedures and requirements to designate a landmark as historic and to promote, protect and preserve public and private historic, cultural, and natural resources which are of special historic or aesthetic character or interest by establishing procedures that are necessary to: 1. Implement the City's historic preservation goals, policies, and programs; 2. Promote the identification, documentation, and evaluation of the significance of historic resources; 3. Encourage preservation, restoration, rehabilitation and maintenance of historic resources, and protect historic resources from demolition and inappropriate alterations; 4. Recognize the City's historic resources as important economic assets, and integrate historic preservation into community economic development strategies for sustainable development and to promote adaptive reuse of historic structures; 5. Fulfill the City's responsibilities regarding historic resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Section 106; and 6. Maintain elements of the natural landscape that contribute to the historic character of the City. B. Initiation Nominations for Historic Landmarks may be initiated by the Owner of the property or structure that is proposed for designation, Community Development Director, Planning Commission, or City Council. Property and structures owned by the state of California or county of Los Angeles are not subject to the city of Santa Clarita's zoning powers. Privately owned structures located on property owned by the state of California or the county of Los Angeles are subject to the city of Santa Clarita's zoning powers and to the powers of this ordinance and may be nominated as set forth in this ordinance generally, but any such nomination shall only apply to the structure and shall not apply to the underlying property. 1E C. Application Applications and fees shall be submitted pursuant to Section 17.01.090 of this development code. There shall be a work moratorium on the project site proposed for designation once the application is submitted, while the Planning Commission public hearing or the City Council's decision is pending. During the moratorium, demolition or alteration permits will not be issued. The work moratorium will end upon the earlier of the City Council's decision on the proposed designation, a moratorium termination date designated by the City Council, or one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the date of commencement of the moratorium. D. Applicability The Santa Clarita Historic Resources Inventory is a list that includes sites, buildings, structures, objects or districts included on any list of historic or cultural resources, including, but not limited to, the Santa Clarita General Plan, the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, or any associated Environmental Impact Reports, except for properties upon which such previously identified sites, buildings, structures, objects or districts no longer exists as of the effective date of this ordinance. The Historic Resources Inventory shall be kept on file with the Community Development Department. E. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission shall be an advisory board to the City Council on nominations for historic designation. The Commission shall perform the following actions: 1. Recommend to the City Council that certain sites, buildings, structures, objects or districts having a significant historical, cultural, architectural, community or aesthetic value as part of the heritage of the City be designated as Historic Landmarks. 2. Review and make recommendations on periodic updates to the Historic Resource Survey. 3. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and provide notification as prescribed in Section 17.01.100. The Planning Commission action shall be in the form of a resolution, recommending that the City Council approve the designation as applied for or in a modified form. The action of the Planning Commission on a denial is final unless appealed to the City Council. F. City Council Action After receipt of the Planning Commission's action the City Council shall hold a public hearing and provide notification as prescribed in Section 17.01.100. The City Council may amend or rescind any designation of a Historic Landmark in the same manner and procedure as was followed for the original designation. VA In rescinding or amending the designation of a Historic Landmark, the City Council must make the finding that it no longer meets the appropriate designation criteria due to at least one of the following: 1. New information that compromises the significance of the Historic Resource; or 2. Destruction of the Historic Resource through a catastrophic event that has rendered the resource a hazard to public health, safety, or welfare; or 3. The Historic Resource has been demolished or removed. G. Findings A building, structure, or object may be designated as a Historic Landmark if it possesses sufficient character -defining features and integrity, and meets at least one of the following criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the historical, archaeological, cultural, social, economic, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural development of the City, State or Nation; or 2. Is associated with persons significant in the history of the City, State or Nation; or 3. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or 4. Has a unique location, singular physical characteristic(s), or is a landscape, view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City; or 5. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the history or prehistory of the City, State, or Nation. H. Final Action The decision of the approving authority is final. 17.03.146 Certificate of Appropriateness A. Purpose The purpose of a Certificate of Appropriateness is to promote, protect and preserve public and private historic, cultural, and natural resources which are of special historic or aesthetic character or interest. B. Application Applications and fees shall be submitted pursuant to Section 17.01.090 of this development code. C. Applicability It shall be unlawful for any person, owner, or entity to directly or indirectly alter, remodel, demolish, grade, remove, construct, reconstruct, or restore any Historic Resource or any site, building, structure, object or district listed in the Historic Resources Inventory without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness with approval from the Planning Commission in the case of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a non-exempt modification or activity and the City Council in the case of a hardship waiver, demolition or relocation of a Historic Recourse or Potential Historic Resource . The provisions for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be construed to prevent ordinary Maintenance and Repair, which does not change the design, materials, architectural elements, or site features of a Historic Resource or a Potential Historic Resource. The Director of Community Development may exempt the following activities from the Certificate of Appropriateness procedures subject to appropriate building permits: 1. Routine maintenance and minor repairs; 2. Exterior painting; 3. Replacing deteriorated roofing materials with the same type of material already in use; 4. Replacing damaged chimneys with the same type already in use; 5. Addition or removal of screens, awnings, canopies and similar incidental appurtenances; 6. Addition or removal of exterior walls and fences; 7. Addition or removal of exterior lighting; 8. Addition or removal of landscaping; 9. Addition or removal of driveways and walkways; 10. Interior alterations, including the addition or removal of fixed or movable cases, shelving and partitions not exceeding six feet in height; carpeting, hardwood or tile flooring, counters of countertops and similar finish work (unless a Historic Resource designation includes interior features). 11. Temporary motion picture, television and theatre stage sets and scenery. 12.Relocation of a privately owned, historically designated structure from a property owned by the state of califomia or the county of los angeles to another site within the city of santa clarita. The Community Development Director can issue an Emergency Certificate of Appropriateness if it is determined that demolition, removal, or substantial alteration of a Historic Resource is immediately necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. D. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and provide notification as prescribed in Section 17.01.100. The Planning Commission shall approve, approve with modifications and/or conditions, deny, or continue the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a non-exempt modification or activity. In the instances of demolition or relocation of a Historic Recourse or Potential Historic Resource or Hardship Waiver, the Planning Commission action shall be in the form of a resolution, recommending that the City Council approve the designation as applied for or in a modified form. A recommendation of the Planning Commission for denial is final and effective unless an appeal is filed, in writing, with accordance with Section 17.01.120 for Planning Commission action. E. Action by the City Council After receipt of the Planning Commission's action the City Council shall hold a public hearing and provide notification as prescribed in Section 17.01.100. The City Council may approve, amend or deny demolition or relocation of a Historic Resource or a Potential Historic Resource, revocation of a Certificate of Appropriateness, or issuance of a Hardship Waiver. F. Findings The review and decision on the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness will be approved by the Planning Commission. Community Development staff, with approval from the Community Development Director, shall review the application and detailed information (plans, drawings, agreements) as necessary to describe the intended work, deem it complete, and then schedule the item for consideration by the Planning Commission. 1. The Planning Commission shall approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for non-exempt modifications or activities based on the following findings: a) The proposed work is found to be consistent with applicable Design Guidelines adopted by the City Council; b) In the absence of applicable design guidelines, the proposed work is found to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; c) Any with a Historic Landmark Designation may, upon request of the applicant for a certificate of appropriateness, be subject to the provisions of the California Historical Building Code if the work is required to comply with the Secretary on the Interior's Standards; and , d) The California Historical Building Code may also apply to Potential Historic Resources if the City Council determines that the property qualifies for the Historic Landmark Designation. A building or structure with a Historic Landmark Designation shall not be demolished unless the City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, makes one or more of the following findings: a) There is sufficient evidence, including evidence provided by the applicant, that the property retains no reasonable economic use, taking into account the condition of the structure, its location, the current market value, and the costs of rehabilitation to meet the requirements of the building code or other City, state or federal law; b) That the demolition or relocation of the structure is necessary to proceed with a project consistent with and supportive of identified goals and objectives of the General Plan, and the demolition of the structure will not have a significant effect on the achievement of the purposes of this division or the potential effect is outweighed by the benefits of the new project; c) In the case of an application for a permit to relocate, that the structure may be moved without destroying its historic or architectural integrity and importance; or, d) That the demolition or relocation of the structure is necessary to protect or to promote the health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of the City, including the need to eliminate or avoid blight or a nuisance. Upon completion of appropriate environmental review, and upon making the determination that there are no feasible alternatives to demolition, the City Council may direct the Building Official to issue the permit. G. Expiration A Certificate of Appropriateness shall expire one (1) year from the date of issuance unless work is started within that time. No changes shall be made to the approved plans after the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness without resubmittal and determination of the necessary approval process for the proposed changes. H. Final Action Decisions by the City Council are final. I. Revocation Revocation proceedings may be initiated upon a motion by the Director of Community Development, Planning Commission or the City Council. Once revocation proceedings have been initiated, all work being done in reliance upon such certificate or associated permits shall be immediately suspended until a final determination is made regarding the a3 revocation. The decision to revoke a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be made by the City Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission following a noticed public hearing in conformance with Section 17.01.100; a Certificate of Appropriateness may be revoked or modified for any of the following reasons: Noncompliance with any terms or conditions of the Certificate of Appropriateness; Noncompliance with any provisions of this chapter; or A finding of fraud or misrepresentation used in the process of obtaining the Certificate of Appropriateness. I Maintenance Requirements. Designated Historical Buildings or structures shall be maintained in the following manner: I. The structure shall be maintained in good repair. 