HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-09 - ORDINANCES - MC 10-103 UDC & LYONS CORRIDOR (2)ORDINANCE NO. 13-11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MASTER CASE NO. 10-103 (UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
CODE 10-006, ZONE CHANGE 13-003), AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) BY ESTABLISHING THE LYONS CORRIDOR PLAN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted the Santa Clarita General Plan, by adoption
of Resolution No. 11-63. The General Plan provides a vision that will guide future
development in the City of Santa Clarita through a set of goals, objectives, and policies;
b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65860, local jurisdictions, with newly adopted
general plans, are required to amend their zoning ordinances to ensure consistency with
the newly adopted General Plan;
I
c. Following adoption of the General Plan in June 2011, the City of Santa Clarita (the
"Applicant" or "City") initiated the Lyons Corridor Plan (the "project" or "LCP");
d. The City of Santa Clarita's proposed project consists of the following:
Unified Development Code (UDC) 10-006: To update the Unified Development Code,
to ensure consistency with the General Plan. The Lyons Corridor Plan is incorporated
herein by reference as Exhibit A;
Zone Chance (ZC) 13-003: To update the zoning map to ensure consistency with the
General Plan;
e. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed study sessions on October 18, 2011, and
June 19, 2012, in accordance with the City's noticing requirements. The study sessions
were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, and at Old Orchard
Park, Community Room, located at 25032 Avenida Rotella, Santa Clarita. The
following occurred at the study sessions:
1. On October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission received a presentation on the
project and the community outreach held to date. At that meeting, staff received
comments from both the Planning Commission and the public;
2. On June 19, 2012, the Planning Commission received a presentation on the draft
Lyons Corridor Plan and a progress report on the project. At that meeting, staff
received comments from both the Planning Commission and the public;
f On January 28, 2013, the draft of the Lyons Corridor Plan was made available to the ,
public and posted at the Santa Clarita Library (Canyon Country, Newhall, and Valencia
Branches), at the Permit Center at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, and on the
SantaClaritaCorridorPlan.com website. Copies of the Lyons Corridor Plan were also
distributed to the Planning Commission and the City Council;
g. The City Council Development Subcommittee held duly noticed meetings January 28,
and March 4, 2013, in accordance with the City's noticing requirements. The meetings
were held at City Hall, Century Room, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita;
It. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on March 19, 2013, and
April 16, 2013, in accordance with the City's noticing requirements. The project was
advertised in The Signal newspaper on February 26, 2013. The hearings were held at
City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. The following
occurred at the public hearings:
1. On March 19, 2013, the Planning Commission received staff's presentation
summarizing the proposed project, opened the public hearing, and received public
testimony regarding the project. Staff received comments and questions from the
Planning Commission regarding the project. The Planning Commission continued
the public hearing to April 16, 2013;
2. On April 16, 2013, staff provided responses to questions and comments that were '
raised by the Commission on March 19, 2013. Staff presented the necessary
approval documents (resolution and associated attachments), including the Errata
Summary, as shown in Exhibit B. The Planning Commission received public
testimony regarding the project, provided final comments to staff, and closed the
public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 (Commissioner Burkhart
recused himself) to adopt Resolution No. P13-04 recommending that the City
- Council certify the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and approve the
Lyons Corridor Plan;
At hearings on the project listed above, the Planning Commission considered staff pre-
sentations and reports, and public comments and testimony on the Lyons Corridor Plan;
The documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the decision of the Planning Commission is based, are on file within the
Community Development Department and are in the custody of the Director of
Community Development;
k. On June 25, 2013, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Lyons
Corridor Plan, in accordance with the City's noticing requirements. The project was
advertised in The Signal newspaper on June 3, 2013. The hearing was held at 6:00 p.m.
at City Hall, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The City Council
received the staff report, received public testimony, and closed the public hearing;
' 1. On June 25, 2013, the City Council conducted the first reading of an ordinance for the
Lyons Corridor Plan and voted 4-1 to pass the ordinance to a second reading on July 9,
2013;
m. Based upon the staff presentations, staff reports, and public comments and testimony,
the City Council finds that the Lyons Corridor Plan will not adversely affect the health,
peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Lyons Corridor
Plan jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety,
or general welfare; and
n. The documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the decision of the City Council is based, are on file within the Community
Development Department and are in the custody of the Director of Community
Development;
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the
foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared, as set
forth in Exhibit C, 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 have been
considered. The Negative Declaration was advertised on February 26, 2013, and posted
on March 5, 2013, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from
March 5, 2013, through April 4, 2013;
c. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of
Santa Clarita;
d. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the decision of the City Council is made is the Master Case No. 10-103 project
file, located within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of
the Director of Community Development; and
e. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds that the
Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 10-006 AND ZONE
CHANGE 13-003. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record,
including, without limitation, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the
public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, and upon
studies and investigations made by the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
a. That the proposed zone change or amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
I
Development Code, the General Plan, and development policies of the City:
Master Case No. 10-103, which consists of Unified Development Code 10-006 and
Zone Change 13-003, is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code, the
General Plan, and development policies of the City. The Lyons Corridor Plan carries
out a number of General Plan policies and objectives. Specifically, the Land Use
Element of the General Plan dictates the City work to promote business development
that upgrades and revitalizes older commercial corridors in a manner that reflects each
community's character, architecture and history. The Lyons Corridor Plan provides
incentives for property and business owners to invest in upgrading and revitalizing
older commercial centers. The proposed plan is also consistent with Land Use Policy
2.1.2 by promoting healthy, walkable communities. This is achieved by providing an
appropriate mix of residential and service uses in proximity to one another. The street
and streetscape section of the document implements this policy by creating wider
sidewalks and parkways to ensure that pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles are in
harmony with one another. The Lyons Corridor Plan further implements the General
Plan by applying distinctive community character guidelines to the planning area
through the use of frontage types, building types, and architectural styles.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration (Exhibit C) prepared for 1
the project and approves the Lyons Corridor Plan, which includes Master Case No. 10-103,
Unified Development Code 10-006, Zone Change 13-003, consisting of the Lyons Corridor Plan
(Exhibit A) and the Errata Summary (Exhibit B).
