HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-11 - ORDINANCES - MC13-009 UDC/ZONE13-001 (2)IORDINANCE NO. 13-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING MASTER CASE NO. 13-009 (UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 13-001,
ZONE CHANGE 13-001), AND AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) AND ZONING MAP
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 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.
c. Following adoption of the General Plan in June 2011, the City of Santa Clarita (the
"City") initiated the comprehensive update of the Unified Development Code,
consisting of Master Case No. 13-009 (the "project" or "UDC Update").
d. The City of Santa Clarita's proposed project consists of the following:
Unified Development Code (UDC) 13-001: To update the Unified Development Code,
to ensure consistency with the -General Plan. The Unified Development Code Update i"
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A.
Zone Change (ZC) 13-001: To update the zoning map and overlay map to ensure
consistency with the General Plan. The updated zoning map is incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit B, and the updated overlay map is incorporated herein by reference
as Exhibit C. The update to the zoning map includes those areas pending annexation,
with approved prezone designations, including the North Saugus area (Ordinance No.
13-2) and Norland Road area (Ordinance No. H-8).
Municipal Code Amendments: To update certain sections in the Municipal Code with
references to Title 17. Due to renumbering the UDC, existing references to the UDC,
found in the Municipal Code, are updated as set forth in the attached Exhibit F.
e. The Planning Commission held duly noticed study sessions on November 15, 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 November 15, 2011, the Planning Commission received a presentation on the
project and proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code. At that
meeting, staff received comments from the Planning Commission and the public.
2. On June 19, 2012, the Planning Commission received a presentation on the draft
UDC Update 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 UDC Update was made available to the public and
posted at the Santa Clarita Library (Canyon Country, Newhall, and Valencia Branches),
at the Permit Center at Santa Clarita City Hall, and on the City website. Copies of the
UDC Update were also distributed to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
g. The City Council Development Subcommittee held duly noticed meetings on
January 28, 2013, and March 4, 2013, in accordance with the City's noticing I
requirements. The meetings were held at City Hall, Century Room, 23920 Valencia
Blvd., Santa Clarita.
h. 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:
On March 19, 2013, the Planning Commission received City staff s presentation
summarizing the proposed project, opened the public hearing, and received public
testimony regarding the project and 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 D. The Planning Commission received public
testimony regarding the project, provided final comments to staff, and closed the
public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. '
P13-03, recommending that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration
prepared for the project, and approve the proposed UDC Update with additional
recommended changes, as shown in Exhibit E.
I
i. At its hearings on the project, listed above, the Planning Commission considered staff
presentations, staff reports, and public comments and testimony on the UDC Update.
j. 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 May 28, 2013, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the UDC
Update, in accordance with the City's noticing requirements. The project was
advertised in The Signal newspaper on May 7, 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 May 28, 2013, the City Council conducted the first reading of an ordinance for the
UDC Update and passed the ordinance to a second reading on June 11, 2013.
m. Based upon the staff presentations, staff reports, and public comments and testimony,
the City Council finds that the Unified Development Code Update will not adversely
affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the
' Unified Development Code Update jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a
menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
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 G, 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;
1 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. 13-009 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 13-001 AND ZONE
CHANGE 13-001. 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
development code, the General Plan, and development policies of the City:
Master Case No. 13-009, which consists of Unified Development Code 13-001 and
Zone Change 13-001, is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan and
development policies of the City. The comprehensive update of the Unified
Development Code carries out a key General Plan implementation measure by updating '
the development code and zoning map to ensure consistency with the General Plan, as
required by State law. The comprehensive update of the Unified Development Code
implements applicable policies of the General Plan to ensure consistency with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan. The UDC Update does not require
consistency with the development code because the request is to amend the entire
Unified Development Code.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration (Exhibit G) prepared for
the project and approves the amendments to the Unified Development Code, which includes
Master Case No. 13-009, Unified Development Code 13-001, Zone Change 13-001, consisting of
the Unified Development Code Update (Exhibit A), the Zoning Map (Exhibit B), the Overlay
Map (Exhibit C), the Errata Summary (Exhibit D), and the City Council Changes (Exhibit E).
Other sections of the Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth on the attached Municipal
Code Amendments for Title 17 References (Exhibit F).
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.
' PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1 lth day of June, 2013.
OR
DATE: I li i// 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
' 1, Armine Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No.13-08 was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of May, 2013. That thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the I lth day
of June, 2013, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boydston, McLean, Kellar
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
RECUSED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ferry
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance 13-08 and
was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806).
EXHIBIT D
OF ORDINANCE NO. 13-
ERRATA SUMMARY
Title 16 — Subdivisions
A P.agwN
�.
f"FR 7 �� " Corr ctibn �h
_ moose.. e
:Co'detSectron��
�,
16.11.440130 Fire -Fighting Access Easements.
t
Pages 14, 17
Clarification
Title, 16.11.130
Page 19
The Approving Authority may disapprove the platting of flag lots where this design is not
Clarification
16.13.060
justified by topographic conditions or the size and shape of the division of land, or where this
design is in conflict with the pattern of neighborhood development. If flag lots are approved, the
access strip for each lot shall be at least ten (10) feet in width where the strip is situated
contiguous to other such access strips, so as to form a common driveway, and at least twenty (20)
feet in width, where the strip is not situated contiguous to other such access strips, unless the City
Engineer recommends the approval of lesser widths because of topographic conditions or the size
and shape of a division of land. Each access strip shall be located -so that; when improved as a
driveway, the finished grade will not exceed fifteen (15) percent. Paving of such driveways shall
be in accordance with Section 16 21 080 (Paving for Access Stripsl The Approving Authority
may require that easements for ingress and egress be provided over common driveways for the
benefit of the lots served. Additional width may be required by the Fire Department.
Page 45-46
6 A resubmittal fee shall be paid with the fourth submittal of the originals and/or prints of the
Consistency
16.29.050 (A)
final parcel map;
with Current
7. A resubmittal fee shall be paid with the sixth submittal of the originals and/or prints of the
UDC
final parcel map;
8. A resubmittal fee shall be paid with the eighth and each subsequent submittal of the originals
and/or prints of the final map•
69. A fee shall be paid for processing documents if dedications or offers of dedication are made
by separate instrument in conjunction with a certificate of compliance processed under the
provisions of Chapter 16.35 Certificates of Compliance — Notices of Violation).
Page 46
6. A resubmittal fee shall be paid with the fourth submittal of originals and/or prints of the final
Consistency
16.29.060 (A)
tract may;
with Current
7. A resubmittal fee shall be paid with the sixth submittal of the originals and/or prints of the
UDC
final tract may;
8. A resubmittal fee shall be paid with the eighth and each subsequent submittal of the originals
and/or prints of the final tract map.
yPa eNo iid'
v .. a €ga ore �w..a-rz
Correction' r ,- � sh y r
is eat` r'' 4P
r�.xxa_�'`3
Whenever, in the opinion of the the land involved in a subdivision is of
A
p ose
p
Page 56
Clarification
16.33.010 (A)
such size or shape, or is subject to such title limitations of record or is affected by such
topographical location or conditions, or is to be devoted to such usage, that it is impossible or
impractical for the subdivider to conform fully to a regulation contained in the Code, the
Approving Authority may, at the time of action on the tentative map of the subdivision, modify
the regulation;
Page 56
The City Engineer shall waive the provisions of the title and of Section 66473 of the Subdivision Map Act
Clarification
16-33.010 (B)
requiring disapproval of maps for failure to meet or perform state or local requirements or conditions,
when the failure of a map submitted for approval is the result of a technical and inadvertent error which, in
the determination of the C41y-Approvine Authority does not materially affect the validity of the map. Such
waivers shall not result in the invalidation or negotiation of any substantive requirement of this title, the
Subdivision Map Act or any other ordinance, statute or regulation.