2. The structure shall be maintained in watertight condition to preclude decay problems caused by water. Deteriorated, insufficient, or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations, floors, windows, or doors shall be promptly addressed to prevent further decay, deterioration, or possibility of injury to the public and/or the property. 3. The fagade shall be properly maintained through repair, paint, or any necessary treatment, so as to prevent decay, water or moisture intrusion, damage to the structure, and/or injury to the public. Defective or insufficient weather protection for exterior treatments and facades, including lack of paint or protective covering shall be promptly addressed, and repaired or stabilized to prevent further decay, deterioration, and possibility of injury to members of the public and/or property. 4. Roof, foundation, and structure shall be maintained through proper treatment and repair to prevent decay, demolition by neglect, loss of historic materials and features, damage to the structure, and/or injury to the public. Defective materials or deterioration which may cause any or all portions of roofs, foundations, walls, or other structural members to deteriorate shall be promptly addressed, and repaired or stabilized to prevent further decay, deterioration, loss of historic fabric, and possibility of injury to members of the public and/or property. 5. Buildings elements such as cornices, chimneys, etc. shall be properly maintained to prevent decay, demolition by neglect, loss of historic fabric, and possibility of injury. Deteriorated or defective building elements shall be promptly addressed, and repaired or stabilized to prevent further decay, deterioration, loss of historic fabric, and possibility of injury to members of the public and/or property. K. Hardship Waivers. The purpose of this section is to address circumstances in which the applicant for a proposed project to demolish, alter or relocate, in whole or in part, a Historic Resource or a Potential Historic Resource, or asserts that full compliance with all of the requirements of this ordinance create an undue economic hardship, or is infeasible for other specific reasons. Under such circumstances, a project feasibility assessment shall be required to determine the nature and extent of the economic or other hardship, and to assess the impact of the proposed project on the Historic Resource or the Potential Historic Resource. The applicant shall complete the application provided by the Community Development Director, include all information required, and pay any required fee. The property owner seeking a project approval under a hardship waiver must provide information as necessary to support the application for a hardship determination. The City shall maintain a written policy statement identifying the types of submittal materials required for the consideration of a hardship waiver. Different submittal materials may be required depending upon the property's use and circumstances. Necessary studies, evaluations and the compilation of required information shall be provided at the applicant's own expense. Upon receiving an application for a Hardship Waiver the Community Development Director shall provide a written response describing the submittal materials required to consider the request pursuant to the following procedure: 1. Upon receipt of an application and required submittal materials, the Community Development Director shall determine its completeness. If the Director determines that the application is not complete, the applicant will be notified in writing as to the deficiencies. The Community Development Director will take no further steps to process the application until the deficiencies have been remedied. 2. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Community Development Director shall conduct an evaluation of the proposed designation and shall make a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to whether a hardship waiver is justified for the proposed project. The Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider whether a hardship waiver is justified for the proposed project. If the proposed project is to demolish, in whole or in part, a Historic Resource or Potential Historic Resource, all property owners within 1000 feet of the project location shall be notified at least ten (2 1) days prior to the meeting. 3. If the Planning Commission determines that a hardship waiver is not justified for the proposed project, the project applicant and all owners of the subject property shall be notified of such determination, and the process shall terminate; except that any person may appeal the decision to the City Council within ten (21) days of the Planning Commission's determination. 4. If the Planning Commission determines that a hardship waiver for the proposed project is justified, or justified with modifications and/or conditions, the Community Development Director shall schedule the matter for consideration by the City Council and submit a written report to the City Council incorporating the Commission's recommendation and its reasons in support of the proposed hardship waiver. If the proposed project is to demolish, in whole or in part, a Historic Resource or Potential Historic Resource, all property owners within 1000 feet of the project location shall be notified at least ten (2 1) days prior to the meeting. 5. If the City Council approves, or approves with modifications and/or conditions, a hardship waiver for a proposed project, it shall make findings in writing subject to the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). L. Hardship Waiver Findings. 1. For an income-producing property that is a Historic Resource or a Potential Historic Resource, the basis for approval of a hardship waiver shall be that a reasonable rate of return cannot be obtained from the property in its present condition or if rehabilitated. 2. For a non -income producing property that is a Historic Resource or a Potential Historic Resource, the basis for the approval of a hardship waiver shall be that the property no longer provides beneficial public, private or institutional benefit to the community, and that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the community's Historic Resources. Non- income producing properties shall consist of owner -occupied dwellings or properties owned by institutional, non-profit organizations, or public entities. 3. The following circumstances shall not be considered as part of the feasibility assessment: a) Willful or negligent acts by the property owners, occupants, or managers; b) Purchase of the property for substantially more than market value; c) Failure to perform ordinary maintenance and repairs; d) Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants; or e) Failure to provide normal tenant improvements. 4. If a Hardship Waiver is approved for a project to demolish, in whole or in part, a Historic Resource or Potential Historic Resource, the project applicant may be required to take measures including, but not limited to, the following prior to any demolition: a) Document all site, buildings, structures or objects that are to be demolished, using the Historic American Buildings Survey and/or the Historic American Engineering Record standards when determined to be applicable by the Community Development Director; and b) Salvage building materials, architectural elements or other features deemed valuable for other preservation activities within the City. M. Preservation Incentives. In addition to any other incentive of federal or state law, the owner of a designated Historic Landmark may apply for the following incentives, subject to the discretion of the City Council: 1. Use of the California Historic Building Code. Whenever applicable, the Owner may elect to use the California Historic Building Code for alterations, restorations, new construction, removal, relocation, or demolition of a designated Historic Landmark, in any case which the building official determines that such use of the code does not endanger the public health or safety, and such action is necessary for the continued preservation of the resource. Such use of the Code is subject to construction work undertaken for resources pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and that has already been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and/or City Council in conjunction with a Certificate of Appropriateness. 2. Mills Act. Historic Property Contracts. This paragraph will implement State law (Government Code 50280-50290), allowing the approval of Historic Property Contracts by establishing a uniform procedure for the owners of qualified historic properties within the City to enter into contracts with the City. 3. Fee Waivers. There shall be no fee to the applicant for receiving a certificate of appropriateness. 17.17.040 Definitions "Addition" is an extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or structure. "Alteration of a Historic Resource" is any change or modification to a Historic Resource requiring a city permit. "Applicant" is the Owner of the structure, building or object, Director of Community Development, Planning Commission or City Council. "California Historic Building Code (CNBC)" is Title 24, Building Standards, Part 8, California Code of Regulations. The intent of the CHBC is to facilitate the preservation and continuing use of qualified historic buildings or properties while providing reasonable safety for the building occupants and access for people with disabilities. "California Register of Historic Resources" is a listing of archaeological and historic resources that meet the criteria for designation in the Register as defined in California Public Resources Code. "Certificate of Appropriateness" is an approved entitlement issued for work on a Historic Resource. V % "Character -Defining Features of a Historic Resource" are the essential physical features that enable a Historic Resource to convey its significance, as outlined in the applicable criteria. It is not necessary for a structure, building or object to retain all of its historic physical features or characteristics; however, the structure, building or object must retain sufficient physical features to enable it to convey its historic identity and without which the structure, building or object can no longer be identified. "Demolition of a Historic Resource" is destruction of a Historic Resource that is so extensive that its historic character is completely removed and cannot be repaired or replaced. "Good Repair of a Historic Resource" is the level of Maintenance and Repair which clearly furthers the continued availability of a Historic Resource for lawful reasonable uses and prevents deterioration, dilapidation, decay, and neglect of such resource. "Hardship Waiver" is an approved certificate issued, in conjunction with a Certificate of Appropriateness, to permit demolition of a Historic Resource. "Historic Landmark" is an individual building, structure or object which is of special historic or aesthetic character or interest and meets at least one of the Criteria for Designating a Historic Landmark. "Historic Resource" is any site, building, structure, object or district listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or the California Register of Historical Resources; or is designated locally as a Historic Landmark; or is listed in a historic resources survey. "Historic Resources Inventory" is a list of sites, buildings, structures, objects or districts included on any list of historic or cultural resources, including, but not limited to, the Santa Clarita General Plan, the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, or any associated Environmental Impact Reports, except for properties upon which such previously identified sites, buildings, structures, objects or districts no longer exists as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section. A listing of these sites, buildings, structures, objects and districts is available at the Community Development Department. "Historic Resources Survey" is the systematic and standardized process for identifying and gathering data on the potential Historic Resources in the City for the purpose of evaluating such resources according to local, State, and/or Federal criteria. "Integrity" of a Historic Resource is the ability of a Historic Resource to convey its significance, with consideration of the following aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. "Maintenance and Repair of a Historic Resource" is any work done to correct or prevent the deterioration, decay of, or damage to a building, structure or lot, or any part thereof, including replacement in-kind where appropriate, and which does not involve a change in the existing design or materials. "National Register of Historic Places" is the nation's official inventory of sites, buildings, structures, objects and districts significant in American history, architecture, archeology and culture which is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., 36 C.F.R. Sections 60, 63). "Owner" is any person, association, partnership, firm, corporation or public entity identified as the holder of title of any structure, building, site or object as may be shown on the records of the City Clerk or on the last assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles, as applicable. The term Owner shall also refer to an appointed representative of an association, partnership, firm, corporation, or public entity which is a recorded Owner. "Period of Significance" is the span of time that a Historic Resource was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics that qualify it for designation. "Potential Historic Resource" is a site, building, structure, object or district on any list of historic or cultural resources, including, but not limited to, the Santa Clarita General Plan, the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, or their associated Environmental Impact Reports, except for properties upon which such previously identified sites, buildings, structures or objects no longer exists as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section. A listing of these sites, buildings, structures or objects will be available at the Community Development Department. "Preservation of a Historic Resource" is the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, Integrity, and materials of a Historic Resource. "Reconstruction of a Historic Resource" is the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non -surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. "Rehabilitation of a Historic Resource" is the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. "Relocation of a Historic Resource" is the act or process of moving a Historic Resource from one site to another site, or to a different location on the same site. "Restoration of a Historic Resource" is the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. �1 "Substantial Alteration to a Historical Resource" is a proposed Alteration to a Historic Resource that may cause a change in its Character -Defining Features. 