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its passage and
adoption.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published as required by law.
0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July 2013.
M YOR
DATE:2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Armine Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No.] 3-11 was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting' of the City Council on the 25th day of June 2013. That thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 9th day of July
2013, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste, McLean, Kellar
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boydston
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ferry
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of
and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Lai
5
.C.
No. 13-11
EXHIBIT A
OF ORDINANCE NO. 13-)l
THE LYONS CORRIDOR PLAN
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
www.SantaC]aritaCorridorPlan.com
�zH
Hoy
xw
w O
a
w
O
o O 0
N
CD
0
M
o
O^'
Cr ( UQ
O
CD
0
0 �. a c
(D
a
w
a m
a
w
n
n
�o o,ow
D
N N
n p
w CrN
n (p
GCD
C
C a 0
w
' EXHIBIT C
OF ORDINANCE NO. 13-11
NEGATIVE DECLARATION / INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO Master Case 10-103
PERMIT/PROJECT
NAME: Unified Development Code Amendment 10-006, Zone Change 13-003, and Initial Study 13-
002
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Valencia, CA 91355
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT: Along Lyons Avenue from I-5 to the west and Newhall Avenue to the east
DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT: The Lyons Corridor project area is located within the City of Santa Clarita in the County of Los
Angeles on Lyons Avenue, east of Interstate 5 and west of Newhall Avenue. The project area embraces 102 acres. Today, the Lyons
Avenue Corridor consists of retail centers, medical office buildings, gas stations, freeway -oriented businesses, and housing
complexes that total more than 1.3 million square -feet of commercial building space. The Lyons Corridor Plan has been proposed to
protect and promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the Lyons Corridor. The LCP,
as proposed, will take on a form -based code type approach. This type of code addresses the relationship between the buildings
themselves and public spaces for the entire planning area. Form -based codes create environments that highlight the importance of
outdoor public spaces such as plazas, squares, and open space, while looking at the connectivity of streets and blocks. The regulations
and standards in this form -based code are presented in both words and clearly drawn diagrams and other visual exhibits. The result
will be a more user friendly document for property owners and business owners.. as well as, a community engaged plan that promotes
high quality development and uses._-......
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Planning and Building Services
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration
shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached _ [ ] Are Not Attached`—_—
Jeff Hogan, AICP
PLANNING MANAGER
Prepared by: Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner
(Signature) (Name/Pitle)
Approved by: Jeff Hogan AICP Planning Manager
(Signature) (Name/Title)_ —
Public Review Period From March 5 2013 To April 4 2013
Public Notice Given On February 26 2013
' [X] Legal Advertisement _ [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
S:\CD\UDC Update\Environmental\Draft ND - LCP.doc
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title/Master Case Number: Master Case 10-103
Unified Development Code Amendment (UDC 10-006)
Zone Change (ZC 13-003)
Initial Study (IS 13-002)
Lead Agency name and address:
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact person and phone number: Mike Ascione
Assistant Planner I1
(661) 255-4330
Project location: The Lyons Corridor project area is located within the
City of Santa Clarita,'in the County of Los Angeles, on
the Lyons Avenue Corridor, east of Interstate 5 and
west of Newhall Avenue.
Applicant's name and address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
General Plan designation: Community Commercial (CC) and Mixed Use Corridor
(MXC)
Existing Zoning: Community Commercial (CC)
Proposed Zoning: Corridor Plan (CP) zoning designation including Lyons
Urban 1 (LU I), Lyons Urban 2 (LU2), Lyons Urban 3
(3), and Lyons Urban Corridor (LUC)
Description of project and setting: The City of Santa Clarita is updating the Unified
Development Code (UDC or Code) consistent with the
General Plan adopted on June 14, 2011. One element of
this Code update is the creation of "Corridor Plans" that
guide development/redevelopment within a specific
"corridor" or "planning area" in the City where specific
development requirements will assist in creating a look
and feel consistent with the vision of the General Plan.
This initial study shall serve as the enviromnental
' analysis in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the first
"Corridor Plan" known as the Lyons Avenue Corridor
Plan (LCP). A Program Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) was certified for the City's General Plan on June
14, 2011. In addition, the City adopted its Climate
Action Plan (CAP) on August 28, 2012, with its own
certified environmental document. This Initial Study
shall tier off of the findings of the EIR prepared for the
General Plan, and shall further be in compliance with
the City's Climate Action Plan to ensure that the City's
greenhouse gas emissions are reduced in accordance
with State Law.
General Plan EIR
This initial study is a tiered document in accordance
with Section 15152(b) of CEQA. In accordance with
this Section, agencies are "encouraged to tier the
environmental analyses which they prepare for separate
but related projects including general plans, zoning
changes, and development projects" in an effort to
' avoid "repetitive discussions on the same issues and
focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual
issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental
review." The approval of the LCP is implementing the
General Plan by creating specific development
standards for the Lyons Avenue corridor to maintain the
theme of development along the corridor, while
prescribing the look and feel of future development of
the Mixed Use Zones approved along the corridor as a
part of the General Plan. The LCP will create a "form -
based" code for the Lyons Avenue Corridor that will
direct the aesthetics of future development including
the location of structures on a project site, the heights
associated with development, and the location of
parking on a project site. The LCP will not entitle
additional development other than what was considered
under the General Plan. A copy of the EIR certified for
the General Plan is available for review at the City of
Santa Clarita Permit Center at 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355.
