HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - HISTORIC PRESERVATION (2)12W.)a(N:IDI_1N124M
11040:11
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
Agenda Item: JT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
September 25, 2012
Fessel, .-�
i / �-
...
MASTER CASE 10-135: FIRST READING OF AMENDMENTS
TO SECTION 17.03.145 OF THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE - HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council conduct a public hearing and hear results of a national survey of Historic
Preservation Ordinances, and introduce and pass to second reading an ordinance entitled: AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MASTER
CASE 10-135, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 10-008, TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMEND SECTION 17.03.145, THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
BACKGROUND
Background
On September 9, 2008, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita adopted Ordinance 08-14
establishing the city's first Historic Preservation 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 late 2008, staff began working with Historic Resources Group (HRG) to draft an ordinance to
replace the existing ordinance and evaluate potentially historic resources.
The current ordinance defines a "potentially historic resource" as those properties identified in
the text or appendices of the Santa Clarita General Plan or Downtown Newhall Specific Plan.
HRG conducted an evaluation of the 45 properties identified by those documents using criteria
established by the State of California and concluded that 27 of the 45 properties were eligible to
receive a historic designation and the balance were not. A copy of the list is attached. Criteria
used for the evaluation include the age of the structure, whether the structure is architecturally
significant, is associated with significant social and/or cultural events and people, and retains its
"historic integrity." A structure that has been modified to the extent that the nature of the
original structure is lost, has poor historic integrity. A structure that has been preserved as
closely as possible to its original condition, would have good historic integrity. Although no
formal action has been taken, the City Council has primarily focused on the 27 properties
identified as eligible for designation. Two of these properties have since been removed from the
list: Newhall Hardware, at the direction of City Council, for reasons of financial hardship and the
Queen of Angels Church by way of a statutory exemption.
Starting in late 2010, staff conducted an extensive public outreach campaign with property
owners, other government agencies, stakeholders and stakeholder groups on a more
comprehensive ordinance. This process consisted of a number of public workshops as well as
two regularly scheduled meetings with the City Council (July 12, 2011 and August 23, 2011) and
three regularly scheduled meetings with the Planning Commission (February 15, 2011, May 5,
2011 and October 18, 2011). At the October 18, 2011 meeting of the Planning Commission,
staff proposed amendments to the current Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Planning
Commission adopted a resolution recommending these amendments for approval by the City
Council by a vote of 5-0.
At the regularly scheduled meeting on October 25, 2011, during the Councilmember Comments
portion of the agenda, the City Council directed staff to conduct a national survey of historic
preservation ordinances currently implemented by other municipalities. Staff was also directed
to return to the City Council to present the results of the survey.
Survey Results
Fifteen cities across the country were contacted by staff and asked five questions regarding their
current Historic Preservation Ordinance. A summary of the survey results is attached.
Generally, the following trends emerged from the survey responses:
• All of the cities surveyed allowed nomination of properties for historic designation by the
City Council, Historic Preservation Commission, the property owner, and/or the general
public. None of the cities surveyed restricted nomination of a historic property to the owner
of the property (an "opt -in" clause);
• All of the cities surveyed had a Historic Preservation Commission of some kind, in many
cases with a requirement for some of the Commission's membership to have specific
professional credentials. The City's Planning Commission would continue to function in this
capacity under the currently proposed amendments;
• In most cases, cities offered state tax programs, reduced fees, technical assistance, plaque
programs, and recognition programs as incentives. These incentives are generally consistent
with those offered by the currently proposed amendments;
• In most cases, cities surveyed required a Certificate of Compliance for alterations to
designated historic properties. The City would continue to require a Minor Use Permit for
alterations to designated structures; and
• In almost all cases, cities surveyed exempted routine maintenance of properties from the
permit process. This is consistent with the currently proposed amendments.
Historic Resources Defined
The current Historic Preservation Ordinance defines a "potentially historic resource" as those
properties identified in the text or appendices of either the Santa Clarita General Plan or the
Downtown Newhall Specific Plan.
In addition, proposed amendments to the current Historic Preservation Ordinance would establish
findings for the nomination of historic resources as any one of the following:
• 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
• Is associated with persons significant in the history of the City, State or Nation; or
• 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
• 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
• Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the history or prehistory of
the City, State, or Nation.