30 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 10-135; Unified Development Code Amendment 10-008 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 provide provisions for the nomination, alteration, relocation and demolition of historic landmarks within the City of Santa Clarita's boundaries. 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 has been receiving comments since 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 25, 2011. During the public review period a copy of the draft Negative Declaration and all supporting documents was located at the Permit Center Counter 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 Los Angeles County Library, Valencia Branch during the public review period noted above. On February 15, 2011, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing regarding the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and continued the publiu hearing to a date uncertain. On May 17, 2011, the Planning Commission re -opened the public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Historic Preservation Ordinance with specific alterations by a vote of 5 to 0. The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: July 12, 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 II. Dated: June 21, 2011 Kevin Tonoian Interim City Clerk Publish Date: June 21, 2011 31 Page 1 of 2 s David Peterson From: David Peterson Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:55 PM To: 'Michael Guglielmino' Subject: RE: Historical Listing Thank you, Mr. Guglielmino, I will print this email and include it in the project file both as a hard copy and electronically. If you have questions please let me know. In the mean time, have a good weekend. D From: Michael Guglielmino [mailto:mguglielmino@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:11 PM To: David Peterson Subject: Re: Historical Listing Mr. David Peterson City of Santa Clarita Dear Mr. Peterson: I attended your introductory meeting regarding the proposed designation of our property located at 24322 Main St. as a historical site. The property is commonly known as Newhall Hardware: After the meeting 1' made you aware that we are opposed to our property being listed or designated as a historical site. The purpose of this letter is to further confirm our opposition to any historical designation attached to our property, Please let me know if this requested delisting can be achieved without a series of formal meetings. I will be handling this matter in the future, so please add my address and email to all future information, announcements and mailings forthcoming from you or the City in this regard. My addre ,s is: Michael Guglielmino, 19100 Marlia Ct., Tarzana, CA 91356 Ph.: 818-212-0212 Email: mguglielmino@earthlink.net Sincerely, Michael Guglielmino ----Original Message ---- From: David Peterson Sent: Nov 5, 2010 12:06 PM To: "mguglielmino@earthlink.net" 11/5/2010 Page 1 of 1 David Peterson . From: DOMINIC RADECKI [revdominicr@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 20113:18 PM To: David Peterson Subject: Historical Designation Dear David, I hope that you are doing well. Sadly, Queen `of An Catholic Church at 24244 Newhall Avenue has been designated as a historical building. As pastor of the church I request to have our church removed from this list. When we purchased the church in 1993 we were unaware of its status as a historical monument. This listing as a historical building has created numerous problems over the years, with no benefits. Even a simple procedure like replacing the worn out shingles on the roof was a major endeavor. Obviously, since Queen of Angels is a traditional Catholic Church we have a strong attachment to old and precious things; including the Latin Mass and the care of old buildings. We have taken good care of our old church and plan to continue to do. so in the future. Due to the fact that our congregation is continually growing, we may have to sell our church in the future so that we can move into a larger building. The restrictions attached to a historical building will be very unpopular to our potential buyers. Our church is a public building. Therefore we request to be freed from the restrictions imposed on our church by the historical society and the city of Santa Clarita. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Rev. Dominic Radecki,CMRI pastor of Queen of Angels Catholic Church 2/3/2011 Page 1 of 1 David Peterson From: Mary Hodson [molly_hodson@sbcglobal.netj Sent: Monday, January 31, 20114:46 PM To: David Peterson Cc: molly_hodgon@sbcglobal.net Subject: 22908 Market Street, Newhall I feel that the list of properties proposed by the city" of Santa Clarita was poorly researched and many of the properties listed seem to have been arbitrarily picked to provide potential homes to Santa Clarita by the initial investigators. My property cited above was built in 1910. Nothing of note, pertinent to the history o£ Santa Clarita, happened in either of this houses. An interview I had with a 95 year old neighbor employed at the senior center confirmed this. The only reason this property was placed on the list was age. Originally, to be considered, the properties had to meet several criteria. Age was just one. None of the others applied to this property. Much ado was made over the fact that exterior modifications to the subject properties would need to be extensively reviewed to make sure the property was not modified or changed. Over the years almost the entire exterior of the main house has been changed. The siding, the roof, the windows, exterior doors, and structure itself have all been modified. Nothing on the outside is original, so what you would be protecting is not even historical in age. I am a firm believer in private property rights. When I buy a property I take care of it and mal:.- sure it's an asset to a neighborhood. I strongly resent the city, based on a poorly drawn past list, deciding my property is historical. It's old, it's charming, and it is not historical. Please remove me from the historic prop. list. Sincerely, Mary (Molly) Hodso 2/3/2011 R H C E I V E PLANNING DIVISION February 1, 2011 FES 4.4 2011 Jeff W. Hogs CM OF AICP Interim Planning Manager Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 10-135; Unified Development Code Amendment 10-008 Dear Mr. Hogan and Honorable Planning Commissioners: As a past -presidents ofthe Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, my wife, Cynthia, and myselfknow the value ofretaining, restoring,. and maintaining real historical buildings and sites. Yourproposed ordinance is very restrictive, destructive and punitive rather than rewarding, encouraging, and enticing for property owners to restore and maintain historic properties. By refusing to allow property owners the right to opt out ofthe proposed and potential historic designation list as is allowed with more than one third of the historic ordinances in the U.S., you will create a police state ofrepression rather than encouraging a sense of pride and eagemess in the property owners for historic restoration. We therefore respectfully request that our home, located at 22931 8th Street, Newhall, not be designated a historic resource or a potential resource now or in the future. We wish to maintain ourhome as eligible forhistoric registration but not officially so designated. This still allows us to qualify to utilize the California State Historical Building Code to maintain the historic integrity by using the same materials and methods as in the original construction. . The proposed historic ordinauce must require permission ofthe property owner for designation because there is no realistic criteria for such a designation. It will unfairly and unnecessarily result loss in value with restrictions that will reduce the salability and desirability of the properties. These restrictions will eventually cause an economic loss to the entire -community. Even the California State Historic Landmark designation can only be conferred with the approval, of the property owner. Our suggested changes to the proposed ordinance are as follows: . 1. The purpose and intent of the Ordinance shall be to promote the historic, education, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the preservation, restoration and protection of buildings, structures, and appurtenances, sites, places and elements of historic and archaeologic value and interest within the City of Santa Clarita. v 2. In order to encourage the whole -hearted participation by property owners the City of Santa Clarita shall allow a property owner to refuse to consent to. any form ofhistoric property designation at any point during the designation process. Such refusal to consent shall remove the property from .any form of consideration for historic property designation under the (.ordinance or other law except for consideration or nomination to the Cali.fomia State .or National Register of Historic Places pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (1.6 U.S.C. 479 et seq.). . 3. The City of Santa Clarita shall allow a property ownerto remove their property from a historic property designation that was imposed on the property previously by the city by submitting a written request. - . ' 4. The City of Santa Clarita shall fosterthe.preservation andmaintenance of historic properties in the city.by,,waiving all permit fees forrepairs and restoration work and allow the use ofthe same materials and methods employed in the original building construction in all historic -properties either designated by the city or maintained in readiness for historic designation at some future time depending upon the approval of the property owner. By incorporating the above language there will be no need to impose Draconian restrictions on properties that might be considered historic such as those related to demolition and maintenance. Property owners will be encouraged to nominate their properties for historic designation and be inspired to restore and maintain their historic properties rather than try to demolish or remodel them. ' cerely, Norman H. Harris and Cyn a Neal -Harris 22931 8th Street Newhall, CA 91321 Opposition to the Proposed Santa Clarita Historic Code Master Case 10 -- 135; Unified Development Code Amendment 10 — 008 Submitted to the Santa Clarita Planning Commission February 4, 2011 Many cities and counties have historic preservation codes as well they should. However the City of Santa Clarita proceeded to implement this code in a most improper fashion resulting in a proposal of extremely negative manifestations for the people of the city. Upon considering the following facts I am sure. you will agree that this proposed code in its current form is inappropriate for,the.people of Santa Clarita. Notification Santa Clarita has not held public meetings, prior to its introduction to the Planning Commission, with regards to this code. The exception is a single meeting with a few property owners whose properties are on the list. This code will affect many property owners in the Santa Clarita Valley and more in the future. As in other communities, Santa Clarita must sponsor several well-publicized community meetings with the citizens to explain the advantages and disadvantages of such a code and take comments from the citizens seriously prior to creating the document. Many cities have produced booklets for the citizens to help them get on board and understand the facts. See the Los Angeles guidebook for historic, homes and buildings: hftr)://www,-get.edu/conservationlpublications/pdf publications/historic-homes.pdf & hftg://www.laconservancy.org/preservation/incentives.pd Community development Director The code itself begins by hammering the citizens with what will happen to them if they don't perform - a bad start. There are three city entities involved.in,.this code: the Community Development Director, the Planning Commission, and the.;City. Council. These are the people that determine the legitimacy of historic properties. Are these people qualified to determine