' Proposed Project
The Lyons Corridor project area is located within the
City of Santa Clarita in the County of Los Angeles on
Lyons Avenue, east of Interstate 5 and west of Newhall
Avenue. Lyons Avenue is commonly known as the '
dividing line between the communities of Valencia to
the north and Newhall to the south. The project area
embraces 102 acres. Today, the Lyons Avenue Corridor
consists of retail centers, medical office buildings, gas
stations, freeway -oriented businesses, and housing
complexes that total more than 1.3 million square -feet
of commercial building space. Surface parking is
common, particularly on properties that were developed
in the 1960s and 1970s, and building heights range
from one to four stories. Two senior living facilities are
located on the north side of Lyons Avenue, west of
Wiley Canyon Road. The senior communities were
constructed in the early 2000s and are adjacent to
medical offices, freeway -serving businesses, and a
Southern California Edison substation. Other residential
uses back up to Lyons Avenue between Wiley Canyon
Road and Avenida Rotella, though primary access to
these communities are oriented inward to the housing
development with no street presence on Lyons Avenue
itself.
Most properties on Lyons Avenue contain single -story
'
"strip mall" buildings that reflect typical commercial
construction from the 1960s through the late 2000s.
This type of development consists of small -lot, multi -
tenant, stucco buildings with parking situated between
the store fronts and the street. Newer projects, including
a financial building at the corner of DeWolfe Road and
a drug store at the corner of Valley Street, were built
with a higher level of design with the intent to create a
better street presence. The newer projects were
designed to avoid the visual blight of large parking lots
adjacent to the street and to create as much leasable
space as possible under the zoning code. Future
development within the Lyons Avenue corridor will
further improve the appearance of the street and will
help create an environment that is more conducive to
commerce and economic vitality. The LCP will be an
integral part of this process.
The Lyons Corridor planning area is surrounded
primarily by single family residences. Some multi-
family residential units are located within the Lyons '
Avenue corridor itself but are not included in the
planning area. Other apartments and condominium
' complexes are located south of the corridor. There are
nearly 3,000 dwelling units within a five minutes' walk
of Lyons Avenue and more than 5,000 units within a
ten minutes' walk. With thousands of homes and multi-
family units located so close to Lyons Avenue, there is
tremendous potential to create a walkable environment
where people can shop, eat, and gather. The Lyons
Corridor Plan will help realize this potential and create
a community destination that meets the needs of
residents and visitors alike, regardless if they reach the
corridor by automobile, bicycle, walking, or other
means of transportation.
The Lyons Corridor Plan has been proposed to protect
and promote the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the
Lyons Corridor. More specifically, the purposes of this
Lyons Corridor Plan is to:
A. Ensure that development is of human scale,
pedestrian -oriented, and designed to create
attractive streetscapes and pedestrian spaces;
' S. Moderate vehicular traffic by providing for a
mixture of land uses, pedestrian -oriented
development, compact community form, safe and
effective traffic circulation, and appropriate parking
facilities;
C. Provide standards for the orderly growth and
development of the Lyons Corridor that will assist
in protecting and enhancing the community identity
of the Lyons Corridor;
D. Ensure that proposed development and new land
uses conserve energy and natural resources;
E. Facilitate the development and redevelopment of
walkable, complete neighborhoods with a variety of
housing types to serve the needs of a diverse
population; and
F. Provide for compatibility between different types of
development and land uses through effective urban
and architectural design.
' The LCP, as proposed, will take on a form -based code
type approach. This type of code addresses the
relationship between the buildings themselves and
public spaces for the entire planning area. Form -based
codes create environments that highlight the importance
1
of outdoor public spaces such as plazas, squares, and
open space, while looking at the connectivity of streets
and blocks. The regulations and standards in this form -
based code are presented in both words and clearly
drawn diagrams and other visual exhibits. The result
will be a more user friendly document for property
owners and business owners, as well as, a community
engaged plan that promotes high quality development
and uses. More specifically, the LCP will achieve these
goals by:
A. Creating the Corridor Plan (CP) zone on the City of
Santa Clarita zoning map. Further, within the CP
four new distinct zones will be created including the
Lyons Urban 1 (L -U1), Lyons Urban 2 (L -U2),
Lyons Urban 3 (L -U3), and Lyons Urban Center (L-
LC) zones. Typical uses within these zones include
medical office, commercial office, retail and
services. A mixture of residential and commercial
uses is permitted in the L -U3 with the appropriate
entitlement. Building heights in the L -U1, L -U2,
and L -U3 range from 1 to 3 stories. The L -UC zone
1
is characterized by mandatory mixed use
development including both commercial and
residential use types. Maximum building height in
the L -UC zone is 4 stories. The zoning types
mentioned will ensure that properties along the
corridor planning area are maintained and
redeveloped in context to parcel size and based on
adjacent uses. These zoning standards will assist in
ensuring development is of human scale and
pedestrian -oriented by regulating placement of
buildings directly adjacent to public sidewalks.
B. Creating a street and streetscape standard plan that
identifies the street and streetscape types allowed
within the Lyons Corridor planning area to promote
walking, biking, and other alternative modes of
transportation. This section provides right-of-way
design standards to ensure that proposed
development is consistent with the City's goals for
the character of the public realm of the street. This
section is also based on projected development
permitted by the Land Use Element of the General
Plan. The ultimate right-of-way width under the
1
City's General Plan is 116 feet. The LCP will
require all future development to build -out the
ultimate right-of-way to include an eight -foot (8'-
0") sidewalk and an eight -foot (8'-0") landscaped
parkway. The "curb -to -curb" pavement portion of
the right-of-way is already built -out to ultimate
width and would not change under the proposed
plan.
C. Providing architectural standards which currently
include Craftsman and Victorian architecture for all
future development and modifications to existing
development. Other architectural styles could be
included as deemed appropriate by the City
Council, or its designee. These standards provide
direction for the design of buildings, appurtenances,
and site elements within the planning area. The
intent of these standards is to retain and encourage
architectural variety; promote quality development;
and ensure that both existing and new development
is compatible in size, scale, and appearance with the
character of the LCP.
D. Creating standards for building types and frontage
' types allowed within the planning area, and provide
design standards for each type, to ensure that
proposed development is consistent with the City's
goals for building form, character, and quality.