Page 61
16.37.060
Clarification
Title
Page 63
Lense-Projeets Duration Approval.
16.37.060
of
The! f A v F of filing a
Consistency
pareel
with the
i-
Subdivision
FAade iHa i
Ma Act
Division 17.00 — General Procedures
njP,age �No arid`* i
r c,
v 3 SL't(
Code Section
-
k as Correction i + w Z, a g
T , ,� e 3. xy n t� i
l -rt' t "{ � '�• F Y ,-iT vJ r S C v �y'� ?i c" � �..41r .T i ry i*M1
S Li.F C �. ^".�.Y:ktA3c° n .. _iX2 `F� X.zi n�<..•x ie�tYi�'...FI's.,i �d tat.. e. @tl..�iu.'��w�' 6t�� �
This chapter establishes the authority of the Director to interpret this Code. Whenever the
u�t � ,$,� ru5 h,.y�n
Page 15
Clarification
17.04.010
Director determines that the meaning or applicability of any provision of this Code is subject to
rote retation, the Director ma issue averbal-emswritten inter retation.
Page 40
Hearrtag. Notwithstanding Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Municipal Code an dteh
Clarification
17.07.060 (D)
and the procedures provided therein, at the public hearing, the appeal body shall consider the
matter directly by reviewing the record of the decision below, receiving a report from the
Director, and hearing testimony from the applicant, the appellant in the case of an appeal, and any
other interested party and, at their discretion, the party or body whose decision is being appealed
or reviewed.
17.10 —
Page 10 ort. Any structure or portion of a building or structure open on three (3) sides, other tharil Consistency
17.11.020 an attached or detached garage, used to shelter vehicles, -in addition to, and not a replacement with Current
Defrnitions, -C. " foragarage. garage. UDC
Division 17.20 - Applications
'aPage"No NIiv
aCode=Section
M�
a ..�
17.23.200 Temporary Use Permit.
Pu o� Se
fi�
Page 30
Clarification
17.23.200
SUBSECTIONS:
Page 43
1. These additional findings are required for a minor use Permit for parking reductions:
Clarification
17.24.120 (E)
a. That neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use of the
site or the uses of the sites in the vicinity reasonably require strict or literal
- interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation;
b. That the granting of the permit will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on
public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets;
tra ,*t f..rili=;es--
dc. That the parking demand would be less than the requirements identified in Section
17.51.060 (M) (Schedule of Off-street Parking Requirements); and,
ed. That sufficient parking would be provided to serve the use intended and potential future
uses of the subject parcel.
2. The following finding is required for a minor use permit for parking reductions for uses
proposed adjacent to transit lines/routes or transit facilities/ stations
a. The permit will facilitate access to nonresidential development by patrons of public
transit facilities.
Page 72
1. Mandatory Contents. A development agreement shall contain the applicable provisions in
Clarification
17.28.100 (C)
compliance with the State Government Code including:
(1) (a)
a. The duration of the agreement, including a specified termination date if apprepriate;
Pages 74-75Unless
etherMse
Clarification
17.28.100 (G)
previded by a development agfeefaent, the General Plan,
the Gede, and other ordinanees, n4les,
regulations, and effieial palietes governing peFmitted tises of land, governing
Page 80
In. the case of a corridor plan, to continue implementing policies and goals set forth in the
Clarification
17.28.110 (A)
General Plan relating to preservation of community characteristics and community vitality,— and
(9)
appropriate urban form, ; nd ,s ag—g:&wh principles emphasizing pedestrian orientation,
integration of land uses, treatment of streetscapes as community living space, and
environmentally sensitive building design and operation.
17.3U —
Page 16
17.33.030 (A)
Page 17
17.33.040
Page 17
17.33.040 (A)
A. Development Standards.
Property in the UR3 zone shall be subject to the following general development standards:
Maximum Density units per gross acre
11.0
Minimum Density units per acre
6 ON/A
17.33.040 Urban Residential 4 (UR4) Zone.
The Urban Residential 4 (UR4) zoning designation provides for mixed residential neighborhoods
of detachinged and attached dwellings. Allowable uses in this designation include detached and
attached single-family homes, duplexes, multiple family dwellings, and other residential uses at a
maximum density of 18 dwellinQ units Der acre.
A. Development Standards
Pro ert in the UR4 zone shall be subject to the following general develo ment standards:
Maximum Density units per gross acre
18.0
Minimum Density units per acre
9 ON/A
General Plan
Consistency
Clarification
General Plan
Consistency
Page 24 SECTIONS: Genera7Plan
Title and 17.35.010 Mixed Use Co.= mercial-Corridor (MXC) Zone. Consis
17.35.010 17.35.010 Mixed Use Conunere:al-Corridor (MXC) Zone
Pages 24, 29, 34
17.35.010 (A)
A. Development Standards.
I. Maximum Density (units per gross acre)
Clarification
17.35.020 (A)
2. Minimum Density (units per gross acre)
17.35.030 (A)
Notes:
I Floor area ratios and densities less than the minimum required shall be subiect to a minor use permit.
Page 29
17.35.020 (A)
A. Development Standards.
Clarification
Property in the MX-&MXN zone shall be subject to the following general development
standards:
Pages 39, 47, 51
17.36.010 (A)
A. Development Standards.
Clarification
17.36.030 (A)
Maximum Density (units per gross acre) 0.025
17.36.040 A
Page 55
17.37.010
17.37.010 Corridor Plan Zone (CP).
Clarification
The Corridor Plan (CP) zoning designation identifies lands in the planning area that are governed
by an adopted Corridor Plan. Specific allowable uses, maximum intensity standards, and
development standards shall be determined by the adopted Corridor Plan.
For any properties rezoned CP prior to the final adoption of a Corridor Plan development of such
Properties shall be governed by the underlying General Plan land use designation and the
corresponding zone's development standards.
Division 17.40 — Use Classifications and Re uired Parkin
Pa e�No+1a' d
c N
Page 15
<. �' aR rs a r ��r
fi IRK'@8Tel
l °� �'I'M
10. Gambling Uses arlan
Purp sAe
;s .,
Clarification
17.43 (10)
Includes any gambling use regulated by the laws of the State of California and
regulated by the California Gambling Control Commission, as identified in Chapter
11.20 (Gambling and Related Activities) of the Municipal Code. Uses expressly
permitted and for which State law provides regulation and oversight may be permitted
n the commercial and industrial zones, u on the a roval of a minor use permit.
, s de ... dby h
0 ' ec o
NUl
NU2
NU3
NU4
NUS
URI
. UR2
UR3
UR4
I UR5
CR
CC
CN
I BP
I
X
I X
I X
I X I
X
I X
I X
I X
I X
I X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 16
17.43
16. Personal Services
Clarification
arlcing
(16)
Includes establishments primarily engaged in providing services involving the care or
space pe •SO s uare
appearance of a person or his/her personal goods and apparel, and similar nonbusiness
'fee
related or nonprofessional services, but excludes services classified elsewhere in this
h
chapter. Typical uses include, but are not limited to, barbershops, beauty parlors, day
_
spas, dry cleaning drop-off/pick-up, laundries (self-service), manicurists/pedicurists,
F-
massage therapists, photography studios, tailors, tanning salons and independent
automated teller machines (ATMs). Massage therapy shall be consistent with Chapter
5.08 Massa e of the Mutnici al Code.
NUl NU2 NU3
NU4
NUS
URl I
UR2
UR3
UR4
UR5
CR
CC
CN BP
1
X X X
X I
X
X
X
X
X
X
P
P
P P
X
Page 21
b. Shopping Centers
Consistency
17.43 (19)
WN _a drinkingestablishments, titenant
� � ��.4
b 3
s
«�7
with current
UDC
Page 38-39
3. Homeless Shelter
-+Pang
Consistency
17.45 (3)
with current
A facility which provides housing on a not -for -profit basis. Housing may include
f l spac" �e pier
emergency shelters on a short-term basis or temporary until permanent housing is
emp oyeeLsta `
UDC
found. These facilities generally provide referrals to other agencies, meals, counselingmembe
_ pluis s ace
and advocacy, see Section 17.38.010 (Homeless Shelter Overlay Zone) and Section
e .5 em o any .