Currently Proposed Ordinance
At the regularly scheduled meeting on October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of
Santa Clarita unanimously recommended the City Council adopt amendments to the City's
current Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance). These proposed amendments include:
• Removing the current list of 45 (43 properties as two have been removed from consideration
by the City Council) historic properties from the Ordinance;
• Creating an "opt -in" clause restricting the nomination of a historic property to the owner of
that property. The owner of a designated property could also choose to opt -out of the
designation if economic hardship can be established. Opting out of the designation would
require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and reimbursement to the City of
any financial benefits that resulted from the designation;
• Adding incentives including no entitlement fees for non-exempt alterations to historic
properties, streamlined permitting, enhanced technical support from staff, the use of the
Historic Building Code, and use of the Mills Act tax relief program;
• Exemptions for specific routine maintenance of historic resources;
• Any proposed relocation and/or demolition of a designated historic property would be subject
to a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council;
• A 5 -year building permit moratorium for illegal demolition; and
• An exemption for property owned by County or State agencies, but allowing any structures
,j
on these properties to cant' a historic designation.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other actions identified by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance -
Ordinance: Strikethrough and Underline Copy of Code Amendment
Research Summary
Properties Under Current Ordinance Eligibile for Designation
Properties Under Current Ordinance Not Eligibile for Designation
Negative Declaration and hiitial Study
Public Hearing Notice
ORDINANCE NO. 12 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING
MASTER CASE 10-135, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 10-008, TO
ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMEND SECTION 17.03.145, THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita General Plan requires the implementation of the
City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code (UDC) to be in compliance with the
Government Code of the State of California;
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Ordinance was adopted in September, 2008, to
promote protection of historic, cultural, and natural resources in the City of Santa Clarita of
special historic or aesthetic character or interest;
WHEREAS, at the direction of the City Council, the City of Santa Clarita (the
"Applicant") initiated an application (Master Case 10-135, UDC 10-008) to amend the Historic
Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance) (the "Project") to update the Ordinance regarding the
nomination, alteration, relocation, and/or demolition of historic resources;
WHEREAS, a series of public meetings was held seeking input from property owners, the
community, other government agencies, stakeholders, and stakeholder groups including the Old
Town Newhall Association, Newhall Redevelopment Committee, and Santa Clarita Valley
Historical Society regarding amending the Ordinance;
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with and further implement the
Goals and Policies of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted duly a noticed public hearing on the
project on October 18, 2011, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355.
Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the aforementioned meeting was duly noticed in
accordance with Government Code 65090. At this meeting, the Planning Commission, by a 5-0
vote, adopted Resolution P11-25, recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance
approving Master Case 10-135, Unified Development Code Amendment 10-008 and adopt the
Negative Declaration prepared for the project.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the project on September 25, 2012, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, CA 91355. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the aforementioned meeting was
duly noticed in accordance with Government Code 65090. At this meeting, the City Council
opened the public hearing, considered the staff report, staff presentation, and public testimony on
the proposed amendments, introduced the ordinance by the City Council to modify the Unified
Development Code, and passed the ordinance to a second reading on October 23, 2012.
s
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Amendments to Section 17.03.145 of the Unified Development Code
(UDC). Section 17.03.145 of City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code are amended and
restated to read as follows:
17.03.145 Historic Preservation Review.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the economic and general welfare of the
City of Santa Clarita by preserving and protecting public and private historic, cultural, and
natural resources which are of special historic or aesthetic character or interest, or relocating such
resources where necessary for their preservation and for their use, education, and view by the
general public.
B. Dermitions. As used in this section, this term has the following meaning:
1. "Historic Resource" shall mean structures or site features on properties listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, or the California Register of Historic Landmarks, the
list of either California Historical Landmarks or California Points of Historical Interest, or
those structures designated under this ordinance. A listing of designated properties and
structures shall be available with the Community Development Department.
C. Self -Designation of Historic Resources (Opt -in Clause). The nomination of a historic
resource shall be initiated by the owner of the property or structure that is proposed for
designation. The owner of the property or structure shall provide the Director with written notice
of their intent to be nominated. The Director shall schedule a public hearing before the Planning
Commission within sixty days of the receipt of the letter as described in Section 17.01.100 and
make findings as described in Section 17.03.145.D.
Once a property or structure has received a designation, the owner of the property or structure
may apply for removal of the designation and the City may remove the designation subject to the
Planning Commission making the following finding:
1. 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
The Planning Commission shall designate a date up to one year from the public hearing date as
the date on which the designation shall be removed. The owner of the property shall reimburse
the City for any financial incentives received during the entirety of the period in which their
property was designated as a Historic Resource.
D. Findings by the Planning Commission for Designating a Historic Resource. A building,
structure, or object may be designated by the Planning Commission as a historic resource 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.
E. Permit Requirements for the Renovation or Alteration of a Historic Resource. The
requirements of this section shall apply to the renovation or alteration of historic resources within
the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. A minor use permit is required for any proposed
renovation or alteration of a historic resource with the exception of those items listed in Section
17.03.145.H. The application, public hearing and approval process for the minor use permit shall
be as described in Sections 17.01.100 and 17.03.040. There shall be no entitlement fee for the
review of any proposed renovation and alteration to historic resources.
F. Actions by the Director for the Renovation or Alteration of a Historic Resource. The
Director has the discretion to approve, approve with modifications and/or conditions, refer the
matter to the Planning Commission or deny the minor use permit for renovation or alteration to a
historic resource.
G. Findings by the Director for the Renovation or Alteration of a Historic Resource. The
Director may approve a minor use permit, pursuant to this section, if it is determined that the
following findings can be made with regard to the proposed project:
Findings for Renovation or Alteration of a Historic Resource:
a. The proposed renovation or alteration will not adversely affect any significant
historical, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic feature of the subject property or of the
history of the neighborhood in which it is located;
b. The proposed change is consistent with the architectural style of the building;
c. The scale, massing, proportions, materials, colors, textures, fenestration,
decorative features and details proposed are consistent with the period and/or
compatible with adjacent structures.
H. Exceptions to Permit Requirements for the Renovation or Alteration of a Historic
Resource. The Director may exempt a designated property from obtaining a minor use permit if
the following actions will not affect the historic integrity of the historic resource:
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 eight feet in height; carpeting, hardwood or tile flooring,
counters of countertops and similar finish work.