Frontage types will provide the planning area a
continuity that gives distinctive character to the
street while also contributing to the specific form of
each building. The frontage and building types will
also ensure that buildings are oriented directly
adjacent to the street and provide opportunities for
outdoor dining and sitting areas.
Surrounding land uses: The Lyons Corridor planning area includes a mixture of
Urban Residential and Commercial land uses on all
sides of the Lyons Corridor.
Other public agencies whose N/A
approval is required:
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or a "Less than
Significant with Mitigation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture .Resources [ ] Air Quality
] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology / Soils
] Greenhouse Gas [ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water
Emissions Materials Quality
] Land Use / Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise
Population / Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Transportation /Traffic [] Utilities / Service Systems H Significance
.......
_......_
B. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation. I
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[ ] 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.
Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner Date
Jeff W. Hogan, AICP, Planning Manager Date
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [ } [ ] [ ] [X]
not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the '
area?
e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ }
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
forest land to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
I) Other [ ]
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or [ ]
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [ ]
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally []
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any [ ]
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances []
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ]
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
C
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the
[] [ ] [ ] [X]
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
h) Other
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
[ ] [ ] [] [X]
significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15 064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
[ ] [ ] [] [X]
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to '15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique
[ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
'
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
[ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
outside of formal cemeteries?
e) Other
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
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
] [ ] [ ] [X]
seismic ground shaking?
[
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
yards or more?
h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than
10% natural grade?
i) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical feature?
j) Other
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] I [X]
[] �] [] [X]
�] L] H [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] . [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [l [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS- Would the project: I
' Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
emissions of greenhouse gasses?
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] [ J [X]
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving explosion or the
release of hazardous materials into the environment
(including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
' would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No ,
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
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: I
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?
11
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course
and direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river?
m) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the
following ways:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I I [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] I [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
i) Potential impact of project construction and [ ]
project post -construction activity on storm water
runoff?
[X]
[X]
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
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?
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials
both during constriction 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)? I
' Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
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?
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally [ ] [ ] [ ] [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:
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 [] [] [] [X]
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No '
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
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?
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? '
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project
result in:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? [ ]
ii) Police protection? [ ]
iii) Schools? [ ]
iv) Parks? [ ]
XV. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and [ ]
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the []
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No '
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non -motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
program, including, but not limited to level of
service standard and travel demand measures, or
other standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
'
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including [ ] [ ]
[ ] [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 [ ] [ ]
[ ] [Xl
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
' Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [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?
XVII. 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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `DE MINIMUS' FINDING
a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife
resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose
of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants,
fish, amphibians, and related ecological
communities, including the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends for its continued viability."
11
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS a.) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is located within Southern
California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is bound by the San Gabriel
Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susana Mountains to the
southwest, and the mountains of the Los Padres and Angeles National
Forests to the north. The surrounding natural mountains and
ridgelines, some of which extend into the City, provide a visual
backdrop for much of the City. Other scenic resources within or
visible from the City include the Santa Clara River corridor,
forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons and natural
drainages in portions of the City. The proposed LCP is not located
on, or in proximity to any, scenic vistas in the City. The project
would create a "form -based" code for the portion of the Lyons
Avenue Corridor starting at the Interstate 5 Freeway on the western
edge of the project area, to Newhall Avenue on the eastern boundary
of the project area. No development would be approved with the
adoption of the LCP, rather the LCP would provide the framework
for future development/redevelopment within the planning area.
Based on the analysis completed with the EIR for the General Plan
and the proposed LCP, no impact to scenic vistas is anticipated and
no further analysis is required.
b.) No Impact: The LCP is located along the Lyons Avenue corridor
between I-5 and Newhall Avenue. The LCP planning area does not
include any General Plan designated ridgelines as it is located in a
relatively flat portion of the City. The western portion of the planning
area does gradually slope up to the Lyons Avenue/Pico Canyon
overpass at the I-5, beginning at Wiley Canyon Road. The property
between the I-5 and Wile Canyon Road is substantially developed,
and is terraced to maintain the integrity of the existing grade in this
portion of the planning area. Development in this area in the future
would likely continue in this "terraced" pattern of development and
would maintain the topography of the community. Further minor
topographical changes exist along the eastern portion of the project
area east of Wayman Street. The area within this portion of the
planning area is likely to continue to develop/redevelop in a
"terraced" pattern of development as well. Since no General Plan
designated ridgelines are located within the planning area, no impacts
to these scenic resources are anticipated.
Oak trees exist within the LCP planning area. However, the proposed
LCP does not allow for any further impact to oak trees. The City's
Unified Development Code includes provisions for the removal,
encroachment, and pruning of oak trees in the City. Impacts to oak
trees will be evaluated on a project by project basis as impacts are
identified. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to oak trees with the
approval of the LCP.
In January 2013, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
adopted the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance to protect historic
resources in the City. The Ordinance allowed property owners to
"opt -in" to place the historic designation on their property. In
addition eight properties were designated as "historic" under the
ordinance as well. However, none of the properties designated as
historic are located within the LCP planning area. The proposed LCP
will not impact the Historic Preservation Ordinance and will allow
property owners within the LCP to opt -in and request that a property
be designated as historic.
c.) No Impact: The LCP will guide the orderly
development/redevelopment of property within the LCP planning
area. The LCP designates that future development/redevelopment
within the planning area utilize two specific architectural themes
including Victorian and Craftsman styles. Further, the LCP
designates the building and frontage types permitted within the
planning area. Designating the frontage and building types in a form -
based code clearly defines the street scene that is desired along the
Lyons corridor in order to get more orderly development consistent
with the vision for the corridor. The Lyons Corridor has been
predominantly developed with parking and small outbuildings
located on the street side of each lot, with the buildings located along
the rear portions of the project. The LCP would require that each new
development/redevelopment of a project site would bring the
buildings out to the street, tucking the parking either behind the
building, or within structured parking as appropriate. The changes to
the street scene will change upon development/redevelopment.