17.66.070 (Homeless Shelters) for Specific Development Requirements. Such
resrdents
facilities located in the `I' zone shall be subiect to hearing before the Planning
,
Commission.
9
NU1
NU2
NU3
NU4
NU5
UR1
UR2
UR3
UR4
UR5
CR
CC
CN
BP
I
X
I X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C
X
M
M
Page 49
3. Grading Cut and Fill of any Combination Thereof
Consistency
17.49 (3) (a)
a. Between one hundred (100) and one thousand, five hundred (1,500) cubic yards on natural slopes greater than
with current
ten 10 ercent avera e.
UDC
NUI
NU2
NU
NU4
NU5
URl
UR2
UR3
UR4
UR5
CR
CC
CN
I BP
I
PH
I PH
I PH
I PH
PH
PliI
PH
I PH
I PH
I PH
I PH
I PH
PH
PH
T PH
Division 17.50 - Development Standards
. P,a etNo. ands
r g
��
_code Seaton'
Page 22-24
17.51.020 (B)
s ° y CorrecUom
„�§
'-,; . s a se a a
B. Maximum Density.
For each of the slope categories identified, there shall be a corresponding maximum
allowable density. The following chart, Figure 17.51-1 (Density and Ratio Change with
Percentage of Slope Density), identifies density categories for Urban Residential, Non -
Urban. Commercial/Industrial, and Mixed Use zones. The necessary reduction in density
to maintain a similar pad and product type as the slope increases has been shown on the
Consistency
with current
UDC
chart. The densities identified in Figure 17.51-1 (Density and Ratio Change with
Percentage of Slope Density) are the maximum allowable and conform to all other stan-
dards and criteria of this section.
Ave. Slope
UR5/
UR4/MC MXN
UR3
UR2
UR1
NUS
NU4
C / I
slop
10%
30.00
18.00
11.00
5.00
2.00
1.00
0_5
10%
100%
11%
29.40
17.64
10.73
4.88
1.96
0.98
0.49
11%
98%
12%-48%
[No change]
[Slope densities as per the
current UDC]
49%
0.90
0.45
0.28
0.13
0.06
1 0.03
1 0.01
1 49%
1 3%
50%+
0.60
0.36
0.25
0.10
0.04
1 0.03
I 0.01
I 50O%+
33
Page 61
17.51.060 (E)
(1) (b)
Asphalt surfacing, rolled to a smooth, hard surface having a minimum thickness of ene three and
one-half (k3.5) inches after compaction, and laid over a base of crushed rock, gravel or other
similar material compacted to a minimum thickness of feuf-five (45) inches. The requirement for
said base may be modified if:
Amended
standard
Page 129
17.53.020 (E)
Employee break areas, which may include facilities for shade, seating, eating, and trash disposal,
shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director.
Clarification
r u � ,.+ i�,«rtix R'7
P.3geNo:iand
s x
+ i�nf _.. ,� � .n scw•a�r .see sm r jm ff .t- :s} +: tc � :s
r s V* rb rF c F 3
4 N ,. r s 5e x� aCorrecfion ,x «y 3rrr :r
_f^r.�..x'r h., �'w� _ �, g .«,,i>,: _ k. a:�5✓z'a� Ya'5�.. �+ w xiEq.1 ti =' �+ri`''.=t `"
All development adjacent to rail lines throughout the City shall be designed to be sensitive to the
r-.. <, ,
�nrpo$i�
_'" a-�
'�' y
To Address
Pages 129, 137,
144
rail lines, with consideration given to the safety of the rail corridor.
Comment
17.53.020 (F)
Letter from the
17.55.020
CPUC
(A)(10)
17.57.020 L
Page 132
The use of metal storage containers shall be subject to Section 17.23.-I-987200 (Temporary Use
Clarification,
17.53.030E
Permits) of this Code.
Page 137
Unless otherwise stated in Section 17.23.190 (Temporary Use Permit) of this Code, the
Clarification
17.55.020 (A)
occupancy of vehicles, including recreational vehicles, trailers, or vessels, as a residence,
11
temporary or permanent, is prohibited in all mixed use zones.
Pages 149-150
4. Single-family dctached/townhome units —six hundred fifty (650) square feet.
Clarification
17.57.030
(E)(4)
Open space shall be split into required yard space and recreational facilities throughout the
common areas of the development as prescribed in this section. A minimum of fifty percent
(50%) of the open space shall be dedicated to the required yard for each residential unit. The
remaining space may be used to fulfill additional recreational facilities as prescribed in this
section, and/or may be applied to the required yard areas to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development. Land required for setbacks or occupied by buildings, streets,
driveways or parking spaces may not be counted in satisfying this open space requirement;
however, land occupied by any recreational buildings and structures may be counted as required
open space.
Page 150
F. Storage Space. If a fully enclosed garage is not provided, a minimum of two hundred fifty
Clarification
17.57.030 (F)
(250) cubic feet of lockable, enclosed storage per unit shall be provided in the garage or
ca ort area; subs�n� iltions alternate locations may be approved by the Director.
For residential parcels measuring l^qqthaB 5,000 square feet and less the second unit shall be
Page 154
Clarification
17.57.040 (L)
attached to the single-family residence. For parcels greater than 5,000 square feet, the second
2 c
unit may either be attached or unattached.
Division 17.60 — Specific Development Standards
PagN" od
Ott,'
�CodeaSeciton �
r Y rt "`f ,"' ConecYton�" �y
pp ° {\<g a
�N
Puros4errt
Consistency
Page 22
17.62.030 Keeping of Small Animals.
17.62.030 (A)
A. Applicability. The keeping of small animals, such as sheep, goats, dogs, rabbits, birds and
with current
UDC and
similar animals as defined in Chapter 8.08 of the Municipal Code, is permitted as follows.
Municipal
Unless otherwise stated, the number of animals permitted shall be a maximum number for
Code
each category as shown below:
Minimum Lot Square Birds (Excluding s 1 3 1 3 Other Small
Dogv Cats
Footage Poultry) and Rodents AnimaIS2
Up to 15,000 3 3 6 4-0
Page 23
All dogs and cats shall be kept in compliance with the requirements of Title 8 of the
Consistency
17.62.030 (A)
Municipal Code.
with the
Z
Municipal
Goats, sheep,miniature horses potbellied pigs, poultry (excluding roosters and other
P P�g p rY ( g )
Code
similar animals. Roosters shall be permitted on lots or parcels of land greater than one
acre in area, at a ratio of one rooster per acre.
3_ Additional does and cats may be kept in accordance with Section 8 20 038 (Residential
Dogs and Cats — Limitations) of the Municipal Code.