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 California or the County of Los Angeles to another site within the City of
Santa Clarita.
I. Permit Requirements for the Relocation or Demolition of a Historic Resource. The
requirements of this section shall apply to the relocation or demolition of historic resources
within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. A minor use permit is required for any
relocation or demolition of a historic resource within the City of Santa Clarita. The application,
fees, public hearing and approved process for the minor use permit shall be as described in
Sections 17.01.100 and 17.03.040 with the exception that approval of the minor use permit shall
be subject to a public hearing before the City Council.
I Actions by the City Council for the Relocation or Demolition of a Historic Resource.
The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has the discretion to approve, approve with
modifications and/or conditions, or deny the minor use permit for relocation or demolition of a
historic resource.
K. Findings by the City Council for the Relocation or Demolition of a Historic Resource. A
property or structure that has been designated a historic resource shall not be demolished unless
the City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, makes one or more of
the following findings:
1. There is sufficient evidence, including evidence provided by the applicant, that the
8
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;
2. 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 Code or the potential effect is outweighed by the
benefits of the new project;
3. 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,
4. 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. Any historic resource that is relocated shall be relocated to a property within
the City of Santa Clarita.
L. Penalty for Demolition or Irreversible Alteration. If a historic resource is demolished
without a minor use permit as required by this section, no building or construction -related
permits shall be issued, and no permits or use of the property shall be allowed, from the date of
demolition for a period not to exceed five (5) years. (Ord. 08-14 § 2, 9/9/08)
M. Expiration and Extension. The expiration period and the extension process of a minor use
permit will apply as described in Sections 17.01.160 and 17.03.040.
N. Final Action. The decision of the approving authority is final and effective within fifteen
(15) calendar days unless an appeal is filed, in writing, in accordance with Section 17.01.110 for
Director's action and Section 17.01.120 for Planning Commission action.
O. State and County Owned Property. The Ordinance shall not apply to properties owned by
the County of Los Angeles or the State of California. The owners of specific structures on
properties owned by the County of Los Angeles or the State of California may nominate their
structures, or otherwise have their structures nominated as historic resources. Any resulting
designation will apply only to the structure, building or object and not the underlying property.
P. Incentives. In addition to any other incentive of Federal or State law, the owner of a historic
resource may apply for the following incentives, subject to the discretion of the Director:
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 historic resource, 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 Historic Building 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 Director or Planning Commission in conjunction with a Minor Use Permit.
2. Mills Act Tax Relief. The Mills Act can provide relief to the property taxes associated
with properties designated as historic resources. 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. Waiver of Fees for Renovation and Alteration of Historic Resources. There shall be no
entitlement fee for the renovation or alteration of historic resources.
4. Technical Assistance. The Community Development Department shall provide
technical assistance to the owner of a historic resource regarding any proposed
improvements that are not exempt under Section 17.03.145.H.; and/or
5. Streamlined Permitting. The Community Development Department shall provide the
owner of a historic resource with priority entitlement review for proposed
improvements that are not exempt under Section 17.03.145.H.
SECTION 2. The proposed amendments to UDC Section 17.03.145 identified in Master
Case 10-135 (UDCI 1-008) are consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan.
SECTION 3. The proposed amendments to UDC Section 17.03.145 are hereby adopted.
SECTION 4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based
upon the foregoing facts and findings in the Initial Study prepared for the project, the City
Council further finds, approves, and determines as follows:
a. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental
agencies and the public and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The
document was posted and advertised on September 27, 2011, in accordance with CEQA.
The public review period was open from September 27, 2011, through October 18, 2011.
C. Staff found that there were no impacts created as a result of the proposed project and a
Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the CEQA.
The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita.
d. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based is the Master Case
10-135 project file within the Community Development Department and is in the custody
of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 5. That if any portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid, that portion shall
6 /0
be stricken and severed, and the remaining portions shall be unaffected and remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its
passage and adoption.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of October, 2012.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Armin Chaparyan
Interim City Clerk
DATE:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Armin6 Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance 12- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of September, 2012. That thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day
of October, 2012, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance and
was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806).
Armin Chaparyan
Interim City Clerk
17.03.145 Historic Preservation Review.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the economic and general
welfare of the City of Santa Clarita by preserving and protecting public and private
historic, cultural, and natural resources which are of special historic or aesthetic character
or interest, or relocating such resources where necessary for their preservation and for
their use, education, and view by the general public.
review, the Direeter of GefnfAtinity Development ..hall ensure that the prejeet ,. ... pl:e..
B. Definitions. As used in this section, `hese wards have this term has the following
meaning:
1. "Historic Resource" shall mean structures or site features on properties listed
on the National Register of Historic Places, or the California Register of Historic
Landmarks, ee the list of either California Historical Landmarks or California
Points of Historical Interest, or those structures desimated under this ordinance. A
listjn of desi nated properties and structures shall be available with the
Community Development Department.