However; the clear prescriptions provided by the LCP will ensure the
orderly design and development to ensure that the appropriate street
scene is accomplished. Therefore, a less than significant impact
related to visual character or quality of the site and surroundings is
anticipated with the adoption of the LCP.
d.) No Impact: The LCP does not propose to regulate any lighting
within the plan area. The City's Unified Development Code
addresses lighting, providing regulations that require that all lights
are directed downward and are screened from neighboring properties.
In addition, the UDC requires that there is no spill-over of light onto
sensitive biological areas or neighboring properties.
1
Development/redevelopment in the LCP will likely create new
sources of light, however structured parking in mixed use areas will
likely reduce the need for unenclosed lighting structures in parking
areas. Since no development is proposed at this time, lighting impacts
are too speculative to analyze at this time and must be evaluated on a
project -by -project basis. However, compliance with the provisions of
the UDC is anticipated to reduce all impacts relating to light in the
LCP area to less than significant levels.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the General
Plan analyzed the potential impact of aesthetics in Section 3.6 of the
General Plan EIR. The EIR determined that all impacts relating to
aesthetics were anticipated to be less than significant with the
buildout of the General Plan and no mitigation measures were
required for aesthetics.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the Lyons Corridor Plan proposed at this time, no impact
to aesthetics is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
II. AGRICULTURE
a. -e.) No Impact — There is no farmland of any kind located within
RESOURCES
the LCP planning area. The LCP planning area is predominantly
developed with a mixture of residential, commercial, and service
related uses. The creation of a form -based code to guide
development/redevelopment in the planning area will therefore not
impact any farmland, forest areas, or other agricultural uses.
The EIR prepared for the General Plan discusses agricultural
resources in section 3.5 of the EIR. The General Plan EIR identifies
there would be a significant impact to Important Farmlands due to
areas in the City's Sphere of Influence being converted to Urban
Land Use designations and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
(SOC) was adopted for agricultural resources. No mitigation
measures were identified that would reduce impacts as a result of the
conversion of farmland described above. However, none of these
Important Farmland areas are located within the current City
boundary, its recently annexed areas, or the LCP, and will therefore
not be impacted with the creation of the LCP.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the Lyons Corridor Plan proposed at this time, no impact
to agricultural, farmland, or forest resources is anticipated and no
further analysis is required.
1I1. AIR QUALITY
a. -e.) No 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 an in turn implement the Federal Clean Air
Act administered by the EPA. The AQMP accommodates population
growth and transportation projections based on the predictions made
by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Thus, projects that are consistent with employment and population
forecasts are consistent with the AQMD.
The creation of the LCP will not alter any of the aforementioned
measures: The General Plan for the City outlined the land use
designations in the City, including the establishment of commercial
and residential densities within the various zones in the City. The
LCP is a form -based code that will set parameters for the
development of property within the LCP planning area consistent
with the densities envisioned in the General Plan. The form -based
code for the LCP provides clear direction on the types of buildings,
the design of the frontages along the public right-of-way, and the
architectural style of the buildings within the planning area. These
parameters will provide the clear direction for future
development/redevelopment within the planning area, encouraging
the mixing of uses in the corridor to create a walkable, pedestrian
community that will reduce vehicle miles traveled by providing the
necessary services in close proximity to existing and future
residential uses. There are over 2,800 residential units within a five
(5) minute walk of the planning area and over 5,000 residential units
within a 10 minute walk of the planning area. Providing a well
Ll
f—'
balanced mix of uses along the corridor will encourage further
pedestrian connectivity, reducing vehicle trips in the corridor.
The EIR prepared for the General Plan discusses air quality impacts
in Section 3.3 of the EIR. The EIR identifies that there would be
impacts to air quality that require mitigation for both construction -
related and operations -related air quality. The EIR proposes the
implementation of mitigation measures MM 3.3-1 to MM 3.3-9 to
mitigate any potential air quality impacts associated with the
implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR
determined that with the implementation of these mitigation
measures, the impacts to air quality will likely be significant and
unavoidable and an SOC for air quality was adopted. Since the LCP
is implementing the General Plan by providing the form -based
framework for the development/redevelopment of the planning area,
no further mitigation would be required for the proposed amendments
to the UDC. Future projects developed under the LCP would be
subject to appropriate CEQA analysis to determine project -specific
impacts, if any, to air quality to ensure compliance with the General
Plan and the required mitigation measures established in the General
Plan EIR.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP proposed at this time, no further impact to air
quality is anticipated with the proposed amendments and no further
analysis is required.
IV. BIOLOGICAL a. -g.) No Impact – The LCP is located in an urban environment that
RESOURCES is predominantly developed and therefore does not include any
habitat identified by the Department of Fish and Game or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the creation of the LCP is not
anticipated to impact any special status species of flora or fauna. The
LCP is intended to guide the development/redevelopment of property
within the planning area and will not entitle any construction activity
within the planning area. The creation of the LCP will implement the
General Plan, by creating a form -based code that will prescribe the
building types, frontage types, and architectural styles for
development/redevelopment of property within the planning area.
Any development in the planning area is speculative at this time,
however must be consistent with the densities outlined in the General
Plan for both residential and commercial land uses. All future
projects under the LCP would be required to be analyzed under
CEQA to determine any project specific impacts to biological
resources as a result of the project would exist.
FIR prepared for the General Plan discusses possible impacts to
biological resources in Section 3.7 of the EIR. The EIR identifies that
potential impacts related to biological resources would exist as a
result of the implementation of the General Plan including impacts to
special status species of flora and fauna, impacts to possible
"blueline" streams, and possible impacts to conservation plans in the
City. However, the extent of these potential impacts cannot be
identified at this time and will require further analysis on a project by
project basis. The General Plan incorporated mitigation measures
MM 3.7-1 to MM 3.7-3 to address the possible impacts to biological
resources. However, these mitigation measures are not anticipated to
address the potential impacts to biological resources and an SOC was
adopted for biological resources.