Enclosure. All animals shall be properly caged or housed, and must be (kept in their corrals,
ge Pa23
Clarification
17.62.030 (C)
barns, pens or other enclosuresl. All such structures shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed to
adequately confine the animals. In addition, all such structures or other enclosures shall be
classified as an accessory structure and are subject to the development standards of the
underlying zone in which it is located.
Page 53
Any conditions imposed on an application to install a solar energy system shall be designed to
Consistency
17.66.130 (H)
mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety at the lowest cost possible
with State
equipment.
Requirements
Division 17.80 — Gradinp
-Page NoY and ^
.•4
'a
_ CodetSectton
z l a 1 mnr s n.
t�rar��Correcttoh'
s.* a. s r,,+,✓a P ,. .�, �"�.^rsks--., w. �,)
v ram._ i law
Chapter 17.90 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)
Compliance
D. yoSE •v
E
Page 1
Title
Clarification
Page 47
Title
Chapter 17.90
Chapter 17.90 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Compliance
Clarification
Global Updates
;� {P.a e` No ands
S3 _ -ram
.Code Sections
4 ° °, ^, C F- w s. ems.
s euY�*ynxecttonitPu
a"+s� S ap . t ��
o�•.
tea, rP 3
yI- a,,2c
"�'
Various Pages
g
Planning
Clarification
Various Pages
City -Council
Clarification
EXHIBIT E
OF ORDINANCE NO. 13-
CITY COUNCIL CHANGES
Lrvision i i.Lu —
Page 43 b. That the granting of the permit will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on Requested
17.24.120 public and private streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on Change
(E)(1)(b) I the streets;
Division 17.30 — Zones
Y3age3Noand�
�AIe fYI�.M-1
s?eCode S coons
° r� + M:': Ghartges< f s sr ? v
Av
YA 5... P 'R 1 phi „1¢_ f %v
VE � w �,�i ai± 4F
Film Office Review. Filming activities are permitted by right in the movie ranch overlay as
described below, subject to review of Film Office and via the Movie Ranch Filming Permit
process. Appeals of the Film Off -ice's decision shall be in accordance with Section 1 l 46 040
- Purppsd
Page 72
17.38.040 (D) (2)
Requested
Change
(Applicants and Issuance) of Chapter 11.46 (Filming Policy) of the Municipal Code The Film
Office will coordinate review of each filming activity with Fire Department, Sheriffs
Department and other agencies as necessary.
Page 81
17.38.050
(17)(7)(a)
Active recreation and passive leisure space should be provided for each residential -only or
mixed use project containing residential uses. The required minimum amount of open space for
a mixed use project is two hundred (200) square feet per unit, which may be combined for a
Requested
Change
larger community open space area. Each residential unit of the mixed use project may reserve a
portion of the open sace for each unit.
Page 91
17.39.010 (C)(2)
2. Oak Tree Preservation. The purpose of this subsection is to protect and preserve oak trees
in the City of Santa Clarita in accordance with the requirements of this section and Section
17.51.040 (Oak Tree Preservation).
Requested
Change
A. Heritage oak tree shall be defined as any oak tree measuring one hundred eight (108)
inches or more in circumference, measured four and one-half (4.5) feet above the
natural rade surrounding such tree. The Planning Commission and/or Ci Council
may classify any oak tree regardless of size as a heritage oak tree if it is determined
that the tree has historic, aesthetic and/or environmental qualities of major significance
or prominence to the community.
ab. The removal of heritage oak trees shall be strongly discouraged even if mitigation is
offered as an alternative.
be. Pursuant to requirements set forth in Chapter 17.57 (Property Development Standards:
Residential), all new residential development shall require the planting of one (1)
twenty-four (24) inch box tree in the required front yard area to the satisfaction of the
Director. This requirement may be waived or modified by the Director where it is
found to be impractical due to topographical conditions, is not keeping with the
neighborhood or otherwise will not benefit the area. The planting of oak trees or other
native trees shall be encouraged for this requirement
Division 17.40 — Use Classirientinnc and QPmrirarl
P;ag'eallo and;l
•:Cu��
ode Section�i�_��i:.rx.�
Page 6
17.42(8)
65 r<a t;n t<yd I�R7k -'1raY ry xa H n.-k
Chan esx
„i�a psi; ,, gp _a• ���
8. Joint Living and Working Quarters (Live/work Units)
iR t S y
tz,wsx.
"fv i.
�PU ose
arlcin
`,'v
Requested
Change
Includes a dwelling occupying a building designed for commercial or industrialiLy
occupancy and includes adequate working space reserved for, and regularly used by,
one or more persons residing therein. Joint living and working quarters shall be in
accordance with Section 17.66.080 (Joint Living and Working Quarters).�i;
enclosed spaces
o res'dential use, A
�
plus% arkin , o'
cbmmercia-lyuse,as pe
1�the:barking;
�reouuements
=�.
�contamed' this�Code'
NUl
NU2
Ku
NU4
NU5
URI
UR2
UR3
UR4
UR5
CR
CC CN
BP I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C
C
C
M
C C
C C
Division 17.50 — Development Standards
Page 51 A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to protect and preserve oak trees in the City and to Requested
17.51.040 (A) provide regulatory measures designed to accomplish this purpose. Change
1_The City lies in the Santa Clarita Valley, the beauty and natural setting of which is greatly
enhanced by the presence of large numbers of majestic oak trees. These indigenous oak
trees are recognized for their significant historical aesthetic and environmental value
They are indicator species for the natural communities in which they exist supporting
broad spectrum of other native plant and animal species As one of the most picturesque
trees in the Southern California area they lend beauty and charm to the landscape,
enhance the value of property, and preserve the character of the communities in which
they exist. Development within the Santa Clarita Valley has resulted in the removal of a
great number of oak trees. Further uncontrolled and indiscriminate destruction of this
diminishing plant heritage would detrimentally affect the general health safety and
welfare of the citizens of Santa Clarita The preservation program outlined in this section
contributes to the welfare and aesthetics of the community and retains the great historical
and environmental value of these trees. It shall be the policy of the City to require the
preservation of all healthy oak trees unless compelling reasons justify the removal of
such trees. This policy shall apply to the removal, pruning, cutting and/or encroachment
into the protected zone of oak trees. The Director, in conjunction with the City's oak tree
arborist as necessary, shall have the primary and overall responsibility to administer,
evaluate and monitor this policy to assure strict compliance. Additional policy and
standards shall be as set forth in the City's Oak Tree Preservation and Protection
Guidelines following adoption by the Council. Any person who owns, controls, has
custody or possession of any real property within the City shall make a reasonable effort
to maintain all oak tree(s) located thereon in a state of good health. Failure to do so will
constitute a violation of this section.