C. Self-Desinnation of Historic Resources (Opt -in Clause). The nomination of a
historic resource shall be initiated by the owner of the property or structure that is
proposed for designation. The owner of the property or structure shall provide the
Director with written notice of their intent to be nominated. The Director shall schedule
a public hearing before the Planning Commission within sixty days of the receipt of the
letter as described in Section 17.01.100 and make findings as described in Section
17.03.145.D
Once a property or structure has received a desiknation, the owner of the property or
structure may ypply for removal of the designation and the City may remove the
designation subject to the Planninv Commission making the following finding
1. There is sufficient evidence, including evidence provided by the applicant that the
Property retains no reasonable economic use, taking into account the condition of
............ . .....
Mim
C. Self-Desinnation of Historic Resources (Opt -in Clause). The nomination of a
historic resource shall be initiated by the owner of the property or structure that is
proposed for designation. The owner of the property or structure shall provide the
Director with written notice of their intent to be nominated. The Director shall schedule
a public hearing before the Planning Commission within sixty days of the receipt of the
letter as described in Section 17.01.100 and make findings as described in Section
17.03.145.D
Once a property or structure has received a desiknation, the owner of the property or
structure may ypply for removal of the designation and the City may remove the
designation subject to the Planninv Commission making the following finding
1. 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
The Planning Commission shall designate a date un to one year from the public hearing
date as the date on which the designation shall be removed The owner of the property
shall reimburse the City for any financial incentives received during the entirety of the
period in which their property was designated as a Historic Resource.
A Findings by the Planning Commission for Designating a Historic Resource A
building, structure, or obiect may be designated by the Planning Commission as a
historic resource if it possesses sufficient character -de ming 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, lupe 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 characteristics) 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
E. Permit Requirements for the Renovation or Alteration of a Historic Resource. The
requirements of this section shall apply to the renovation or alteration, of historic
resources within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarity. A minor use permit is
required for any proposed renovation or alteration of a historic resource with the
/9
..... .,.
A Findings by the Planning Commission for Designating a Historic Resource A
building, structure, or obiect may be designated by the Planning Commission as a
historic resource if it possesses sufficient character -de ming 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, lupe 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 characteristics) 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
E. Permit Requirements for the Renovation or Alteration of a Historic Resource. The
requirements of this section shall apply to the renovation or alteration, of historic
resources within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarity. A minor use permit is
required for any proposed renovation or alteration of a historic resource with the
/9
exc tion of those items listed in Section 17.03.145.H. Thea licationPublic hearinz and
approval process for the minor use permit shall be as described in Sections 17 01.100
and 17.03.040. There shall be no entitlement fee for the review of Proposed
renovations and alterations to historic resources.
F Actions by the Director for the Renovation or Alteraion of a Historic Resource.
The Director has the discretion to approve, approve with modifications and/or
conditions, refer the matter to the Planning Commission or deny the minor use permit, or
renovation or alteration to a historic resource.
MUM
F Actions by the Director for the Renovation or Alteraion of a Historic Resource.
The Director has the discretion to approve, approve with modifications and/or
conditions, refer the matter to the Planning Commission or deny the minor use permit, or
renovation or alteration to a historic resource.
61moroRMPAP"
---M
G. Findings by the Director for the Renovation or Alteration of a Historic Resource.
The Director may approve a minor use permit, pursuant to this section if it is determined
that the following findings can be made with regard to the proposed proiect:
1. Findings for Renovation or Alteration of a Historic Resource:
a. The proposed renovation or alteration will not adversely a ect any
significant historical, cultural, architectural or aesthetic feature of the subiect
proper or of the history of the neighborhood in which it is located
b. The proposed change is consistent with the architectural style of the
building:
c. The scale, massing, proportions materials colors, textures, fenestration,
decorative features and details proposed are consistent with the period and/or
compatible with adiacent structures.
�5
H. Exceptions to Permit Requirements for the Renovation or Alteration of a Historic
Resource. The Director may exempt a designated property from obtaining a minor use
Permit if the following actions will not affect the historic inte-rity of the historic
resource:
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 amaged 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 andfences;
7. Addition or removal ofexterior li htg inq,;
8. Addition or removal of landscapfnr:
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 eight feet in height; carpeting hardwood or
the floorinz, counters of countertops and similar finish work.
11. Temporary motion picture television and theatre stare sets and scenery_
12. Relocation of privately owned historically designated structure from a property
owned by the State of California or the County of Los Angeles to another site
within the City of Santa Clarita.
EM NT
MM
I. Permit Requirements for the Relocation or Demolition of a Historic Resource. The
requirements of this section shall apply to the relocation or demolition of historic
resources within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. A minor use permit is
required for any relocation or demolition of a historic resource within the City of Santa
Clarita. The application, fees, public hearing and approved process for the minor use
Permit shall be as described in Sections 17.01.100 and 17.03.040 with the exception that
approval of the minor use permit shall be subiect to a public hearing before the City
Council.
1 ..
I. Permit Requirements for the Relocation or Demolition of a Historic Resource. The
requirements of this section shall apply to the relocation or demolition of historic
resources within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. A minor use permit is
required for any relocation or demolition of a historic resource within the City of Santa
Clarita. The application, fees, public hearing and approved process for the minor use
Permit shall be as described in Sections 17.01.100 and 17.03.040 with the exception that
approval of the minor use permit shall be subiect to a public hearing before the City
Council.
i6
1 ..
Eli
/ •
. .
1 • .