The creation of the LCP proposed at this time is a regulatory act and
is not development specific. The Mitigation Measures identified in
the General Plan will address project specific impacts requiring
additional studies at the time development is proposed in the City.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, the
proposed UDC amendments are not anticipated to have an impact to
biological resources and no further analysis is required.
V. CULTURAL a. -d.) No Impact — The General Plan identifies resources of historic
RESOURCES significance to the City of Santa Clarita, as well as resources that
have historical significance to the State of California. To further
protect these resources, as well as provide for regulations for the
treatment of historical structures in the City, the City Council adopted
a Historic Preservation Ordinance on January 8, 2013. The LCP
planning area is located in a portion of the City that is urbanized with
a mixture of commercial, residential and service related uses. None
of the resources identified in the General Plan, or the Historic
Preservation Ordinance are located within the LCP planning area,
and would therefore, not be impacted as a result of the creation of the
LCP. Historic resources within the LCP would still be subject to the
Historic Preservation Ordinance for any properties that are
designated as historic resources in the future. Further, impacts
associated with historical resources were considered in Section 3.8 of
the EIR prepared for the General Plan. The creation of the LCP will
not have any further impact on cultural resources in the City of Santa
Clarita as it will not alter any unique geological feature,
paleontological resource, any human remains or affect any historical
or archeological resource. However, as identified in mitigation
measures MM 3.8-1 to MM 3.8-7 of the General Plan EIR, further
studies on a project specific basis will be required to determine if any
possible historical resources or unique paleontological resources exist
on a project site. Should any resources be identified in any future
studies or found during any construction activities, the proper
authorities would be notified to ensure that the proper measures are
taken to preserve all identified resources. With the mitigation
measures outlined in the General Plan EIR, all impacts would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact to archeological, historical or
cultural resource is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
VI. GEOLOGY AND
a. -i.) No Impact — Southern California has numerous active and
SOILS
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 creation of the LCP would not change the requirements of future
development to follow all state and City building codes/regulations.
The proposed corridor plan will implement the General Plan by
establishing code language to guide future development in the LCP
planning area. The LCP planning area is located in a portion of the
City that is urbanized with a mixture. of commercial, residential and
service related uses. Although no construction is proposed at this
time, any future construction would be required to address the
geologic and/or soils conditions on their project site prior to the
issuance of any permits on the project site. The creation of the LCP
proposed at this time is regulatory in nature to further implement the
General Plan. The EIR prepared for the General Plan evaluated the
potential impacts to geology and soils in Section 3.9 of the EIR.
Mitigation measures MM 3.9-1 to MM 3.9-9 were identified and are
anticipated to reduce any impacts associated with future development
to less than significant impact levels.
Therefore, based on the FIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact related to geology and soils is
anticipated and no further analysis is required.
VII. GREENHOUSE
a. -b.) No Impact — "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their
GAS EMISSIONS
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) 5-03-05, 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 EIR prepared for the General Plan analyzed the impacts related
to global climate change in Section 3.4 of the General Plan EIR. The
analysis in the General Plan EIR determined that mitigation measures
MM 3.4-1 to MM 3.4-16 were required to reduce impacts to global
climate change. With these mitigation measures, the impacts to
global climate change were considered to be significant and
unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was
adopted related to global climate change. However, Policy C08.1.1
of the Conservation Element of the General Plan required that a
Climate action Plan (CAP) be adopted within 18 months of the
certification of the City's General Plan to ensure that the City will be
able to achieve California's State -mandated targets to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. On August 28,
2012, the City of Santa Clarita adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP)
in compliance with the General Plan policy. The CAP used the
baseline year of 2005 in comparison to the impacts associated with
the General Plan land use designations to establish the mitigation
measures required to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. The CAP
determined that projects in compliance with the General Plan are
consistent with the CAP. The proposed LCP is a planning document
for the Lyons corridor that is in compliance with the land use
designations outlined in the General Plan and therefore would be in
compliance with the CAP.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, the CAP
prepared for the City, and the creation of the LCP no further impact
related to greenhouse -,as.emissions is anticipated and no further
C
analysis is required.
VIII. HAZARDS AND
a. -i.) No Impact — The creation of the LCP would not directly expose
HAZARDOUS
people to health hazards or hazardous materials, interfere with any
MATERIALS
emergency response plans, or any land use within 2 miles of an
airport, airfield, or otherwise impact any airport land use plan. The
LCP will implement the goals and policies of the General Plan and
will not have an impact on the environment other than what was
previously analyzed under the General Plan EIR. The General Plan
EIR analyzed the impacts to hazards and hazardous material in
Section 3.11 of the EIR and did not identify any mitigation measures
related to hazards or hazardous materials were required.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact related to hazards and
hazardous materials is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
IX. HYDROLOGY
a. -l.) No Impact — The City of Santa Clarita has an interconnected
AND WATER
system of waterways that lead to the Santa Clara River. Development
QUALITY
in the City is required to reduce the alteration of flows, impeding
flows, and further changing flows of water that would impact
properties and resources both up and/or down -stream. Prior to the
installation of any improvements; developers must demonstrate that
the improvements will not have an impact on the path or velocity of
water flow off of the site. Further, development in the City must
comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) having the responsibility to ensure that water is properly
treated prior to leaving a project site and discharging into any
stormwater drainage facility. The proposed LCP is not changing any
development standards that would impact these requirements.
The EIR for the General Plan evaluated the potential impacts to
hydrology and water quality in Section 3.12 of the EIR. The EIR
determined that there could be impacts associated with hydrology and
water quality, and required that mitigation measures MM 3.12-1 to
MM 3.12-5 be incorporated to mitigate all potential impacts. With
these mitigation measures, all impacts would be reduced to less than
significant levels, requiring all development to demonstrate
compliance with the NPDES standards prior to the issuance of any
permits for development on a project site. Further, prior to any
permits, development would also be required to demonstrate that
there would be no impact to any floodway, water way, or other
drainage course as a result of the proposed project.