2. Definitions.
chrysolepis), Interior Live Oak (Ouercus wislizenii) and Scrub Oak (Ouercus
dumosa), regardless of size
b. Oak tree, cutting The detaching or separating either partial or whole from a protected
tree, any part of the tree, including but not limited to any limb branch root or leaves
_C_utting shall include pruning and trimming,
c. Oak tree. damage. Any action undertaken which causes or tends to cause injury, death
or disfigurement to an oak tree This includes but is not limited to cutting poisoning,
burning, overwatenng relocating or transplanting a protected tree changing or
compacting the natural grade within the protected zone of a protected tree changing
groundwater levels or drainage patterns or trenching excavating or paving within the
protected zone of an oak tree
d. Oak tree, deadwood. Limbs or branches that contain no green leaves or live tissue A
tree or limb may be considered dead if it does not show evidence of any green leaves
or live branches over the span of one year, inclusive of prime growing weather.
e._ Oak tree, dripline. The outermost edge of the tree's canopy. When depicted on a map
or on the ground the dripline will appear as an irregularly shaped outline that follows
the contour of the furthest extension of the limbs and leaf canopy.
f. Oak tree. encroachment Any intrusion into the protected zone of an oak tree which
includes, but is not limited to pruning grading excavating trenching dumping of
materials, parking of commercial vehicles placement of incompatible landscaping or
animal corrals, storage of materials or equipment or the construction of structures
paving or other improvements. For purposes of this definition encroachment shall not
include the action of a person physically entering the protected zone of an oak tree
i. Maier encroachment. For oak trees located on properties occupied by a single-
family residence, any intrusion into the protected zone of an oak as defined above
ii. Minor encroachment For oak trees located on properties occupied by a single-
family residence, any intrusion into the protected zone of an oak as defined
herein, in an area between the outermost edge of the protected zone and fifty
percent (50%) of the diameter of the protected zone
g. Oak tree, heritage oak tree. Any oak tree measuring one hundred eight (108) inches or
more in circumference or, in the case of a multiple trunk oak tree two (2) or more
trunks measuring seventy-two (72) inches each or greater in circumference measured
four and one-half (4.5) feet above the natural grade surrounding such tree In addition
the Commission and/or Council may classify any oak tree regardless of size as a
heritage oak tree if it is determined by a majority vote thereof that such tree has
exceptional historic aesthetic and/or environmental qualities of major significance or
prominence to the community.
h Oak tree oak tree preservation and protection guidelines The policy established by
the Council and the administrative procedures and rules established by the Director for
the implementation of this Code.
i Oak tree protected zone A specifically defined area totally encompassing an oak tree
within which work activities are strictly controlled Using the dripline as a point of
reference, the protected zone shall commence at a point five (5) feet outside of the
dripline and extend inward to the trunk of the tree In no case shall the protected zone
be less than fifteen (15) feet from the trunk of an oak tree
i• Oak tree removal. The physical removal of an oak tree or causing the death of a tree
through damaging, poisoning or other direct or indirect action
k. Oak tree, routine maintenance. Actions taken for the continued health of an oak tree
such as insect control spraying, limited watering fertilization deadwooding, and
ground aeration. For the purposes of this Code routine maintenance shall include
Page 138 Active recreation and passive leisure space should be provided for each residential -only or Requested
17.55.020 (C)(1) mixed use project containing residential uses. The required minimum amount of open space for Change
a mixed use project is two hundred (200) square feet per unit, which may be combined for a
larger community open space area. Each residential unit of the mixed use project may reserve a
urvision 1 /.on —
ment Standards
Page 22 Enclosure. All animals shall be properly caged or housed (kept in their corrals, barns, pens or Requested
17.62.020 (C)(I) other enclosures). All such structures shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed to adequately Change
confine the animals. In addition, all such structures or other enclosures shall be classified as an
accessory structure and are subject to the development standards of the underlying zone in
which it is located. Sufficient space within such enclosures shall be provided for large animals
in accordance with the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control.
Page 34 Instruction in academia, music, voice, art, dance, or other similar activities with no more than Requested
17.65.020 (C) ene-(})-five 5 pupils receiving instruction at any given time and no more than two (2) vehicles Change
incidental to the home instruction.
EXHIBIT F '
OF ORDINANCE NO. 13-
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS FOR TITLE 17 REFERENCES
Chapter 8.20 - Dogs
8.20.215 Spaying or Neutering - Number Allowed When.
In the event that all dogs are spayed or neutered, up to four (4) dogs may be kept pursuant to
Section 17.1z r ,02017.62.030 (Keeping of Small Animals).
Chapter 8.24 - Cats
8.24.080 Spaying or Neutering - Number Allowed When.
In the event that all cats are spayed or neutered, up to ten (10) cats may be kept pursuant to Section
17.1r-�?017.62.030 (Keeping of Small Animals).
Chapter 11.12 - Interference With City Property or Notices
11.12.080 Alternative Penalty —Noncommercial Signage
A. Notwithstanding section 11.12.070, any noncommercial sign (as defined in Section
17.119.02017.11.020 (Definitions)) placed or maintained in violation of Section 11.12.020 or '
11.12.030 and removed pursuant to this chapter, except any sign of de minimis value, will be held
by the City in storage and the owner or other person in control of the illegally placed or maintained
sign must be given written notice to a) reclaim such sign within ten (10) days, subject to the citation
and imposition of fines contemplated by section 11.12.070, or b) avoid the issuance of a citation,
thereby foregoing any appeal right, and instead elect the alternative penalty set forth pursuant to
subsection (B) of this Section within ten (10) days of the notice. In the event the City, after making
reasonable efforts, is unable to identify the owner or person in control of the illegally placed or
maintained sign, no notice is required and the sign may be destroyed by the City.
Chapter 13.24 - Newsracks
13.24.110 - Special Standards Districts.
A. The City Council finds that those areas in the City which have been designated "special
standards districts" ("districts") pursuant to the City's municipal code at Sections 17.39.010 (Happy
Valley Special Standards District),H88A17.39.020 (Placenta Cannon Special Standards
District), 17.1�.090and 17.39.030 (Sand Canyon Special Standards District) and 7.16-100, and as
may be added to the City code by amendment process, due to their unique characteristics require a
different set of standards for newsracks as provided below.
L
EXHIBIT G
OF ORDINANCE NO. 13-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION / INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO:
Master Case 13-009
PERMIT/PROJECT
NAME:
Unified Development Code Amendment 13-001 and Zone Change I3-001
APPLICANT:
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Valencia, CA 91355
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT:
Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT: The proposed update to the UDC is a comprehensive update of the entire Code
document, preserving the character of the City of Santa Clarita, while bringing the regulating Code up to the standards of the
new General Plan. The new General Plan was based on the principles of the New Urbanism to create a mix of uses throughout
the City, facilitate the pedestrian connectivity in the City, along with achieving a ratio of two (2) jobs to each housing unit in
the City. This would enable residential developments to create pockets of commercial services in close proximity, while
enabling commercial development to incorporate residential uses where appropriate. The synergy created by mixing uses
serves to shorten vehicle trips, reducing vehicle miles traveled, encouraging alternative transportation modes, and thus
reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the City. The UDC weaves these strategies into the implementing Code language in
accordance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
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 W. Hogan, AICP
PLANNING MANAGER
Prepared by: Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
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:
59COMDc UpdmtlEnvimnmrnnmllUraa ND - UDC.da
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title/Master Case Number: Master Case 13-009
Unified Development Code Amendment (UDC 13-001)
Zone Change (ZC 13-001)
Lead Agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact person and phone number: James Chow
Associate Planner
(661)255-4330
Project location: Citywide
Applicant's name and address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
General Plan designation: N/A
Zoning: N/A
Description of project and setting: The City of Santa Clarita is updating the Unified
Development Code (UDC or Code) to ensure
consistency with the General Plan, adopted on June 14,
2011. This initial study shall serve as the environmental
analysis in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the update to
the City's UDC and zoning map. 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) and
CAP Initial Study/Negative Declaration on August 28,
2012. 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 update to the UDC is
implementing the General Plan by adopting a new Code
and zoning map, consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives outlined in the General Plan. After a
comprehensive General Plan update, cities are required
to conform their zoning codes to the updated General
Plan in accordance with the State Government Code
Section 65860. Potential environmental impacts were
analyzed by the EIR prepared for the General Plan and
Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the
CAP. The UDC update is consistent with the General
Plan, as required by State law, therefore, the UDC
update will not cause environmental impacts other than
' those identified and mitigated by the General Plan EIR
and CAP Initial Study/Negative Declaration. As set
forth in the balance of this document, the proposed
UDC revisions do not result in any environmental
impacts not previously identified and discussed in the
General Plan EIR and CAP Negative Declaration
documents. Further, the incremental effects of this
UDC update do not result in any new significant
cumulative effects on the environment. A copy of the
EIR certified for the General Plan and the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration certified for the CAP 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 proposed update to the UDC is a comprehensive
update of the entire Code document, preserving the
character of the City of Santa Clarita, while bringing
the regulating Code up to the standards of the new
General Plan. The new General Plan was based on the
principles of the New Urbanism to create a mix of uses
' throughout the City, facilitate the pedestrian
connectivity in the City, along with achieving a ratio of
two (2) jobs to each housing unit in the City. This
would enable residential developments to create t
pockets of commercial services in close proximity,
while enabling commercial development to incorporate
residential uses where appropriate. The synergy created
by mixing uses serves to shorten vehicle trips, reducing
vehicle miles traveled, encouraging alternative
transportation modes, and thus reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in the City. The UDC weaves these strategies
into the implementing Code language in accordance
with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. The
proposed changes to the Code document are too
extensive to include in this project description, however
a summary of the major changes has been provided to
summarize the changes proposed at this time:
• Updates to the zoning map and updated overlay
zone map to ensure consistency with the
General Plan. The City's General Plan created
new land use designations for both residential
uses, commercial/industrial uses, open space
uses, and for the first time, a mixed use
designation was introduced in the City. This '
update will incorporate these changes to the
zoning map, and will further include overlay
zones including the Vehicle Services, Vehicle
Dealer Sales, Movie Ranch, Mobile Home Park,
Mixed Use, and Ridgeline Preservation overlay
zones;
• Amended standards and regulations to
implement the General Plan goals and policies.