the legitimacy of a historic property? Have they been trained in historic preservation? If the answer is no they should recluse themselves from this position. In the proposed code the Planning Commission becomes advisory board to the city Council and nominations for historic designation. Other codes. mandate Historic Preservation Advisory Committees composed of qualified individuals, many requiring architect, designers etc. Our proposed code puts the too much power into the Community Development Director who becomes the historic dictator even though that person may be totally unqualified. The city needs to create an independent historic preservation advisory committee of composed of diverse and uag lified (not just interested) individuals. As with other communities this must be written into the code. Penalties The penalties imposed by this proposed code are totally out of line. I have attached below just one example. Other codes have different types of penalties such as fines, requiring-restoration—some-only-repairs f r -hazardous -conditions, and-others_have_ni maintenance requirements. A thorough study of other codes should be made in this portion of the code completely revised to represent the philosophy of our community. Property owner's approval Historic Resources Group, did a presentation last November for property owners on the existing list, requesting input from those property owners. They indicated that about a third of the communities with historic preservation codes require permission of the property owner before they are listed as historic. The attendees at that meeting unanimously requested that this be put into the Santa Clarita code. City staff said they would pass the recommendation on however it was not put intothe Santa Clarita code. Requiring property owner's approval works, it's done in many cities and counties and fosters cooperation between the property owner and the city. The opposition of course, is that preservation activists and the city have less control over a citizen's property. Economic incentives The Santa Clarita code provides no compelling economic incentives fir the property owner. Our code requires a property owner to pay the city in the form of lower rents lower property values more fees, maintenance dictated by the city and they receive nothing back from the city. An example of economic incentives is Aspen Colorado where they provide zero interest rehabilitation loan fund; conservation easement program; dimensional. variances; increased density; lot split; waiver of fees; conditional uses; exemption from growth management system; technical assistance; reduction in off street parking requirements; TDR program for residential propegies; square footage bonus up to 500 square fee. Some communities even provide grants to help property owners preserve their historic buildings. The City of Santa Clarita economic incentives are on the last page (should be on the first). These are the minimum boiler plate incentives, used in every code and consist of: the use of the California historic building code, the Mills act, and fee waivers. None of these have been introduced and explained to the public. Conclusion This code is basically a skeleton boiler plate code providing little reason for support by the community. Many items need to be modified to become compatible with citizens of Santa Clarita. It appears to be done in secrecy, without community input, without input from affected parties and biased towards the cities aesthetics. concerns versus the rights and welfare of the property. owners affected. Santa Clarita should not become a secret, backdoor dealing "you can find out what's in it after it passes" community and if this code passes it may be well on its way. Thank you, Frank B. Maga, P.E., ECE. 661-245-6951 (Office) y' 661-245-6952 (Fax) 661-993-3975 (Cell) 4 An example of excessive restriction imposed upon Santa Clarita property owners. A. Historical Resource Enforcement Paragraph 1 As an example if you own a commercial building and demoed it without a permit the result would be a loss of income for 10 years, the property unsalable, and the city would have a vacant lot for blight to accumulate and no taxable income for those 10 years. If you own a private residence, no matter what the condition, if in the future it is designated as, historic you'd be so governed. This clause is used in many historic ordinances however 10 years is excessive for the city of Santa Clarita. For example the Pasadena California historic code protects their hundred -year- old craftsman's homes, such the 1910 Historic Bungalow, the Hale -House and the Gamble -House. Demolition of one of these precious monuments results as suspension of constructed related permits for a period of 5 years. The city of Glendale which has many beautiful properties restricts permits for a period of 3 years. However with the city of Santa Clarita's proposed code should you demolish either of the structures below me you'd be restricted for a period of 10 years. Twice the time for demolishing any of the truly historic beauties above! If the cities of Pasadena and Glendale found 5 and 3 years was appropriate to preserve their truly historic buildings. So how is it that the city of Santa Clarita is using twice that of Pasadena and three times that.of Glendale to protect what marginally might be considered to be historic? Common sense dictates that 10 years is not only inappropriate but totally unreasonable. 3 REEC EIVE0 PLANNING DIVISION FEB 0 4 2019 CITY OF SANTA r. or := February 8, 2011 RF.CEI'V EC3. PLANNING DIVISION FEB 1 1 2011 11 Jeff Hodgen, City Planner CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Santa Clarita Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: The Proposed Historic Preservation Plans Dear Mr. Hodgen: I am 77 years of age, moved to Newhall in 1939 just after my sixth birthday, and have lived here ever since. 'I am very familiar with many of the properties that are on the recommended list for historic preservation. I lived through the horror of threats to place my deceased parents' property on such a list in the 90s, after the 1994 earthquake destroyed their old house. A few of the then over -zealous preservation committee members of our local SCV Historical Society caused me and my entire family much distress over this issue and nearly caused a terrible rift within the family. Thanks to a few select members of the Historical Society and a wonderful City employee, we got through the mess, the problems were solved and the preservation people were backed off. I won't go into the details as I don't want to relive it once again. I just don't see the reasoning behind some of the properties that have been. slated for historical designation. It is like people have taken leave of their senses. I am not a historian, local or otherwise, but I do have a fairly good memory. Below, I am going to discuss some of those properties. For those I don't discuss I either don't recall much about them *or feel they could be candidates for some sort of recognition. 22621 13.h St.-Jauregui House. When I was very young I lived only a few houses away from this one. It was merely a rather small, old, house on a nice piece of property. I don't even know who lived there at that time, but it may have been an elderly man who lived there by himself Sometime later the Ed Jauregui family took up residence there and added on to it several times to accommodate their growing family. I know that Ed Jauregui and his brother, Andy, were local "cowboys" who furnished stock to the movie industry and I believe sometimes appeared in western, movies (not as named actors). I cannot believe that tourists would be so interested in either the Jauregui family or this property as to even drive by it. How would they even know about the Jaureguis in the first place? 24229 Main St. -Dental Office. This one is a puzzle to me. When I was young, Dr. Ross, our only dentist, had his office in the back part of the old Newhall Community Hospital. 'Years later he had this. new dental office built. There is certainly nothing historic. about this current building or the property it's on. I don't recall anyone famous ever owning this property so why would anyone want to walk or drive by it? It just doesn't make any sense. 24307-24311 Main St. -Beneficial Loans. Beneficial Loans? They occupied one of those buildings in probably the 1960s and early 1970s. There were many other business there before them, too numerous to mention. However, the old Motor Stage Cafe was on the corner at one time, I guess it did have a history of sorts but these buildings have undergone many transitions since then. I surely don't recall anyone famous ever owning this property either. Again, who would want to view these buildings? 24322 Main St. Newhall Hardware. Why this particular building? I don't believe anyone famous ever owned it. It was a hardware store that began in the 1940s and was a great addition to our downtown area and community at the time. As tune went on and the big hardware stores moved to our area, Newhall Hardware became known as a place to find parts and supplies for older plumbing and older buildings. There are certainly other buildings/store fronts along there that are also noteworthy. One of them was where Bank of America was located when I first came here in 1939. There were old-time local names associated with these buildings but certainly none that would entice either new locals or tourists to make a special effort to investigate. 22908-22916 Market St. Two houses. I know for sure that no one famous ever lived in these houses since 1939 or I would have heard about it. Did someone famous build these houses? If so, and they are in fact included in the final list, is the City going to purchase them and let the Historical Society set up a museum of some sort in them? Otherwise, once again I don't think any tourist would be drawn to view them for any reason. 24244 Newhall Ave. -First Baptist Church of Newhall (???????) I don't think so! Someone ism error here. For many years it was the Seventh Day Adventist Church until they built their new church. After they left I think it was at various times several. other churches until Queen of Angels acquired it. What is historical about it other than possibly the age of the building? If it's placed on that infamous list will tours be given to the tourists that might trickle over from Hart Park? 24307 Railroad Ave. Santa Clarita Courthouse; Masonic Lodge. This was NEVER called "Santa Clarita" Courthouse and it was addressed on Market St. This is a "piece de resistance" to me as I worked in that courthouse for two years in the early 60s. The only thing historical about this building is that it is old. I on't think anybody "famous" ever owned it. No big trials were ever held there as those were held in Superior Courts in other cities. I suppose -there were some famous people who may have briefly appeared in court there before the case was either dismissed or sent on to Superior Court. The Masons used the hall upstairs when I was young for some of their social events but eventually they went elsewhere. Occasionally some other group would hold a function there.. I certainly can't see tourists being so enthralled with the place as to even drive by and look at it. Would the City and/or Historical Society purchase it -arid establish a museum with the hope of drawing people? Otherwise; there would be no point in this property being on the list. 24326 & 24328 Walnut St. These were known as the "Dawson Court". They are indeed "unique". They have been "redone" many times. Yes, I do believe that some common sense reasonable restrictions might be in order here. Is the City/Historical Society planning to purchase these for "show and tell" to the anticipated tourists`? Would they be able to provide some monetary assistance to the owner? If not, I would hope the owner has the means to fight a full-fledged. historical designation. 24338 Walnut St. -Emile Chaix Residence. Yes this house is old and I remember Mrs. Chaix. However, how many tourists from other areas would come here to'see this old house because it belonged to the Chaix family? How many of them would be so interested in our strictly local history? How many of our local residents would even be interested in the Chaix family or even know who they were? COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION "Creating Community Through People, Parks and Programs" Russ Guiney, Director February 15, 2011 Mr. David Peterson, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Peterson: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF MASTER CASE NO. 10-135,' - UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 10-008 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM As discussed yesterday, the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society leases the property known as "Heritage Junction" from the County. This leased area is located adjacent to William S. Hart Regional County Park. As such, the County is the property owner while the Historical Society is the owner of the structures. Unfortunately, the County, as the land owner, was not officially notified of this proposed action before the City Planning Commission tonight therefore, the County respectively requests that this item be held until the Commission's next meeting on March 1, 2011. This time is needed forthe County to have adequate time to consider the ordinance and the historical designation proposed for six of the structures owned by the Historical Society located in Heritage Junction. During this time, we would like to work with City staff as needed to resolve any potential issues before the next Commission meeting. I would also ask that Mr. Russ Guiney, Director . of the Department of Parks and Recreation be added as the person to be officially notified on matters concerning property ownership of Heritage Junction. I have also included contact. information on those who should be copied on any such notification as well. Of course this notification would be in addition to: notification given to the Historical Society as owners of the structures within Heritage Junction. Mr. Russ Guiney, Director Department of Parks. and Recreation County of Los Angeles 433 South Vermont Ave L9s:Angeles, CA 90020 Email: rcluir oyCa)parks.lacounty.gov Phone: 213-738-2951 Planning and Development Agency • $10 South Vermont Ave • Los Angeles,:CA 90020-] 975 • (213) 351-5198 Mr. David Peterson, Assistant Planner II February 15, 2011 Page 2 With copies to: Mr. Hayden Sohm, Deputy Director Regional Agency Facilities Department of Parks and Recreation County of Los Angeles 265 Cloverleaf Drive Baldwin Park, CA 91706-6599 Email: hsohm warks.lacounty.gov Phone: 626-369-8693 Mr. Norm Phillips, Park Superintendent William S. Hart Regional Park Department of Parks and Recreation County of Los Angeles 24151 North San Fernando Road Newhall, CA 91321 Email: n hillir)s(c)parks.lacounty.gov Phone: 661-259-1750 Ms. Kandy Hays, Chief Contracts, Golf and Special Districts Department of Parks and Recreation County of Los Angeles 301 North Baldwin Avenue Arcadia, CA .91007 Email: kmsa)-arks.lacounty.gov Phone: 626-821-4600 We appreciate your consideration of our request for a continuance and look forward to working collaboratively on this proposed amendment to the City's Unified Development Code. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at 213-351- 5126 or by email at irurertCo)-parks.lacounty.gov_. Sincerely, Joan A. Rupert, Section Head Environmental and Regulatory Permitting JRJ1s:Her1tage Junction.doc c: Parks and Recreation (N. E. Garcia., L. Hensley, K. Hays, H. Sohm, N. Phillips) February 15, 2011 Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Dear Planning Commissioners: We would like to thank you for the opportunity to give input on the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. We believe that the preservation of historic resources is very important to the City of Santa Clarita. We also believe that private property rights are equally important. We are recommending three changes to the proposed ordinance: 1) The property owner's permission must be obtained before their property is put on the list of Historic Properties. 2) Economic losses due to placement on the list need to be paid for by the City. 3) The Director of Development should not have the unilateral ability to put properties on the Historic Property list. Thank you for your consideration. The Board of Directors Canyon Theatre Guild Inc. Owners of Property in Santa Clarita at. 24238-24242 Main Street, Newhall ED" TimBen Boydston Executive and Artistic Director Canyon Theatre Guild 24242 MAIN STREET, NEWHALL, CA 91321 OFFICE: (661) 799-2700 RESERVATIONS: (661) 799-2702 . WW W.CANYONTHEATRE.ORG • TAX I D# 95- 2903093 MOTION ,PICTURE STUDIO 24715 Oak Creek -'Newhall, California - (661) 259-9669 FAX (661) 259-3788 RECEIVE.0 March 22, 2011 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 Attn: Paul Brot2man Dear Mr. Brotzman MAR 2 5 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . CITY OF Si NTA CI.ARRA We are surprised to learn that the City of Santa Clarita has placed Melody Ranch on a list of possible historic sites. This letter is to inform the City of Santa Clarita that Melody Ranch is operating a business on this property. Having restrictions like this ordinance would limit our ability to functi'6n as a viable motion picture studio so we request to be removed from any historical designation or preservation ordinance. Thank you for removing us from any such list both now and in the future. Also please see that we receive notice of any further action on this that will be before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission or City of Santa Clarita City Council. Please, in writing, let us know that you have received this letter and that Melody Ranch has been removed. You may contact me by phone 661-259-9669, cell phone 661-510- 5688 or email candy@,melodyranchstudio.com if you have ant questions or issaes to discuss concerning this matter. Sincerely, Melody Ranch The Veluzat Family Candy Veluzat . 'tea ° May 11, 2011 Dear Planning Commissioners, We would like to thank you for the opportunity to give input on the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. We believe that the preservation of historic resources is very important to the City of Santa Clarita. We also believe that private property rights are important as well. We are recommending three changes to the proposed ordinance. 1) The property owner's permission must be obtained before their property is put on the list of Historic Properties. 2) Economic losses due to placement on the list need to be paid for by the City. 3) The Director of Development Should not have the unilateral ability to put properties on the Historic Property list. 4) The Canyon -Theatre Guild requests that both of their properties at 24238 and 24242 Main Street be removed from any and all Historic Preservation lists. Thank you for your consideration. The Board of Directors Canyon Theatre Guild Inc. Owners of property in Santa Clarita at 24238-24242 Main Street, Newhall TimBen Boydston Executive and Artistic Director Canyon Theatre Guild 24242 MAIN STREET • NEWHALL, CALIFORNIA 91321 -OFFICE: (661) 799-2700 RESERVATIONS: (661) 799-2702 • WWW.CANYONTHEATRE.ORG•TAX 1D# 95-2903093 Planning Commissioner 5/1112011 This letter is to express my opposition to your proposed "historical ordinance" It's best by telling you a short story. I, along with my partners own the southeast corner of San Fernando Rd and Sierra Hwy. About six years ago I purchased the property for $2,200,000 with the goal of developing it into something which would be profitable for me and my partners. So I started the entitlement process arid as most of you know, or may not know, the list of approvals from different government entities, fees, and hops which a person has to deal with or jump through are to numerous to list in this letter. Let's suffice it to say the count is on the verge of ludicrous. Fast forward 5 years later, after working thru the process and spending $600,000 in studies, engineering and architects, working with your planning city - its and finally hiring an attorney to talk at the city council meeting the following is the outcome: . 1. The City Council said my project was not going to be approved, even though it met. all the criteria for the redevelopment rules, got approvals of the fish and game and army corp, etc, and all studies done and an MND filed or at least the initial study showed nothing that couldn't be mitigated on site. A clean project. 2. The City Council along with your city planning, Paul Brotzman, decided to redesign my project. In order for their design to be built I would have to purchase the adjacent 7 acres of land. Brotzman and his group designed a project that had no hope of ever surviving in this economic climate or any other one in the foreseeable future. A project doomed for failure, but what should a person expect out of government employee. 3. So the project was pulled by me so the land would not have the stigma of having a failed project on it. On our property, there is an abandon strip of asphalt. During the cities redesign of our project, Larine Weste pushed the issue of preserving the old stripe of asphalt as'old historic hwy 6 and as a matter of fact on the cities design it is listed as such. It is a fact that the asphalt stripe was old hwy 6. In 1968 or so the s,�ate of California took, what is now, the two northbound lanes of Sierra Hwy from the property, which is now ours, and deeded '/z of the old hwy 6 to the property. Additionally they deeded the other '/Z of old hwy 6 to the property east of ours which is presently owned by USC. We both collectively are opposed to your ordinance, we view it as nothing more than a land grab by a government entity know as the City of Santa Clarita driven by a few historical want -a -bee's which are being manipulated by a city council member. Just a suggestion, 1 don't care if you decide to put in a historical ordinance in the city of Santa Clarita just so long as it has the following simple statement attached to it: If some historical idiot decides to nominate a property to have a historical designation, and the property owner does not want that designation, all he or she has to do is say "NO". No argument from the city,"NO" coming down to the planning commission and arguing for hours, it's just "NO". Furthermore the historical designation can't be requested "EVER" again for that property unless the property owner requests it. Lastly one thing you had better NEVER FORGET a persons property is just that their property and there are rights which go along with that property ownership. Be careful not to trample on those right or l!! Sincerely Mike Redmond May 17, 2011 Manuel Santana 25208 Wheeler Road Newhall, CA 91321 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Attn: Planning Commission Re: Historic Preservation Ordinance To Whom It May Concern: My name is Manuel Santana at this time I am not interested in belonging to the City's Historic Preservation District. I am looking at what the State has to offer as far historical recognition. At our last meeting on February 15th, 2011 1 voiced my opinion about not belonging to the City's Preservation District, as it turned out the City's application was rejected. On February 16th, 2011 a warning notice was issued. Since that time the City has managed to issue an administration citation totaling $2,500.00. 1 can't help but think that this is some kind of bulling tactic. The City has managed to damage my jail and now is adding insult to injury. Thank you respectively, Manuel Santana City Of SANTA CLARITA .23920 Valencia Boulevard « Suite 300 + Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 WWW.Santa-clarita.com WAltIgNG NOTICE SANTANA, MANUEL TR' MANUEL SANTANA TRUST 25208 WHEELER RD NEWHALL, CA 91321 RE: 24522 SPRUCE ST APN: 2831-006-009 Case No: CE -11-0075 --Febraa-y 16; 2011 ---- Dear Valued Community Member: The City of Santa Clarita is a great place to live and work because of our dedicated residents and businesses who continue to show pride, care and concern for their property and the community. The City is committed to working with residents, businesses and property owners to ensure that our City remains safe and maintains its quality appearance. This goal cannot be accomplished without your help and support. This letter is to inform you that the City has received information or observed the following issues at 24522 SPRUCE ST that impact the community's appearance and quality of life. The following observation was made: The exterior paint and stucco located on the main building ofproperty is deteriorated, there are multiple areas of the exterior main building that are cracked and irr a .state of disrepair; property line fencing surrounding the side and rear yard areas is unsightly. The following violations violate the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code(s) (SCMC): Code Section Z3.30.040.E - Deteriorated Paint Z3.30.040.H - Fence/Wall/Gate In. Disrepair Z3.30.040.M.13 - Unsightly Property : The following Corrective Actions need to be made: Corrective Action Restore and repaint any and all building(s), wall(s), fence(s) or structure(s) to reflect a condition free of cracking, peeling, or deterioration on property. Paint utilized shall be in harmony or onformity with the standards of adjacent properties. [Repair any and all damaged, broken or hazardous wall(s), fence(s), and orgate(s) on ploerty, openly maintain and repair all building exteriors, grounds, landscape, roof, walls and fencing )n property to be free of any condition of deterioration and disrepair. Obtain City approval and it permits, if applicable, from the City's Permit Center located at City Hall in Suite #140 for any and all repairs or improvements made`to"the building exterior on_propTIy. To verify that the issue(s) have been addressed, please contact me at 661-286-4082. To facilitate a diligent_ response, we respectfully request that you address these concerns no later than March 18, 2011. At that time, a re -inspection of your property will occur. Failure to remedy the above code violations by the re -inspection date may subject you to a citation and will subject you to repaying the City the costs associated with this enforcement action per the Santa Clarita Municipal Code sections 23.40.010 - 23.40.190. These enforcement costs include all legal, administrative and inspection costs associated in gaining your compliance with the municipal code. Once in compliance, you may appeal these enforcement costs under SCMC section 23.40.050 (D). , We welcome any questions that you might have and will work with you to ensure that these - issues are addf6ssed:'-Thaulc. you in advance fa -your resp siveT ess-rd Irelp in -protecting -the — quality of life that we revere in the City. Sincerely, ZL;Q Daniel Rivas Community Preservation 661-2864082 MY of SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard r Suite 300 » Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 www.santa-cictKta.com ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION SANTANA, MANUEL TR MANUEL SANTANA TRUST 25208 WHEELER RD NEWHALL, CA 91321 April. 