The creation of the LCP is a regulatory act and is not anticipated to
Chan e an of these standards as they currently exist in the UDC or in
the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Clarita. The LCP will not
result in direct impacts on hydrology and water quality. Further, the
LCP is not anticipated to impact any 100 -year flood hazard area,
tsunami, drainage pattern, or runoff of Stormwater Management
systems. Any construction related activity within the City would
comply with the zoning codes in place at the time that revisions are
requested, including any additional CEQA review if required.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact to hydrology and water quality
is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
X. LAND USE AND a. -c.) No Impact — The creation of the LCP is implementing the
PLANNING General Plan by creating a plan for future
development/redevelopment along the Lyons Avenue corridor. The
planning area is predominantly developed with commercial,
residential, and service -related uses. Future
development/redevelopment along the corridor will not impact any
established community that would be disrupted or physically divided
due to the proposed amendments, and therefore, no impact is
anticipated. Further, the creation of the LCP will implement the
General Plan adopted by the City on June 14, 2011, including the
following objectives and policies of the General Plan encouraging the
creation of similar plans for revitalization of communities in the City:
Objective LU 1.2 Maintain the distinctive community character of
villages and neighborhoods throughout the planning area by
establishing uses, densities, and design guidelines appropriate to the
particular needs and goals of each area, including but not limited to
the following:
Policy LU 1.2.1 In Newhall, provide opportunities for new business
and housing by implementing the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan,
provide incentives to promote infill development and re -use of
underutilized sites, and continue to plan for the future development of
North Newhall.
Objective LU 4.3 Enhance older commercial and industrial areas.
Policy LU 4.3.4 Promote business development that upgrades and
revitalizes older commercial corridors, including Lyons Avenue,
Railroad Avenue/Newhall Avenue, Main Street and Soledad Canyon
Road, in a manner that reflects each area's character, architecture,
and history.
As described above the creation of the LCP. will create provisions for
the development/redevelopment within the planning area consistent
with the land use designations approved in the City's General Plan,
promoting infill development and re -use of existing sites. The EIR
prepared for the General Plan comprehensively analyzes the Goals
and Policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan in Section
3.1 of the EIR. Implementation of the Goals and Policies of the
General Plan is anticipated to address any potential impacts
associated with Land Use and Planning and no further mitigation
measures are necessary.
The proposed LCP will 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 since no development is proposed at
this time. All future development would be subject to the standards
established by the City, at the time development is proposed.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact to land use and planning is
anticipated and no further analysis is required.
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 General Plan
planning area include construction aggregate, titanium, and tuff.
Mineral resources and extraction areas are shown in Exhibit CO -2 of
the City's General Plan. There are no current extraction operations
within the Lyons Corridor planning area. There are small portions of
the planning area at the Wiley Canyon Road/Lyons Avenue
intersection and areas east of Orchard Village that are identified as
being in a Zone 2 (Aggregate) Mineral Resource Zone. However,
these areas are developed and do not have any mining operations.
Therefore, the creation of the LCP is not expected to affect mineral
resources in the planning area, or the City. Should any aggregate or
oil extraction be expanded or introduced in the planning area,
additional review under CEQA will be required to determine if any
project specific impacts exist. The EIR prepared for the General Plan
evaluates the impacts to mineral and energy resources in Section 3.10
of the EIR. The EIR did not identify the need for any mitigation
measures as all impacts were anticipated to be less than significant
relating to mineral and energy resources.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact to mineral and energy
resources is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
XII. NOISE a. -f) No Impact — The creation of the LCP will not expose persons
to the generation of a significant increase in noise levels,
groundborne vibration, or increase ambient noise. The LCP is a
planning document that will serve as the code for the
development/redevelopment within the Lyons Corridor planning
area. The LCP will serve as a regulatory document and does not
propose any development at this time and therefore, there would not
be a direct impact to noise levels in the city. Further, the LCP does
not propose to alter any noise standards in the Unified Development
Code, or the City's Municipal Code that would impact
development/redevelopment along the Lyons Corridor planning area.
The FIR prepared for the General Plan evaluated the impacts
associated with noise in Section 3.18 of the FIR. The FIR determined
that the impacts associated with construction and operations -related
noise impacts will be significant and unavoidable, even with the
mitigation proposed under mitigation measure MM 3.18-1 to limit
the use of pile driving activities during construction, and an SOC was
adopted for noise. Since the creation of the LCP is implementing the
General Plan and is not proposing any alterations to 11.44 of the
Municipal Code regarding noise standards in the City, no impacts to
noise are anticipated. The proposed LCP is consistent with the
General Plan and will not require any further analysis under CEQA.
However, all future development will be subject to CEQA and would
be required to analyze possible project specific noise impacts and
incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to reduce any identified
impacts.
Therefore, based on the FIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact to noise is anticipated and no
further analysis is required.
XIIL POPULATION a. -c.) No Impact — The creation of the LCP is not anticipated to
AND HOUSING induce substantial population growth in the Santa Clarita Valley
-beyond what was considered as a part of the General Plan. The LCP
will implement the General Plan by creating a development code for
the future development/redevelopment along the Lyons Corridor to
encourage redevelopment along the corridor. The FIR prepared for
the General Plan evaluated the impacts related to population and
housing in Section 3.19 of the FIR. The EIR determined that there
would be no impacts related to population and housing and no
mitigation measures relating to population and housing were
required. The creation of the LCP is a regulatory act and will not
include any development activity at this time. Therefore, the creation
of the LCP would not alter the City's population projections and
would be consistent with the City's General Plan.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact to population and housing is
anticipated and no further analysis is required.