/
i6
J. Actions by the City Council for the Relocation or Demolition of a Historic
Resource. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has the discretion to approve,
approve with modifications andlor conditions, or deny the minor use permit for
relocation or demolition of historic resource.
K. Findines by the City Council for the Relocation or Demolition of a Historic
Resource. A property or structure that has been designated a historic resource shall not
be demolished unless the City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning
Commission, makes one or more of the following codings:
I. 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:
2. That the demolition or relocation ofthe structure is necessary to proceed with
sig_rti scant effect on the achievement of the purposes of this division or the
potential effect is outwei hg ed by the benefits of the new proieet:
3. 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.
4. 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. Any historic resource that is relocated
shall be relocated to a propeM within the City of Santa Clarita.
L. Penalty for Demolition or Irreversible Alteration. If a historic resource demolished
without a minor use permit as required by this section, no building or construction -
related permits shall be issued and no permits or use of the property shall be allowed
from the date of demolition ora Deriod not to exceed the 5 ears. Ord. 08-14 2
919/08)
M. Expiration and Extension. The expiration period and the extension process of a
minor use permit will apply as described in Sections 17.01.160 and 17.03.040.
N Final Action. The decision of the approving authora is final and effective within
fifteen 15) calendar days unless an appeal is filed, in writing, in accordance with Section
17.01.110 for Director's action and Section 17.01.120 for Planning Commission action.
/7
structures on properties owned by the County of Los Angeles or the State of California
may nominate their structures, or otherwise have their structures nominated as historic
resources. Any resulting designation will apply only to the structure building or object
and not the underlying property.
P. Incentives. In addition to any other incentive of Federal or State law, the owner of
historic resource may apply for the following incentives subiect to the discretion of the
Director:
1. Use of the California Historic Building Code. Whenever applicable. the Owner
may elect to use the California Historic Buildin¢ Code for alterations,
restorations, new construction, removal, relocation, or demolition of a historic
resource, in any case which the buildiniofficial 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
Historic Buildine 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 Director or Planning Commission in coniunction with a Minor
Use Permit.
2. Mills Act Tax Relief The Mills Act can provide relief to the property taxes
associated with properties designated as historic resources 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. Waiver of Fees for Renovation and Alteration of Historic Resources. There
shall be no entitlement fee for the renovation or alteration of historic
resources.
4. Technical Assistance. The Community Development Department shall provide
technical assistance to the owner of a historic resource re ag rding any
5. Streamlined Permitting. The Community Development Department shall
provide the owner of a historic resource with priority entitlement review for
proposed improvements that are not exempt under Section 17.03.145.H.
Summary of National Research:
Historic Preservation Ordinances
Survey Ouestions:
1) Does the City's ordinance have an exclusive "opt -in" clause?
2) Does the City's ordinance require a Historic Preservation Commission?
3) What incentives does the City's ordinance provide?
4) Does the City's ordinance require a permit for improvements to designated properties?
5) Are some types of activities exempted under the City's ordinance?
Notes:
A) "Similar to proposed" means the municipality offers an incentive or combination of incentives similar
to those proposed in the current amendments to the City of Santa Clarita's Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
DGP:
8:\CD\CURRENV2010\10-155 (UDC 12Aoc
i9
' n
3) Incentives
4) Perniiis
5) Exemptions
Bakersfield,
No
Yes
Similar to
Commission &
Routine
CA
proposed."
City Council
Maintenance
Approval
Santa Cruz,
No
Yes
Similar to
Historic
Routine
CA
proposed.
Alteration Permit
Maintenance
/ Demo Permit
Elk Grove,
No
Yes
Similar to
Certificate of
Routine
CA
proposed.
Appropriateness
Maintenance
Chico,
No
Yes
Similar to
Certificate of
Routine
CA
ro sed.
Appropriateness
Maintenance
Medford,
No
Yes
Similar to
Historic
Routine
OR
proposed.
Alteration Permit
Maintenance
/ Demo Permit
Tacoma,
No
Yes
Similar to
Certificate of
Routine
WA
ro sed.
Appropriateness
Maintenance
Lakewood,
No
Yes
Similar to
Certificate of
Routine
CO
ro sed.
Appropriateness
Maintenance
Cheyenne,
No
Yes
Similar to
Demo Only
All but demos.
WY
proposed.
Rapid City,
Relies on state
Yes
State loans
None. Guidelines
Relies on state
SO
law.
and grants.
only.
law.
Fayetteville
No
Yes
N/A
Certificate of
Routine
AK
Appropriateness
Maintenance
Champaign
No
Yes
N/A
Certificate of
Routine
IL
Appropriateness
Maintenance
Green Bay,
No
Yes
None.
None — advisory
None
WI
only.
Lexington,
No
Yes
Similar to
Certificate of
Routine
VA
ro sed.
Appropriateness
Maintenance
Rochester,
No
Yes
Similar to
Certificate of
Routine
NY
proposed.
Appropriateness
Maintenance
Portland,
No
Yes
Similar to
Certificate of
Routine
ME
proposed.
Appropriateness
Maintenance
Survey Ouestions:
1) Does the City's ordinance have an exclusive "opt -in" clause?
2) Does the City's ordinance require a Historic Preservation Commission?
3) What incentives does the City's ordinance provide?
4) Does the City's ordinance require a permit for improvements to designated properties?