28, 2011 Dear Valued Community Member; RE: 24522 SPRUCE ST APN: 2831-006-009 Case No: CE -11-0075 Citation No: AC -686 On March 23, 2011 a letter was sent to you regarding the public nuisance condition(s) which exist on your property at 24522 SPRUCE ST. Therefore, an Administrative Citation has been issued for the amount of $ 2500.00 which is now due and payable. PAYMENT: Please mail payment to: City of Santa Clarita Finance Division, Suite 300 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 If compliance is not reached by May 11, 2011, you may be subject to additional monetary fines and/or this matter may be referred to the City Attorney for further action. In addition, this filing will cause the related administrative.and enforcement costs of this action to be assessed against you, the property owner, as permittod by law. r. The following violations violate.the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code(s) (SCMC): Code Section Fine 3.30.040.E Deteriorated Paint $ 500.0 3.30.040.H Fence/Wall/Gate In Disrepair $ 500.0 3.30.040.M.13 Unsiglatly Property $ 500.0 11.68,303 Graffiti Prohibition / Declared Public Nuisance $ 500.0 11.68.503 Graffiti Removal by Property Owner $ 500.0 The following Corrective Actions need to be made: Corrective Action estore and repaint any and all building(s), wall(s), fence(s) or structure(s) to reflect a condition free of cracIdng, peeling, or deterioration on property. Paint utilized shall be in harmony or conformity with the standards of adjacentproperties' Repair any and all damaged, broken or hazardous wall(s), fence(s), and or ate(s) on property. Properly maintenance and repair all building exteriors, grounds, landscape, roof, walls and ening on property to be free of any condition of deterioration and diswepair. Obtain City approval and or permits, if applicable, from the City's Permit Center located at City Hall in Suite 140 for any and all repairs or improvements made to the building exterio_ on property. Remove all graffiti within seven (7) days of the date of this notice. Property owner is required to remove all graffiti within. seven (7) days of this notice. Failure to remedy the above code violations by the re -inspection date may subject you to repaying the City the costs associated with this enforcement action per the Santa Clarita Municipal Code sections 23.40.010 - 23.40.190. These enforcement costs include all legal, administrative and .inspection costs associated in gaining your compliance with the municipal code. Once in compliance, you may appeal these enforcement costs under SCMC section 23.40.050 (D). ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: If you wish to challenge this citation you must request an initial administrative review within 20 days of the citation date. The request must be made in writing and set forth the reasons why you believe a violation did not occur or that you are not responsible for the violation. A copy of the citation and return mail address must accompany the initial review request. The appeal may be mailed or hand delivered to City of Santa Clarita Attn: Administrative Citation Review Request 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. HEARING: You may appeal the initial •review decision by filing a request for hearing form with the city of Santa Clarita within 15 days of the initial review decision. U )on timely receipt of a properly completed form and deposit of the fine amount, the City will set a date for hearing before a hearing officer not less than 15 days and not more than 60 days from the date the request for a hearing is filed. Failure to file a timely request for hearing form constitutes a waiver of your right to appeal the administrative citation. Should you have questions, please feel free to call the Community Preservation Office at (66 1) 286-4.076. Sincerely, Daniel Rivas Community Preservation 661-286-4082 mat.. . ..... "RA IM W7 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mat.. . ..... "RA IM Recommendations for the .Proposed Santa Clarita Historic Code. Master Case 10 — 135; Unified Development Code Amendment 10 — 008 Submitted to the Santa Clarita Planning Commission May 17, 2011 Introduction wish to thank the Planning Commission for their thoughtful consideration and recommendations asserted at the February meeting, concerning the proposed historic code. This is indeed historic for the City of Santa Clarita. Community preservation attempts to balance the intrusive finger of government with aesthetic value. In some cities such as Pasadena, which have hundred -year-old craftsman's homes, the 1910 Historic Bungalow, the Hale -House and the Gamble -House the value of preservation is obvious. In these cases, the aesthetic value is so overwhelming that preservation becomes a community goal. Other communities, which may lack the structures of apparent recognition, must ask themselves: is what they are attempting to preserve worth the restriction upon citizenry? It is these. communities, which must work most closely with the citizens in a cooperative effortto balance their desire for control with the rights of their citizens. ;,; Review The Commission's recommendations to the city staff at the February 15 planning commission meeting were as follows: Community meetings should be held for public input • Property owners permission should be required • The city should create incentives for property owners • Advisory committee of qualified individuals be created • Penalties are too severe and should be revised • Other codes should be reviewed and studied Community meetings In addition to the Planning Commission unanimously agreeing that public meetings must be held, Commissioner Dennis Ostrom suggested a workshop with other communities to discuss how they have dealt with certain issues. The City held one meeting for a few property owners on a property historic list and added discussion of proposed codd'irf"two other organization agendas. Placement on an organization agenda is not a community meeting. No effort was made by the cites inform the public at large that a code affecting their property was being considered. Although requested by citizens, there were no announcements on radio, television, or the newspaper. Only those who reviewed the agendas of the NRC and Historical Society had any idea of what was transpiring. This lack of notice to the public is certainly disingenuous on the City's part especially since the intent of the Planning Commission was perfectly clear. — The cities meager presentation of the proposed code to the public was as follows: Historic society. The city presented the codd4o:'the historical society. Members of the Historical Society were the initial authors of the proposed code. No notice to the public at large was given with respect to this meeting. Newhall redevelopment committee. On May 2nd the city presented the code to the Newhall Redevelopment Committee. Again there was no effort to notify the public other than and agenda item with regards to the code. Only half the NRC members were at the meeting. Three of the seven members present were the historic committee representatives who wrote the code. Meetinq with property owners affected by the code. On May 4 the staff met with a few property owners whose properties are on the existing list. At this meeting; they presented the draft comparison (Appendix A) of eight Southern California cities which have codes. When asked about the previous 'outreach' meeting to the NRC, David reported that they had taken a formal vote in favor of two things: no, owner approval is needed for historic designation and stiffer penalties (10 year moratorium plus triple construction fees for permits) for those who demolish without permission. People attending this meeting had only five days to respond in writing to the planning commission. This short notice makes it close to impossible for one attendee to review study and respond in writing. Essentially this inappropriate timing railroads the code, thus allowing as little resistance as possible. This code puts restrictions on and affects all of the properties in the Santa Clarita. The City must sponsor several well-publicized community meetings with the citizens to explain the advantages and disadvantages of such a code and seriously consider comments from the citizens of prior to creating the document. Property owner's approval At the February 15 meeting, I presented the results of the Colorado State Historical 1 Commissionsurvey of 113 codes which indicated 51% require property owners approval. The City of Santa Clarita verified this statistic in reviewing eight Southern California cities (appendix A). Four of the cities including that with the prized historic structures, Pasadena, provided and opt out for property owners. Opt out is appropriate for a young city such as Santa Clarita,, whose historic structures pale in comparison to the cities such as Pasadena. Requiring the property owner's approval works, it fosters cooperation between the property owner and the city. Restrictions are not a problem with property owner approval because the property owner agrees to the terms of the code. The resistance is 2 because preservation activists and the City have less control over a citizen's property and the City is required to provide incentives for the property owners to participate. At the NRC meeting of May 2nd opt out failed to pass by 4 to 3. Three of the four members voting against an opt out, clause were the members of the hisoric society who wrote the original code. At the property owners meeting in May 4, those owners present unanimously approved an opt out clause. Incentives . The City of Santa Clarita has yet to provide any additional economic incentives or to explore the means by which they can participate with the property owner. Historic preservation is a national movement. In reviewing codes throughout the'country, one can find various creative ways to encourage property owners to be part of the historical team. An example of economic incentives is Aspen Colorado code which provides zero interest rehabilitation loan fund; conservation easement program; dimensional variances; increased density; lot split; waiver of fees; conditional uses; exemption from growth management system; technical assistance; reduction in off street parking requirements. Other communities may provide grants, low-interest loans and participation in maintenance to help property owners preserve their historic buildings. Advisory committee Every code reviewed mandates a Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, many require qualified individuals, such as architects, designers etc. Santa Clarita must create an independent historic preservation advisory committee peopled by individuals qualified to review what is considered.�'marginally historic properties. Qualified, because there are those who would use su&h a committee to impose their prejudicial values upon others. The NRC agreed that the advisory committee should be the made up of professionals and people credentialed in historic preservation. Formation of an independent Advisory committee has not yet been mentioned by city staff. Penalties The review of surrounding community codes reinforces your recommendation that the penalties of the existing code are excessive. For example, Pasadena has a five-year moratorium but has an opt out for property owners. That means when property owners sign on, they are aware of and agreed to, the penalties for illegal demo of the structure. Nowhere are the penalties as extreme as in the proposed Santa Clarita code where the property owner has no opt out and faces a 10 year moratorium. 3 The NRC proposes a five-year moratorium (same as Pasadena but without an opt out clause and incentives) and adding a charge of three times the normal fees on new construction. Other codes have various penalties such as fines, requiring restoration, some require only repairs for hazardous conditions, and others have no maintenance requirements. Other codes should be reviewed and studied The city of Santa Clarita has studied the historic codes of eight local communities, a copy of which is attached (appendix A). However, the city has not yet created a draft copy of modifications to the existing proposed code for review. Conclusion At the February 15 meeting, the Planning Commission dictated six recommendations to the city concerning the proposed historic code. As of this time, only one of those recommendations has been fully completed, " Other codes should be reviewed and studied." am requesting that the Planning Commission instruct the city to complete all of the requested tasks prior to any further presentation to your Commission. Piecemeal presentations are ineffective, time-consuming and. lack any relationship to the final document. Only after the commission's requests have been met and the public considerations incorporated, should the document be presented again to the Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, _ Frank B. Maga, P.E., ECE. 661-245-6951 maga@frazmtn.com 4 Appendix A City Comparison of Historic Codes and the Surrounding Area. Draft Research Summary5 11 DRAFT city Opt out? Committee? Illegal demo Incentives Santa Clarita (As No Planning 10 year No fee for COA Currently Commission moratorium ■ Historic Proposed) building code .11111 Mills Act Burbank Yes 5 members Maybe ■ Mills Act. selected by prosecuted by Council. 2 from City Attorney business community, 2 experienced with historic preservation, 1 at large member. Pasadena Yes 9 members: each 5 year ■ Historic Councilperson nominates one, moratorium building code ■Rehab Tax Mayor gets a Credit—Federal 20% second vote. ■ Mills Act ■ Technical assistance stoning provisions ■ Historic sign inventory San Juan Yes 5 members. No provision ■Fee waivers Capistrano Approved by City - ■ Historic Council. building code ■Mills Act Santa Barbara No 9 members. Most No provision Mills Act must have professional qualifications. 