The City's General Plan includes new, revised,
and updated goals and policies to ensure the
implementation of the General Plan. The
proposed UDC updates have considered each of
these goals and policies and has incorporated
them to the amended Code language where
applicable;
• A comprehensive update to the Administration
and General Procedures sections of the UDC.
Over the 25 years of the City's UDC, staff has
created new, expanded existing, and deleted
processes and procedures. Some of these
procedures are not as clearly defined and require
clarification. As such, staff has updated the
Administration and General Procedures sections '
of the UDC to clarify procedures for obtaining
t
land use approvals in the City;
• The creation of a new classification system for
Permits and Applications. The current UDC
creates processes for each entitlement, often
duplicating the same process in multiple
entitlements. Staff is proposing to create a
classification system for all entitlement
applications. The proposed classification system
would create seven (7) classes of permits that fit
each of the procedures for the entitlements
outlined in the UDC;
• New numbering and formatting of the UDC.
Based on the reorganization of the UDC, a new
numbering format has been created to clearly
lay out the Divisions, Sections, and Subsections
of the new document;
• Updated residential, commercial/industrial, and
mixed use standards. In the City's 25 years, it
has seen various trends in development, along
with various technological advancements in the
construction industry. The proposed UDC
incorporates these changes into the new Code to
1
allow for the development of the City into the
future;
• Improvements to make the document more user-
friendly. The UDC has been reviewed for its
ease of use and accessibility for the community
and developers alike. Staff is proposing various
improvements including updated graphics to the
Code that will make it more user-friendly. The
most significant of these improvements includes
the reorganization of the UDC to incorporate the
list of use types, definitions, and parking
standards into one Code section. This will make
it easier for users to identify what land use type
their business is considered, what zone their
business would be allowed to be located in,
what type of entitlement may be required, and
what parking would be required for their
business. Currently, users have to flip back and
forth between three different sections of the
UDC to determine these basic steps of the
development process; and
1
• New section of the UDC to establish the
creation of corridor plans within the City. In an
effort to target various locations in the City that
might benefit from focused planning, or may
benefit from specific or redevelopment
guidelines, staff is proposing to create Corridor
Plans. Each of these plans would comply with
the General Plan and zoning code, but would
have specific development standards that will
guide projects within each of these designated
corridor planning areas. The Lyons Avenue
Corridor is the first planning area that was
identified for the creation of a corridor plan. The
Lyons Corridor Plan is being prepared as part of
Master Case 10-103 and will be evaluated by
separate document under CEQA.
Surrounding land uses: N/A
Other public agencies whose N/A
approval is required:
1 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 j]_Significance
B. DETERMINATION:
' On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] 1 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
1 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [XJ
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [ ] [ J [ I [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 [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
' would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ I
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 [ J [ ] [ I [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 [ J [ J [ ] [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 [ ] [ ] [ J [XJ
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 [ J [ J [ J [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 [ ] [ ] [ J [X] I
number of people?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
0 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]
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
h) Other
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
' 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to ' 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
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
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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No '
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I I [X]
11 [] 11 [X]
[] [] I [X]
[] 11 11 1X1
I 11 11 [X]
I 11 11 [X] I
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]
I
Vil. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS- Would the project:
[X]
[X]
[X]
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 [ ] [ ] [ J [XJ
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
emissions of greenhouse gasses?
VIH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the (] [ ] [ ] [X]
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving explosion or the
release of hazardous materials into the environment '
(including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ] [ J [ J [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, [ J [ J [ ] [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 [ J [ ] [ ] [X]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil pipelines)?
OOther I I I I
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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [XJ
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 [ J [ ] [ J [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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
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?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
g) Place housing within a 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]
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?
1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
1) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the
following ways:
i) Potential impact of project construction and [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
project post -construction activity on storm water
runoff?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials [ ]
storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or
equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage,
delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor
work areas?
iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in [ ]
the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful [ ]
increases in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
v) Storm water discharges that would significantly [ ]
' impair or contribute to the impairment of the
beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that
provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian
corridors, wetlands, etc.)
vi Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage [ ]
systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions []
for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials
both during construction and after project
occupancy?
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established [ ]
community (including a low-income or minority
community)?
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
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 [ ] [ ] [ j [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 [ j [ J [ j [Xj I
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 [ ] [ ] [ J [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 [ j [ ] [ ] [Xj
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]
groundbome vibration or groundbome 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?
X1I1. 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, I
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:
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
IN
[] ['] [X]
' 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 [ j [ ] [ ] [X]
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ j [ j [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]
1 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 [ ]
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm [ ]
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [ ]
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ]
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ]
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
[] [] [X]
[] I [X]
E
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [] [] I [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?
XVIL DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `DE MINIMUS' FINDING
a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife
resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose
of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants,
fish, amphibians, and related ecological
communities, including the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends for it's continued viability."
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS a.-d.) 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 City's General Plan was adopted in June 14, 2011, and included
the certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing
the possible environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the General Plan. This Initial Study is for the
amendments to the UDC to bring the Code into compliance with the
adopted General Plan. Section 3.6 of the General Plan analyzed the
potential impacts to aesthetics. 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. The proposed changes to the Code have been
prepared to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan, and
further designed to limit any impacts to aesthetics in the City. As
discussed, the proposed changes include a reorganization of the Code
to make the Code more user-friendly, updates to clarify the
application processes and procedures for land use entitlements, as
well as updates to the residential, commercial/industrial, and mixed
use development standards to keep up with the trends in planning as
well as to keep consistent with the General Plan.