5) Are some types of activities exempted under the City's ordinance?
Notes:
A) "Similar to proposed" means the municipality offers an incentive or combination of incentives similar
to those proposed in the current amendments to the City of Santa Clarita's Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
DGP:
8:\CD\CURRENV2010\10-155 (UDC 12Aoc
i9
Properties Subject to the Current Historic Preservation Ordinance
Properties Identified by HRG as Meeting Eligibility Criteria
22621 13th Street
Jauregui House
plop
22502-22510
Newhall Ice
5th Street
Company
22506-22508
Perkins Office
6th Street
Court; former
Signal Office
24229 Main Street
William D. Ross,
Dental Office
(formerly San
DDS; Howard G.
Fernando Road)
Stowitts,
r
DDS
24238 Main Street
Sheriff
Canyon Theatre
(formerly San
Substation #6
Guild
Fernando Road)
NOTE: Property
owner wishes to
have property
removed from
list.
24247-24251
Tom Mix
Minsterio Lluvias
Main Street
Cottages #1
de Gracia;
(formerly San
and #2
The Needleworks;
Fernando Road)
Antiques
G
24307-24311
Beneficial Loans
Envios de Dinero;
Main Street
Newhall Coin
(formerly San
Laundry; Boost
Fernando Road)
Mobile; Nagco
Glass
NOTE: NRC
recommends
removing from
list.
24311-24313
Frew Blacksmith
Joyeria
Main Street
Shop
Electronics;
(formerly San
Envies de Dinero;
Fernando Road)
film rental store
24317-24321
Army Surplus;
Main Street
Vallaryha
'.
(formerly San
Services; Army
Fernando Road)
Surplus; National
r
Glass; Kar-lins
z
NOTE: NRC
Krafts; Preferred
recommends
Glass
removing from
list.
22908-22916
Market Street
NOTE: Property
owner wishes to
have property
f
removed from
list.
24151 Newhall
Avenue (formerly
San Fernando
Road), Heritage
Junction Historic
Park
Callahan's
Schoolhouse;
Little Red School
House
Schoolhouse;
Little Red School
House
24151 Newhall
Edison House
Edison House
Avenue (formerly
San Fernando
Road), Heritage
Junction Historic
Park
24151 Newhall
Kingsburry
Kingsburry House
Avenue
House
(formerly San
Fernando
Road), Heritage
Junction Historic
Park
24151 Newhall
Mitchell Adobe
Mitchell Adobe
Avenue
Schoolhouse
Schoolhouse
(formerly San
Fernando
,
Road), Heritage
Junction Historic
Park
24151 Newhall
Newhall Ranch
Newhall Ranch
Avenue
House
House
(formerly San
Fernando
Road), Heritage
Junction Historic
Park
a;
It�lll '
24151 Newhall
Ramona Chapel
Ramona Chapel
Avenue
(formerly San
Fernando
Road), Heritage
Junction Historic
Park
d3
I_
24757 Oakcreek
Melody Ranch
Melody Ranch
Avenue
NOTE: Property
owner wishes to
have property
removed from
list.
24148 Pine Street
California Star
Oil Company
and Standard
Oil House
24307 Railroad
Santa Clarita
Railroad Cafd
Avenue
Courthouse;
Masonic
Lodge
24522 Spruce
Old Newhall Jail
Street
NOTE: Property
owner wishes to
have property
removed from
list.
24527 Spruce
American Legion
Street
Hall;
,.
formerly
American
Theater
Company; SAM
Rocket
monument
—
24326 Walnut
Street
d3
i
I
24328 Walnut
Street
i`
24338 Walnut
Emile Chaix
Boy Scouts
Street
Residence
Service Center
NOTE: Property
p
owner wishes to
have property
removed from
list.
24287 Newhall
Erwin Bungalow
Avenue
Properties Subject to the Current Historic Preservation Ordinance
Properties Identified by HRG as Not Meeting Eligibility Criteria
(Supported by the City Council for Removal of Current Designation)
a�
24264 Main Street
Kelly's Bar
Sofia J. Baltzar,
(formerly San
DDS Family
Fernando Road)
Dentistry;
Newhall Photo
Center
24265 Main Street
Newhall Bakery
(formerly San
Fernando Road)
1
24266 Main Street
Repertory East
(formerly San
Playhouse;
Fernando Road)
Howdy Cleaners
24267 Main Street
H&H Auto Parts
Cookbooks; S&M
(formerly San
Insurance
as= t
Fernando Road)
-.
24270-24274 Main
Newhall Five &
El Trocadero
Street
Dime
Restaurant;
(formerly San
Western States
Fernando Road)
Trophy Center;
Valencia Cyclery
24331 Main Street
Newhall Baking
Planet Soccer
s 1 t
(formerly San
Fernando Road)
R at�aaoccu
NOTE:NRC
recommends
adding to Exhibit
A.