5 Santa Monica No 7 members. Must No provision - ■ Arch review be architects, All buildings in exemption realtors, the City ■Fee waivers historians, etc. over 40 years ■ Parking old have beer, incentives surveyed. ■ Historic Illegal demo building code rarely happens. ■ Plan check priority South No 5 members. Misdemeanor ■ Mills Act Pasadena Currently 3 public members, 1 3-5 year Council member moratorium and 1 staff planner. Ventura Yes 5 members Misdemeanor ■ Mills Act appointed by — potential Council. $ 1 OK fine West No 7 members: Misdemeanor ■ Mils Act Hollywood 5 appointed by ■Fee waivers individual ■ Reduced Council members, Development 2 "at large" Standards appointments. Summary No 4 All have them. 3 cities have Most offer fee waivers, Yes no provision. Historic building code Membership and Mills Act. range between 5 Provisions and 9 members. vary widely 3 require between a - professional misdemeanor qualifications. and a 3 to 5 moratorium. fvl-15�1 Santa Clarita No Planning 10 year No fee for COA (As Currently Commission moratorium Historic Proposed) building code ■ Mills Act O 7 Burbank Yes 5 members May be Mills Act selected by prosecuted by Council. 2 from City Attorney business �. community,12 experienced with historic preservation, 1 at large member. Pasadena Yes 9 members: each 5 year ■ Historic Council person moratorium building code nominates one, ■ Rehab Tax Mayor gets a Credit — Federal second vote. 20% ■Mills Act ■ Technical assistance ■ Zoning provisions ■ Historic sign inventory San Juan Yes 5 members. No provision Fee waivers Capistrano Approved by City Historic Council. building code ■ Mills Act Santa Barbara No 9 members. Most No provision Mills Act must have professional qualifications. Santa Monica No 7 members. Must No provision - ■ Arch review be architects, All buildings exemption realtors, in the City ■ Fee waivers historians, etc. over 40 years ■ Parking old have been incentives surveyed. ■ Historic Illegal demo building code rarely happens. ■ Plan check priority 1 / I 1 i South No 5 members: Misdemeanor Mills Act Pasadena Currently 3 public members, 1 3-5 year Council member moratorium and 1 staff tanner. Ventura Yes 5 members Misdemeanor ■ Mills Act appointed by — potential Council. $10K fine West No 7 members: Misdemeanor ■ Mills Act Hollywood 5 appointed by ■ Fee waivers individual ■ Reduced Council members, Development 2 "at large" Standards appointments. 3 cities have Most offer fee Summary No -4 All have them. Yes — 4 no provision. waivers, Historic Membership building code and range between 5 Provisions Mills Act. and 9 members. vary widely 3 require between a professional misdemeanor qualifications. and a 3 to 5 moratorium. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [I Final MASTER CASE NO: Master Case 10-135 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Unified Development Code Amendment 10-008 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 creating a Historic Preservation Ordinance. This subsection would provide provisions for the designation, nomination, alteration, relocation and demolition of historic landmarks within the City of Santa Clarita's boundaries. 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 Jeff Hogan, AICP INTERIM PLANNING MANAGER Prepared by: David Peterson, Assistant Planner II (Signature) (Name/Title) Approved by: 62— Jason Smisko, Senior Planner '(Signature) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From 1/25/11 To _2/15/11 Public Notice Given On 2/15/11 [X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: SACMCURRENn12010\10-135 (UDC 10-008 Historic Pres)\Historic Pres Neg Dec.doc 11 INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Project Title/Master Case Number: Master Case 10-135 City of Santa Clarita Historic Preservation Program — Recommended Code Amendments 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 amendments to Chapter 17 of the City's Municipal Code (the Unified Development Code or UDC) that provide measures to protect historic resources. The purpose of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is to promote, protect and preserve public and private historic, cultural, and natural resources which are of special historic or aesthetic character or interest by establishing procedures that are necessary to: a) Implement the City's historic preservation goals, policies, and programs; b) Promote the identification, documentation, and evaluation of the significance of historic resources; c) Encourage preservation, restoration, rehabilitation and maintenance of historic resources, and protect historic resources from rig Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 2 of 32 demolition and inappropriate alterations; d) Recognize the City's historic resources as important economic assets, and integrate historic preservation into community economic development strategies for sustainable development and to promote adaptive reuse of historic structures; e) Fulfill the City's responsibilities regarding historic resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Section 106; and fl Maintain elements of the natural landscape that contribute to the historic character of the City. The proposed code amendments provide a heightened level of discretion to evaluate the potential nomination of, demolition or alteration historic resources identified by the City of Santa Clarita. The amendments are not anticipated to either directly, or indirectly, result in any future, foreseeable development. All future development affected by these changes 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 changes themselves. The amendments contained in Master Case 10-135 consist of amendments to the procedures for the nomination of historic landmarks, and the demolition, relocation or alteration of a historic resources or potential historic resources and 'consist of the following: 17.01.180 Demolition of a Structure of Building This section will be added and establish procedures for the demolition and maintenance of historic resources and penalties for the illegal demolition of historic resources. 17.03.145 Historic Preservation Review: This section would be replaced in its entirety and establish procedures for the nomination of historic landmarks. Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 3 of 32 17.03.146 Certificate of Appropriateness: This section will be added and establish procedures for granting a Certificate of Appropriateness for altering, relocating or demolishing a designated historic landmark. 17.17.040 Definitions: This section would be amend the existing code sections to provide definitions for the following terms associated with historic preservation: addition, alterations, California Historical Building Code, California Register of Historical Resources, Certificate of Appropriateness, character -defining features, demolition, good repair, hardship waiver, historical landmark, historic resource, historic resource inventory, historic resources survey, integrity, maintenance and repair, National Register of Historic Places, period of significance, potential historic resource, preservation, reconstruction, rehabilitation, relocation, restoration, Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment, of Historic Properties, and Substantial Alteration. Surrounding land uses: . N/A Other public agencies whose N/A approval is required: ME 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 [ J Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology / Soils [ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water [ ] Land Use / Planning Materials Quality [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] [ ] Public Services [ ] [ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] B. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: Noise [ ] Population / Housing Recreation [ ] Transportation / Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I. find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ISO Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 5 of 32 [ ] 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 ETR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation. measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. David Peterson, Assistant Planner 11 Date Jason Smisko, Senior Planner Date Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 6 of 32 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but 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 quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] 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? Sm Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 7 of 32 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation d) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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? W [] [] [] [X] Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 8 of 32 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [ ] [ ] [X] [] habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 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? [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] H [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [X] [] Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 9 of 32 Potentially Less Than Less Than No . Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred [ ] [] [X] [ ] outside of formal cemeteries? e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special . Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] liquefaction? iv) Landslides? [) [ ] [X] [ ] b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] loss of topsoil, either on or off site? LGO Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 10 of 32 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? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [J [J [X] [J g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ ] yards or more? h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [ ] [ ] 10% natural grade? i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ] [ ] unique geologic or physical feature? j) Other [ ] [ ] VII. 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: poi Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page I I of 32 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)? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] I [X] I c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ] acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ] hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ] [ ] [ ] [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? Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 12 of 32 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 i health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] I [] [X] 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] [] [] [X] [] [] [J [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? (CJ Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 13 of 32 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with , Impact Mitigation e) Create or contribute runoff water which would [ J [ J [X] [ J 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) Othei modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] 1) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the [ J 'following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and [ ] project post -construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials [ J 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? i [J [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 14 of 32 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact . Impact with Impact I Mitigation iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in [ ] 11. [X] [ ] the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? i I v) Storm water discharges that would significantly [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] impair or . contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that .provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.) vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the proposed project include provisions [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] j for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] community (including a low-income or minority community)? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or j policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 15 of 32 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 [ ] 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 [ ] groundbome 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? [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 16 of 32 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation f) 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 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 17 of 32 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: a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? XV. RECREATION - Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [] [l [] [X] [] [] [] [X] H H [] [X] [l [] [Xl [] H [] [X] [l H [] [X] [] H H [Xl [] [] [] [X] [l Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 18 of 32 b) Include recreational facilities or require the [ ] 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? [] [XJ [] [J [XJ [J [] [XJ [J [] [XJ [] [ ]' [X] [ ] [J [X] [J. Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 19 of 32 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ] [ ] LX] [ ] wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [ ] [ ] IN [ ] project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ] [ ] LX] [ ] 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 [ ] [ J [XJ [ J capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and [ ] [] [X] [ ] regulations related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [ ] [ ] [X] [ J 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? Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 20 of 32 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." Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 21 of 32 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 modifications to the Unified Development Code (UDC) establish procedures for the nomination, demolition, relocation or alteration of a historic resource or potential historic resources. No scenic vistas are identified as a historic resource or potential historic resource. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments 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 (1-5) freeway, which is designated as an "Eligible State Scenic Highway". This designated eligible segment of the I-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 amendments will not affect existing City development standards, codes and ordinances regarding development of or near Scenic Highways. Therefore, the proposed amendments would have no impacts on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments would apply to a limited list of identified historic resources or potential .historic resources. Projects based on the proposed amendments 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 amendments would have a less than significant impact on ' the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings. 'UZ Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 22 of 32 a�� d.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments do not alter the City standards for outdoor lighting and would not be a new source of light or glare. The proposed amendments are anticipated to have a less than significant impact on light and glare. II. AGRICULTURE a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the UDC establish RESOURCES procedures for the nomination, demolition, relocation or alteration of a historic resource or potential historic resources. No farmland or agricultural use is identified as a historic resource or potential historic resource. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments 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. The proposed changes to the UDC will not alter any of the a�� Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 23 of 32 aforementioned measures directly. The amendments are consistent with, and will have no effect on, the growth expectations for the region and are 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 amendments do not affect the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) land use, construction, and mobile emission thresholds for significant air quality impacts, according to the 1993 updated SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, no impact to air quality standards is anticipated as a result of the proposed UDC amendments. c.) No Impact: As discussed is Section III.b), the proposed amendments 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 amendments to the UDC do 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 amendments. d.) No Impact: Certain residents, such as the very young, the elderly and those 'suffering suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities, are particularly sensitive to air pollution and are considered sensitive receptors. In addition, active park users, such as participants in sporting events, are sensitive air pollutant receptors due to increased breathing rates. Land uses where sensitive air pollutant receptors congregate, include schools, day care centers, parks, recreational areas, medical facilities, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. The proposed amendments do not include any physical development at this time. The proposed UDC amendments may apply to future projects within the City. However, the proposed amendments do not remove any odor -related regulations and would not foreseeably lead to a change in the generation of odor. Additionally, the proposed amendments would - not place sensitive land uses adjacent to substantial air pollution sources. Therefore, the proposed amendments would have no air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 24 of 32 iii e.) No Impact: The proposed UDC amendments will not locate any land use adjacent to an odor producing facility or use. The proposed amendments are 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 amendments would have no odor -related impacts. IV. BIOLOGICAL a. -d.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed changes to the RESOURCES UDC 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 changes will not have any adverse affect on any riparian habitat or wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed UDC changes will help to guide development within the City and would not remove environmental review requirements for any future developments. In addition, 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 amendments 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 amendments. Therefore, less than significant impacts to oak trees are anticipated with the proposed amendments. f. -g.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed UDC modifications propose no alterations to any local or regional habitat conservation plan. In addition, the proposed UDC, modifications 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 changes to the RESOURCES UDC provide procedures for the nomination of, nomination, demolition, relocation or alteration of a historic resource or potential historic resources. There are a number of buildings and sites that may have historical value, however, the significance of the structures has yet to be determined. The UDC changes are 'intended to provide a heightened level of discretion that may necessitate the movement or iii Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 25 of 32 removal ' of some structures, and may alter their context. The potential impact of future development is too speculative to evaluate at this time and all future development activity would be evaluated to avoid adverse impacts to historic resources or potential historic resources which contribute to community identity and a sense of history. Therefore, impacts from the proposed UDC amendments are considered less than significant. b.) Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed changes to the UDC provide procedures for the nomination, demolition, relocation or alteration of a historic resource or potential historic resources. 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 amendments are 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 amendments are 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 modifications 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 amendments would have a less than significant impact related to exposure of people or structures to any adverse effects of seismic activity. , b. -i.) Less that Significant Impact — The proposed UDC modifications will not result in any erosion or location of structures on or near unstable soil, expansive or otherwise. No modifications 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 lb Master Case 10-135 UDC 1.0-008 Page 26 of 32 ii i 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 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 (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 1990 levels. The proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code address the nomination, demolition, relocation or alteration of a historic resource or potential historic resources. Therefore, the proposed amendments are anticipated to have a less than significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. VIII. HAZARDS AND a. -d.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed changes to the HAZARDOUS UDC would not directly expose people to health hazards or ii i Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 27 of 32 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 federal, state, and local hazardous material regulations. Furthermore, no development is associated with these UDC -modifications, 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 modifications. e. -f.) No Impact — The proposed amendments 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 amendments 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 amendments establish procedures for the nomination, demolition, relocation or alteration of a historic resource or potential historic resources. The amendments would not affect the implementation of emergency response plans, and would have no impact. h.) No Impact — The proposed UDC amendments 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 amendments would have no impact. i.) No Impact — The proposed UDC amendments would not directly expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments 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 changes to the UDC are anticipated to have a less than significant impact on any r Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 28 of 32 100 -year flood hazard area, tsunami, drainage pattern, or runoff of Stormwater Management systems. As mentioned previously, the 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 amendments 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 amendments, and therefore, no impact would occur. b.) Less than Significant Impact: The purpose of these amendments is to establish procedures for the nomination, demolition, relocation or alteration of a historic resource or potential historic resources. The proposed amendments will guide future development in the City, however, 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 amendments to the UDC. c.) No Impact: 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 future development project under these amendments would be subject to the standards and regulations established by the City and other agencies. Therefore, the proposed UDC amendments would have no impact on conservation plans. XXI. 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 modifications to the. UDC will not expose persons to the generation of excess noise levels, groundborne Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 29 of 32 c� vibration, or increase ambient noise in the City of Santa Clarita. The UDC amendments do not propose any development at this time and therefore, there would be no impact to noise levels in the city. The proposed amendments may apply to future development projects within the City. 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, 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 amendments would cause no impacts related to airport noise. XIII. POPULATION a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the UDC do 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 amendments are regulatory and do not include any development activity at this time. The proposed UDC modifications 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 amendments are 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 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 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 future residential development would be c� Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 30 of 32 subject to school development fees, which are established to compensate for growth. Since, the proposed change UDC amendments 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. 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 immediate 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. XV. RECREATION a. -b.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed changes 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 modifications. XVI, a. -b.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to TRANSPORTATION / the UDC are 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 amendments. c. -h.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed amendments to the UDC do not authorize any development at this time. Therefore, the proposed amendments 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 Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 31 of 32 transportation. Therefore, the proposed amendments would have a less than significant impact on traffic. XVII. UTILITIES a. -g.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments to AND SERVICE the City's Unified Development Code ' do not include any SYSTEMS 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 amendments. XVIII. MANDATORY a. -c.) Less than Significant Impact — The proposed amendments 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 amendments may apply to future development projects within the City. However, the proposed amendments do not remove any established City regulations that protect any plant and animal species. Due to the nature of the proposed UDC amendments, 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 guide future development throughout the city. Therefore, the proposed project would have no significant impact that could result in a Mandatory Findin s 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 amendments would not entitle any new development; and any future development proposal seeking discretionary approval would remain subject to CEQA and the CDFG Code. Since, the proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a- significant adverse effect either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources, theproject's impacts on fish and wildlife are Master Case 10-135 UDC 10-008 Page 32 of 32 de minimus. SACD\CURREN N12010\10-135 (UDC -10-008 Historic Pres)\Historic Preservation Initial Study.doc icy