Ridgeline and Oak Trees
The proposed changes to the UDC do not impact scenic resources in
the City including oak trees and protected ridgelines. The oak and
ridgeline/hillside sections remain substantially in tact with minor
alterations to address procedural clarifications and minor consistency
changes in these sections to address the formatting changes of the
new Code. The City's General Plan Policies LU 6.1.1 and CO 2.2.3
seek to preserve designated ridgelines stated in both the Land Use
and Conservation Elements to "Preserve designated natural ridgelines
from development by ensuring a minimum distance for grading and
development from these ridgelines of 50 feet or more if determined
appropriate by the reviewing authority based on site conditions, to
maintain the Santa Clarita Valley's distinctive community character
and preserve the scenic setting." To implement this policy, staff is
recommending that the RPO be redefined as the top 100 feet of any
General Plan -designated ridgeline measured both vertically from the
peak, as well as horizontally from the peak. Any proposed
development within either of these measurements will be subject to a
Ridgeline Alteration Permit, subject to the approval of the City
Council. All future projects impacting a ridgeline will therefore be
required to conduct additional environmental review to determine the
impacts, if any, to the environment as a result of the proposed
development. This modification to the Code will implement the
General Plan and will further ensure that there will be no significant
impact to ridgelines in the City.
Landscape and Lighting
New Code sections are proposed with respect to landscape and
lighting. The existing UDC contains code language dispersed
throughout the UDC that address landscape and lighting
requirements. The proposed Code consolidates each of the lighting
and landscape requirements in their own sections of the Code. In
addition, the City's standard practices/guidelines have been
incorporated into these sections. The landscape section of the
proposed UDC has been further updated to include language to
reduce the use of water for landscape areas in accordance with the
California Assembly Bill AB1881.
As identified in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General
Plan would introduce new sources of light and glare in the City that
could have a significant impact if not addressed. The General Plan
includes Policies CO 3.6.1, 8.2.4 and 8.3.9 of the Conservation and
Open Space Element to address lighting.
As stated above, the proposed changes to the UDC consolidate the
lighting standards in one section of the Code. The UDC currently
requires that lighting be directed down and shielded from
neighboring properties. However, the proposed lighting section of the
UDC now incorporates additional parameters for the use of outdoor
lighting, limiting the use of lighting other than security lighting after
10:00 p.m. The introduction of these standards will implement the
Policies of the General Plan ensuring that there will be no further
impact to lighting as a result of the proposed amendments to the
UDC.
The proposed Code changes include a reorganization of the Code
document to make it more user-friendly, with additional changes to
implement the General Plan. Based on the amendments proposed to
the UDC that address aesthetics and scenic resources, impacts as a
result of the Code changes are consistent with the General Plan and
are not anticipated to have any further impact to the environment than
what has been previously considered under CEQA. At the time future
development projects are submitted to the City, they would be
required to comply with CEQA and prepare an analysis of the
projects potential impacts relating to aesthetics and the City's UDC
and General Plan in place at that time.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
changes proposed to the UDC at this time, no impact to aesthetics is
anticipated and no further analysis is required.
II. AGRICULTURE a.-e.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC will not
RESOURCES affect any farmland identified by the California Resources Agency,
farmland designated under a Williamson Act Contract, and will not
convert any farmland to non-agricultural use. Further, the
amendments will not impact any forest lands, or any timberland
zoned Timberland Production by the Government Code Section
51104(g). The EIR prepared for the General Plan analyzes the
potential impacts to agriculture resources in Section 3.5 of the EIR.
The 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. No mitigation measures
were required and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC)
was adopted for agriculture resources. However, none of the
Important Farmland areas identified in the EIR are located within the
City's boundary, or its recently annexed areas, and will therefore not
be subject to the proposed Code. Should any important farmland
areas be annexed to the City and considered for development, further
analysis under CEQA would need to be completed. However; no
resources are located within the City's jurisdiction and will therefore
be no impacts to agriculture resources.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
changes proposed to the UDC at this time, no impact to agricultural,
farmland, or forest resources is anticipated and no further analysis is
required.
III. 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
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 proposed amendments to the UDC will not alter any of the
aforementioned measures directly in that the proposed amendments
will address the implementation of the General Plan. Modifications to
the Code are proposed that would reformat the text of the Code to
make it more user-friendly, as well as creating new sections of the
Code to address land uses to provide for a mix of uses throughout the
City, reducing the number and length of vehicle trips in the City. The
FIR 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 3.3-1 to 3.3-9 to mitigate any
potential air quality impacts associated with the implementation of
the General Plan. Impacts included both construction -related and
operations -related impacts a result of possible grading, odors, and
emissions related to residential and commercial operations. 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 was adopted for air quality.
However, since the proposed amendments to the UDC are
implementing the General Plan, no further mitigation would be
required for the proposed amendments to the UDC. Future projects
developed under the proposed Code amendments would be subject to
appropriate CEQA analysis to determine 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
proposed amendments to the UDC, 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 proposed amendments to the UDC, in and of
RESOURCES themselves do not include the modification of any habitat and would
not otherwise affect any candidate, sensitive or special status species
identified by the Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Further, the proposed UDC amendments will not
have any direct adverse impact on any riparian habitat, wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed UDC
amendments are being established to implement the General Plan,
including a number of changes addressing formatting of the
document itself, changes to make the document more user-friendly,
and further amendments to codify processes and procedures that are
either new, or unclear. The implementation of projectswithin the
General Plan area, or associated with the implementation of the
zoning map or the Code itself, have the potential to impact biological
species on a project by project basis. Further, the amendments to the
UDC include an update to the Significant Ecological Area (SEA)
overlay map to reflect the SEA areas identified in the General Plan.
The Code will further include language that will require additional
biological studies for all development within an SEA.
The EIR prepared for the General Plan analyzes the potential 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 changes proposed at this time are regulatory in nature and are 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.
However, the proposed changes to the UDC at this time reorganize
the UDC to make it more user-friendly and further implement the
General Plan.
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 has
adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance on January 8, 2013. The
proposed amendments to the UDC will include this recently adopted
ordinance, as approved by the City Council. Further impacts
associated with historical resources have been considered in the EIR
prepared for the General Plan. As the implementing document of the
General Plan, the proposed UDC amendments must comply with the
recommendations of the EIR prepared for the General Plan.
The proposed amendments to the UDC will not have any further
impact on cultural resources in the City of Santa Clarita as they will
not alter any unique geological feature, paleontological resource, any
human remains or affect any historical or archeological resource. The
EIR prepared for the General Plan analyzed potential impacts to
cultural resources in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The EIR determined that
mitigation measures MM 3.8-1 to 3.8-7 would be necessary to
address any possible impacts to cultural resources. These measures
require further studies on a project specific basis will be required to
determine if any possible cultural 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
incorporation of the above mitigation measures, the General Plan EIR
determined that all impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
proposed amendments to the UDC, no further impact to
archeological, historical, or cultural resource would be caused by the
proposed UDC amendments 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 proposed amendments to the UDC would not change the
requirements of future development to follow all state and City
building codes/regulations. The proposed amendments will
implement the General Plan by establishing a zoning code to guide
future development in the City. Although no construction is proposed
at this time, any fixture 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 changes to the UDC
proposed at this time are regulatory in nature to reorganize the Code
to make it more user-friendly and to further implement the General
Plan. The EIR prepared for the General Plan analyzed the possible
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 impacts.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
proposed amendments to the UDC, 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 (COA 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.
N
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 a
Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted related to global
climate change. However, Policy CO8.1.1 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 UDC amendments would bring the Code into
compliance with 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 proposed amendments, no further
impact related to greenhouse gas emissions is anticipated and no
further analysis is required.