XIV. PUBLIC
a)i.-iv No Impact — The proposed LCP will not directly increase the
SERVICES
need for additional fire, police, schools, or libraries. However, any
future development/redevelopment along the Lyons Avenue corridor
would be subject to any applicable development fees, which are
established to compensate for growth. The creation of the LCP
would implement the General Plan by creating a plan for the future
development/redevelopment along the Lyons Corridor. Further, the
EIR prepared for the General Plan analyzed the impacts associated
with public services in Section 3.15 of the FIR. The EIR found that
mitigation measures including mitigation measures MM 3.15-1 to
MM 3.15-4 which will require individual development applications
to pay the applicable development impact fees associated with their
development prior to the applicable timeline established by the
jurisdiction responsible for the regulatory fee. With the payment of
the applicable development impact fees impacts to public services
would be mitigated to less than significant levels.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact to mineral and energy
resources is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
XIV. RECREATION
a. -b.) No Impact — The proposed LCP will not have any impact on
recreational amenities within the City of Santa Clarita. The LCP will
implement the General Plan by creating a planning document for the
future development/redevelopment along the Lyons Avenue
Corridor. The General Plan EIR evaluated the impacts associated
with recreation in Section 3.16 of the EIR. The FIR determined that
there would be no impact to recreation facilities and no mitigation
measures were required for recreational facilities. The proposed
project does not include any development activities at this time and
all subsequent approvals would be required to comply with the Open
Space and Conservation Element in the City's General Plan and
would be subject to the City's park impact fees.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact to recreation is anticipated and
no further analysis is required.
XV.
a. -g.) No Impact — The creation of the LCP is regulatory in nature
TRANSPORTATION /
and is not anticipated to have direct developmental impacts that alter
TRAFFIC
traffic load or capacity on streets stems. As previously discussed,
Land Use Objective LU 1.2, Policy LU 1.2.1, Objective LU 4.3, and
Policy LU 4.3.4 of the General Plan seek to encourage the
revitalization of the Lyons Avenue corridor and further revitalize
existing, older communities in the City, implementing of the General
Plan. The LCP will create development standards for the
development/redevelopment of property within the planning area,
providing standards for the building types, frontage types, and
architectural types for all future projects along the Lyons Avenue
corridor. The General Plan prescribed the land uses permitted along
the corridor, including the introduction of the Mixed Use land use
designation along the corridor, with the Mixed Use Overlay zone
designation at the Lyons Avenue/Orchard Village intersection. Any
subsequent development under the LCP would be regulated by the
City's UDC, General Plan, and transportation policies and would be
subject to additional CEQA review to determine the specific project -
related impacts. The EIR prepared for the General Plan analyzed the
potential impacts related to traffic and transportation in Section 3.2 of
the EIR. The EIR determined that all impacts related to transportation
and traffic in the City would be less than significant with the
incorporation of three mitigation measures including MM 3.2-1 to
MM 3.2-3. These measures will require the City to work with
CalTrans as additional infrastructure is required on the regional
highways neighboring the City, and to analyze traffic impacts on a
project -by -project basis. Since no new development is proposed at
this time, no further study is required regarding traffic and
transportation.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact to traffic and transportation is
anticipated and no further analysis is required.
XVI. UTILITIES AND a. -g.) No Impact — The creation of the LCP does not include any new
SERVICE SYSTEMS development at this time. The LCP would implement the General
Plan by creating a planning document to guide the future
development/redevelopment of the Lyons Avenue corridor,
consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan.
Therefore, the project would not directly result in the construction of
new water facilities, expansion of existing electric or natural gas
facilities, affect drainage patterns, water treatment services, and
furthermore, no impacts to landfill capacity would occur beyond
what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The EIR prepared for the
General Plan evaluated the impacts to utilities and service systems in
Section 3.17 of the EIR. The EIR determined that there would be
significant and unavoidable impacts related to solid waste even with
the incorporation of mitigation measures MM 3.17-1 to MM 3.17-8,
and an SOC was adopted for solid wate. These mitigation measures
require that future development be required to provide the
appropriate facilities at the time they are developed, in coordination
with the applicable City/County agency.
Water availability was extensively analyzed in the General Plan EIR
in Section 3.13. Water facilities, including adequacy of water
supplies, groundwater recharge, and perchlorate contamination, will
be adequate for areas within the Castaic Lake Water Agency
(CLWA) service area and the east subbasin. However, water
facilities for areas outside the CLWA service area and east subbasin
would be unavoidably significant even with the mitigation measures
identified in the General Plan EIR and an SOC was adopted for
water. The General Plan incorporates mitigation measures MM 3.13-
1 to MM 3.13-46.
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. Since the LCP is
implementing the General Plan, no further impact to utilities and
services are anticipated.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
creation of the LCP, no further impact to utilities and service systems
is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
XVII. MANDATORY
a. -c.) No Impact — The creation of the LCP will not have a
FINDINGS OF
significant impact on the environment that would lead to a substantial
SIGNIFICANCE
reduction in habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or reduce or restrict
the number of rare, threatened or endangered species. The LCP
planning area consists of urbanized development along a commercial
corridor in the City. Since the LCP being considered at this time is
implementing the General Plan, no further impacts beyond those
considered under the EIR prepared for the General Plan are
anticipated.
XVIII. DEPARTMENT
a.) No Impact — The legislative intent of the Department of Fish and
OF FISH AND GAME
Game `De Minimus' Finding is "to extend the current user -based
`DE MINIMUS'
funding system by allocating the transactional costs of wildlife
FINDING
protection and management to those who would consume those
resources through urbanization and development..." (AB 3158,
Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, effective January 1, 1991, Section
1(c)). However, the creation of the LCP would not entitle any new
development; and any future development proposal seeking
discretionary a proval would remain subject to CEQA and the CDFG
Code. Since, the creation of the LCP implements the General Plan,
no further impacts beyond those considered under the EIR prepared
for the General Plan are anticipated and no significant adverse effect
either individually or cumulatively are anticipated to fish and wildlife
resources. Therefore, the project's impacts on fish and wildlife are de
minimus.
S:\CD\UDC Update\Hnvironmental\LCP Initial Study.doc
r