24333-24335 Main
Hubbard's
Maria's Beauty
Street (formerly
Salon;Botanica
San Fernando
La Santisma;
Road)
Allards Dry
Cleaners
I
24346 Main Street
Bank of America
Valley Worship
(formerly San
Center
Fernando Road)
24353-24355 %2
Valencia Bicycles;
Main Street
Soccer and More;
(formerly San
Valencia Color
Fernando Road)
Lab; H&R Block
24363 Main Street
Discoteca
(formerly San
r
Fernando Road)
24367 Main Street
Newhall Radio &
El Mas Cafd
(formerly San
TV
Fernando Road)
24362 Walnut
Street
JA
a7
4
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] CityCouncil [ ] Planning Commission [I Director of Planning and Building Services
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a
Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
Lisa Webber, AICP
PLANNING MANAGER
Prepared by:
Approved by: I Jeff Hogan, Senior Planner
(S na r (Name/Title)
Public Review od Frot 9/27/11 To 10/18/11
Public Notice Given On 9/27/11
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice.
CERTIFICATION DATE:
S:\CD\CURRE1,M120I000.135 (UDC 10-008 Historic Pres)\Historic Pres Neg Dec.doc -
aq
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO:
Master Case 10-135
PERMIT/PROJECT
NAME:
Unified Development Code Amendment 10-003
APPLICANT:
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Valencia, CA 91355
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT:
Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT:
The City of Santa Clarita is preparing an amendment to Chapter 17 of
the City's Municipal Code (the Unified Development Code or UDC).
The proposed code amendments provide a heightened level of
discretion to evaluate the potential nomination, alteration, relocation
or demolition of historic resources identified within the City of Santa
Clarita.
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] CityCouncil [ ] Planning Commission [I Director of Planning and Building Services
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a
Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
Lisa Webber, AICP
PLANNING MANAGER
Prepared by:
Approved by: I Jeff Hogan, Senior Planner
(S na r (Name/Title)
Public Review od Frot 9/27/11 To 10/18/11
Public Notice Given On 9/27/11
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice.
CERTIFICATION DATE:
S:\CD\CURRE1,M120I000.135 (UDC 10-008 Historic Pres)\Historic Pres Neg Dec.doc -
aq
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 Historic Preservation is to promote the
economic and general welfare of the City of Santa
Clarita by preserving and protecting public and private
historic, cultural, and natural resources which are of
special historic or aesthetic character or interest, or
relocating such resources where necessary for their
preservation and for their use, education, and view by
the general public.
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
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 2 of 30
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, alteration, relocation and demolition of
historic resources within the City of Santa Clarita's
boundaries.
17.03.145 Historic Preservation Review:
This section would be modified and establish
procedures for the nomination, alteration, relocation
and demolition of historic resources. Modifications
would also include incentives for owners of historic
resources
Surrounding land uses: N/A
Other public agencies whose N/A
approval is required:
31
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
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water
Materials Quality
[ I Mineral Resources [ ] Noise
[ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation
[ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ]
B. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Geology / Soils
[ J Land Use / Planning
[ ] Population / Housing
[ ] 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.
[ J I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ J 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.
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 4 of 30
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
q 26 t I
Date
Date
3�
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 5 of 30
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [ J [ ] [X] [ ]
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment [] [] [] [X]
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
3Y
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 6 of 30
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
d) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
number of people?
f) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
35
k
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 7 of 30
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally [ ] [ ] [X] []
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
h) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ ] [X] [ )
significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15064.5?
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 8 of 30
37
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
[ ] [] [X] []
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to '15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique
[] [ ] [] [X]
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
[] [ ] [X] []
outside of formal cemeteries?
e)Other
[] [] I I
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
[ ] [ ] [X] [ J
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
[ ] [ J [X] [ ]
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
37
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 9 of 30
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- [ ] [
] [X] [ ]
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [ ] [
] [X] [ ]
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Change in topography or ground surface relief [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
features?
g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ ]
IN [ ]
yards or more?
h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
10% natural grade?
i) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ] [ ]
IN [ ]
unique geologic or physical feature?
j)Other [J []
[J []
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly [] I
[X] I
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gasses?
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
Et
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 10 of 30
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ]
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ]
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving explosion or the
release of hazardous materials into the environment
(including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ] [ ]
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ] [ ]
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ] [ ]
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] [ ] [ ] [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?
sq
I
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 11 of 30
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
{ Impact with Impact
Mitigation
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil pipelines)?
j) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 12 of 30
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Impact
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
e) Create or contribute, runoff water which would []
[ ] [X] [ 1
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures []
[] [X] I
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
and direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ]
[ ] IN [ ]
1) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
following ways:
i) Potential impact of project construction and [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
project post -construction activity on storm water
runoff?
ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or
equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage,
delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor
work areas?
�I
c
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 13 of 30
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in [ ] [ ] [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?
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
drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials
both during construction and after project
occupancy?
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
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
L�.a'
E
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 14 of 30
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 [ ] [ ] ( ] [X]
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
inefficient manner?
XII. NOISE - Would the project result in:
i
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels [ ] [ ] [) [X]
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [] [] [] IN
groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [ ] [ ] [ ] [XI
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
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 expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
43
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 15 of 30
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 16 of 30
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
1 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ] [
] [ ] [X]
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, [ ] [
] [ ] [X]
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [ ] [
J [ ] [X]
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? [ ] [
I IN [ I
ii) Police protection? [ ] [
J [X] [ ]
iii) Schools? [ ] [
I IN [ ]
iv) Parks? [ ] [
I [XI [ I
XV. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and [ ] [
] [XJ [ ]
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 17 of 30
b) Include recreational facilities or require the [ ] [] [X] []
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XVI, TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including (J [ ] [X] [ ]
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
216
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 18 of 30
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ] [ ] [X] ( ]
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ J [ ] [X] [ ]
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
Provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
regulations related to solid waste?