VIII. HAZARDS AND a.-i.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC would not
HAZARDOUS directly expose people to health hazards or hazardous materials,
MATERIALS interfere with.any emergency response plans, or any land use within
2 miles of an airport, airfield, or otherwise impact any airport land
use plan. The proposed amendments to the Unified Development
Code will reorganize the Code document to make it more user-
friendly and will further implement the goals and policies of the
General Plan. The General Plan EIR analyzed the impacts to hazards
and hazardous material in Section 3.11 of the EIR, finding that no
mitigation measures related to hazards or hazardous materials were
required.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
proposed amendments to the UDC, no further impact related to
hazards and hazardous materials is anticipated and no further analysis
is required.
IX.HYDROLOGY a.-1.) 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 amendments to the UDC
are 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 proposed amendments are regulatory in nature and are not
anticipated to change any of these standards as they currently exist in
the UDC or in the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Clarita. The
amendments will not result in direct impacts on hydrology and water
quality. Further, the proposed amendments are not anticipated to
impact any 100-year flood hazard area, tsunami, drainage pattern, or
runoff of 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
proposed amendments to the UDC, no further impact to hydrology
and water quality is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
X. LAND USE AND a.-c.) No Impact — No established community would be disrupted or
PLANNING physically divided due to the proposed amendments, and therefore,
no impact is anticipated.
The proposed amendments to the UDC are to implement the
implement the General Plan adopted by the City on June 14, 2011. As
described above, the proposed changes will include a number of
modifications including reformatting the Code to be more user-
friendly, clearly identifying application procedures for entitlement
applications, updating the zoning map to be consistent with the new
General Plan designations, as well as updates to the Code to
implement the General Plan Goals and Policies. The General Plan
seeks to maintain the existing character of developed neighborhoods,
villages, and communities, while encouraging infill development and
maintaining a jobs to housing balance of 2. L This Code is the
implementing tool to achieve the objectives of the General Plan as it
will serve as the regulatory framework for future development in the
City. 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 were identified as the mitigation
measures associated with Land Use and Planning. With the
implementation of the Goals and Policies of the General Plan all
potential impacts related to land use and planning would be reduced
to less than significant levels.
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 since no development is proposed
at this time. All future development would be subject to the
standards and regulations established by the City at the time
development is proposed.
Therefore, based on the EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
proposed amendments to the UDC, 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 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. The proposed UDC amendment is not expected to affect
mineral resources in the City as the proposed amendments include
the Mineral Oil Conservation Area (MOCA) overlay zone. One area
is proposed for expansion of the MOCA overlay zone for the
property controlled by The Gas Company at the northwest corner of
Newhall Ranch Road and Aurora Drive. The Gas Company has
historically extracted oil in this area as a part of operations and
anticipates that this would continue into the future. Allowing the
MOCA overlay in this area will provide a permit process for the
expansion of new wells in this area. However, this expansion will not
permit any additional wells or extraction at this time. Should any oil
extraction be expanded or introduced in this area beyond the existing
operations, 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
proposed amendments to the UDC, no further impact to mineral and
energy resources is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
X1I. NOISE a.-f) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC will not
expose persons to the generation of a significant increase in noise
levels, groundbome vibration, or increase ambient noise The
proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code address
various clean-up items, the reorganization of the Code into a user-
friendly document, and implementation of the General Plan as
approved by the City Council. The UDC amendment, does not
propose any development and therefore, there would not be a direct
impact to noise levels in the city. The proposed amendments do not
remove any noise -related regulations and would not foreseeably lead
to a change in the generation of noise at this time. The EIR prepared
for the General Plan determined that the impacts associated with
construction and operational related noise impacts will be significant
an unavoidable, even with the mitigation proposed under 3.18-1 to
limit the use of pile driving activities during construction. Since the
proposed Code amendments are implementing the General Plan and
are not proposing any alterations to 11.44 of the Municipal Code
regarding noise standards in the City. The proposed amendments are
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 EIR prepared for the General Plan, and the
proposed amendments to the UDC, no further impact to noise is
anticipated and no further analysis is required.
XHI. POPULATION a.-c.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC would not
AND HOUSING induce substantial population growth in the Santa Clarita Valley
beyond what was considered in the General Plan. The proposed
amendments to the Code include various clean-up items, a
reorganization of the Code to make it user-friendly, and the
implementation of the General Plan. Further, the proposed
amendments include updates to the property development standards
in the UDC to be consistent with, and implement, the goals and
policies of the General Plan. The UDC updated will further
implement the applicable housing element policies outlined in the
General Plan. The EIR prepared for the General Plan analyzed the
potential impacts to population and housing in section 3.19 of the
EIR, determining that there would be no impacts related to
population and housing. No mitigation measures relating to
population and housing were required. The proposed amendments are
predominantly a regulatory adjustment and do not include any
development activity. The proposed UDC amendments 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
proposed amendments to the UDC, no further impact to population
and housing is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
XIV. PUBLIC a)i.-iv No Impact — The proposed amendments will not directly
SERVICES increase the need for additional fire, police, schools, or libraries.
However, any future development would be subject to any applicable
development fees, which are established to compensate for growth.
Since, the proposed UDC amendments are not anticipated to have a
direct impact on fire protection services, and future development
would remain subject to development fees, the amendments would
have no impact to services in the City. The proposed amendments
include various clean-up items, a reorganization of the Code to make
it user-friendly, and the implementation of the General Plan. Further,
the EIR prepared for the General Plan analyzed the potential impacts
associated with public services in Section 3.15 of the EIR. The EIR
found that three mitigation measures including mitigation measures
MM 3.15-1 to MM 3.15-4 which 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
proposed amendments to the UDC, no further impact to public
services is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
XV. RECREATION a.-b.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC will not
have any impact on recreational amenities within the City of Santa
Clarita. The proposed amendments to the Code include various
clean-up items, a reorganization of the Code to make it user-friendly,
and the implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR
evaluated the impacts associated with recreation in Section 3.16 of
the EIR. The EIR 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
proposed amendments to the UDC, no further impact to recreation is
anticipated and no further analysis is required.
XVI. a.-g.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC are
TRANSPORTATION / regulatory in nature and are not anticipated to have direct
TRAFFIC developmental impacts that alter traffic load or capacity on street
systems. The proposed amendments to the Code include various
clean-up items, a reorganization of the Code to make it user-friendly,
and the implementation of the General Plan. The UDC update is
consistent with the General Plan, as required by State law, therefore,
the UDC update will not cause environmental impacts other than
those identified and mitigated by the General Plan EIR. Any
subsequent development 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 constantly monitor 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
proposed amendments to the UDC, no further impact to traffic and
transportation is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
XVII. UTILITIES a.-g.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the City's Unified
AND SERVICE Development Code do not include any new development at this time.
SYSTEMS The proposed amendments to the Code include various clean-up
items, a reorganization of the Code to make it user-friendly, and the
implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, the project would not
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 and SOC was required for solid waste since 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. 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
MM 3.13-1 to MM 3.13-46 identified in the EIR for the General
Plan. An SOC was adopted for water facilities that are currently
located outside the CLWA service area and the east subbasin.
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
proposed amendments to the UDC are 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
proposed amendments to the UDC, no further impact to utilities and
service systems is anticipated and no further analysis is required.
XVIII. MANDATORY a.-c.) No Impact — The proposed amendments to the UDC will not
FINDINGS OF have a significant impact on the environment that would lead to a
SIGNIFICANCE substantial reduction in habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or reduce
or restrict the number of rare, threatened or endangered species. The
proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code include
various clean-up items, a reorganization of the Code to make it user-
friendly, and further implement the General Plan. Since the
amendments being considered at this time are implementing the
General Plan, no further impacts beyond those considered under the
EIR prepared for the General Plan are anticipated.
X1X. 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
l(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 implementing 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.
I