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 19 of 30
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 [ ] [ ] IN [ ]
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 [ ]
individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife
resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose
of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants,
fish, amphibians, and related ecological
communities, including the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends for it's continued viability."
[X]
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 20 of 30
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections I 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
historic resources. No scenic vistas are identified as historic
resources. 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 (I-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: 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.
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.
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 21 of 30
Jia
II. AGRICULTURE
a. -c.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the UDC establish
RESOURCES
procedures for the nomination, demolition, relocation or alteration of
historic resources. No farmland or agricultural use is identified as
historic resources. 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 Sienificant 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 tum 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
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
Jia
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 22 of 30
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 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.
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 A MD and the City of
01
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 23 of 30
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 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 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 which contribute to community identity and a sense
of history. Therefore, impacts from the proposed UDC amendments
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 24 of 30
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 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 qver-covering of any
physical or geological feature. Furthermore, the proposal would not
affect requirements of future developments to comply with all state
and city building codes/regulations. Therefore, the proposal would
have a less than significant impact with respect to erosion, unstable
or expansive soil, or any topographical features.
53
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 25 of 30
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 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 Imaact — The proposed changes to the
HAZARDOUS UDC would not directly expose people to health hazards or
MATERIALS hazardous materials and would not interfere with any emergency
response plans. Future developments in the city would be required to
comply with the City's General Plan and development codes and
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
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 26 of 30
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
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
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
�5
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 27 of 30
56
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 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.
XI. MINERAL AND
a. -c.) No Impact — Gold mining and oil production historically have
ENERGY
been the principal mineral extraction activities in and around the
RESOURCES
Santa Clarita Valley. Other minerals found in the planning area
include construction aggregate, titanium, and tuff. Mineral resources
and extraction areas are shown in Exhibit OS -5 of the City's General
Plan. No modifications to the UDC are proposed at this time with
respect to current mining operations within the city and will not
affect mineral resources in the city. Therefore, no impact related to
mineral and energy resources is anticipated.
XII. NOISE
a. -d.) No Impact — The proposed modifications to the UDC will not
expose persons to the generation of excess noise levels, groundbome
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 foresecably lead to a chane in the
56
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 28 of 30
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 fixture 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
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
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 29 of 30
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 fixture 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
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
Master Case 10-135
UDC 10-008
Page 30 of 30
SACMCURREN 12010\10.135 (UDC 10-008 Historic Pru)\Historic Preservation Initial Study.doc
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
Findings of Significance.
XIV. DEPARTMENT
a.) No Impact — The legislative intent of the Department of Fish and
OF FISH AND GAME
Game `De Minimus' Finding is "to extend the current user -based
`DE MINIMUS'
funding system by allocating the transactional costs of wildlife
FINDING
protection and management to those who would consume those
resources through urbanization and development..." (AB 3158,
Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, effective January 1, 1991, Section
1(c)). However, the proposed UDC amendments would not entitle
any new development; and any future development proposal seeking
discretionary approval would remain subject to CEQA and the CDFG
Code. Since, the proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a
significant adverse effect either individually or cumulatively, on fish
and wildlife resources, the project's impacts on fish and wildlife are
de minimus.
SACMCURREN 12010\10.135 (UDC 10-008 Historic Pru)\Historic Preservation Initial Study.doc
4TM111'
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT TITLE: Historic Preservation Ordinance Amendments
APPLICATION: Master Case 10-135; Unified Development Code Amendment 10-008
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Santa Clarita is preparing an amendment to Chapter 17 of the
City's Municipal Code amending the Historic Preservation Ordinance. This subsection would provide
provisions for the nomination, alteration, relocation, and demolition of historic resources within the City
of Santa Clarita's boundaries.
BACKGROUND: On October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council
adopt the proposed modifications. On October 25, 2011, the City Council directed staff to conduct
further research on Historic Preservation Ordinances across the country and directed staff to return at a
future date to present findings.
PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide
A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and is available
for public review. A copy of the Negative Declaration and all supporting documents are available at the
Permit Center, located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita,
California. A copy of the Negative Declaration is also available at the Santa Clarita Library, Valencia
Branch at 23743 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California.
The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following
date:
DATE: September 25, 2012
TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 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 hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the City of Santa Clarita, Department
of Community Development, 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor, Room 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355;
Telephone: (661) 255-4330, David Peterson, Assistant Planner 1I.
Dated: September 4, 2012 Publish Date: September 4, 2012
Armin Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk
0.4 N
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting
held September 25, 2012, continued a public hearing on
MASTER CASE 10-35: FIRST READING OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 17.03.145 OF
THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE - HISTORIC PRESERVATION
to a date uncertain.
Dated this 26`h day of September, 2012.
I)A � I- 1�
Ar4in—c' Cha an
Interim City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 1
Armin Chaparyan, being first duly swom, deposes and says that she is the duly
appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on September 26, 2012, she
caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia
Blvd., Santa Clarita, California.
Santa Clarita, California
5'\CITY\Pubk Hearings\Continued PH Historic to Ware UmmonAm