Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-13 - RESOLUTIONS - APPROVE MC 13-115 ZONE CHANGE (2)IRESOLUTION NO. 14-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A" AND APPROVE MASTER CASE 13-115 CONSISTING OF ZONE CHANGE 13-008 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 13-002 (ZONING AMENDMENT), AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARTPA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: A. The City of Santa Clarita periodically prepares updates to the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan; B. On August 12, 2013, the City of Santa Clarita (the "Applicant") initiated an application (Master Case 13-115, Specific Plan Amendment (Zoning Amendment) 13-002 and Zone Change 13-008) to amend the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan (DNSP) (the "Project' ' to reformat the DNSP to a standard size, rename the plan and update the document including a clean-up of grammar, spelling, and numbering in the DNSP, as well as addressing changes to A -frame signs, outdoor displays of merchandise, changing the land use/zoning designation on 28 parcels, adding glossary definitions, and updating references to the recently adopted Unified Development Code; C. The amendments proposed at this time have been created in response to issues identified upon implementing the DNSP, as well as from community residents and business owners within the DNSP area; D. On June 19, July 17, and August 21, 2013, staff met with the Old Town Newhall Association and requested suggestions regarding potential amendments to the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan; E. On October 14, 2013, staff met with the Downtown Newhall Ad Hoc Committee to discuss the proposed amendments and to receive feedback: F. On October 30, 2013, City staff sent notices to the 28 land owners whose property zoning designations were proposed to be changed as part of this project; G. On December 2, 2013, staff conducted a community workshop at the Old Town Newhall Library and received comments on the proposed amendments. At the workshop members ' of the public also suggested other changes to be included in the 2014 DNSP amendments; H. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this project commencing on February 18, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, , and after hearing public testimony continued the public hearing to a date certain on March 4, 2014; I. At the March 4, 2014, hearing described above, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, staff presentation, and public testimony on the proposal and in a unanimous 5-0 vote approved Resolution P14-01, recommending the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Master Case 13-115; On May 13, 2014, the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing in accordance with the City's noticing requirements. The public hearing was advertised in The Signal newspaper on April 22, 2014. The public hearing was held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m.; K. At the City Council meeting of May 13, 2014, the City Council received a staff presentation summarizing the proposed project, opened the public hearing, received public testimony regarding the project, received further staff comment and answers to questions and closed the public hearing; L. At the May 13, 2014, hearing described above the City Council introduced a separate ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE MASTER CASE 13-115 CONSISTING OF ZONE CHANGE 13-008 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 13-002 (ZONING , AMENDMENT) AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN" and passed said ordinance to a second reading on May 27, 2013; and M. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based is the Master Case No. 13-115 project file which is located in the Community Development Department, the file record being specifically 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 find as follows: A. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared 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 posted and advertised on January 18, 2014, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from January 18, 2014, through February 18, 2014; 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 I Santa Clarita; D. The documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which ' the decision of the City Council is made is the Master Case 13-115 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 and that the Initial Study and Negative Declaration can be found in "Exhibit All. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration (Exhibit A) prepared for the project and approves Master Case 13-115, consisting of Zone Change 13-008 and Specific Plan Amendment 13-002 (Zoning Amendment), amending the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED thic lith rlav of Mav ?014 DATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Armine Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of May, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Acosta, McLean, Boydston, Kellar NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste El I "EXHIBIT A" OF RESOLUTION NO. 14-13 NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE I V Qg4SANTA CLARYM Downtown Newhall Specific Plan Proposed �®^I CarnCw R[.J].v..l O g15P 3ounpNy 'J C—.Onvp in 2,—, `C♦ 0..gr.vp CmcBW.np Su �.n 9p.n leS lJ.ory1; O.NSn.I.p v.M1ny Swaun S.e . Vn.n CenlN 1111]en.fl _�T-�� Q VrNn Gnwlpe Lnnl � n.'ui t=�..F I A ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" ora"Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ J Biological Resources [ J Greenhouse Gas Emissions [ J Land Use & Planning [ J Population and Housing [ J Traffic & Transportation S. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ j Agricultural and Forestry [ J Air Quality Resources [ J Cultural Resources [ ] Geology/Soils (1 Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology & Water Materials Quality [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation (] Utilities & Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ J 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ J 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. (J I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately 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, irthe effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Date 1-1 - Jq Date FA C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ' 0 Less Than forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Polemiall) Significant Less Then section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 1. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Production (as defined by Government Code section a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? El ❑ 11 21 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock El 0 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state forest land to non -forest use? scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or El D quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that ❑ El ❑ conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the ' area? e) Other ❑ El E] 11 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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 EJ 0 ❑ 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 nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of. El 0 ❑ forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversation of El 0 El forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ D which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or ' 8 ' Less Than Paentialty Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact hnpact conversion of forest land to non -forest use^ f) Other 11 El 11 ❑ 111. 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 ® El applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute E ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of E] ❑ ® ED any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? ' e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ 11 number of people? I) Other: ❑ ❑ 0 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 0 El 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? h) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ El ED 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 E 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 Flabitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? 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? 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? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the 10 ❑ Less Than ❑ Potentially significant Less Than ❑ Sigmficam With Significant No hnpact Mitigation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ' ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ' ' Isss Than Polguially Significant Less Than significant with significant NO lawaet Mhigation Impact Impact loss of topsoil, either on or off site? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or 11 O ❑ 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- El ❑ El 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 of a primary or secondary El 11 El 19 ridgeline? S) Move or generate grading of earth exceeding 100,000 El 1:1 ❑ cubic yards? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project: ' a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or El indirectly, that may have significant impact on the environment?? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation El 0 ❑ adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases)? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ 11 ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ 0 El 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 El acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to 0 D to ' Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as result. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Thin] Significant With Significant No Impact lvlitigalmn Impact Impact would it create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 11 El ❑ R 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, El El 0 R would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with El ❑ ❑ R an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, El ❑ ❑ R 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ R health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? , IN. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge EJ ❑ El R requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere El El El R 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 El 0 1 R site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the O El 1-1 R 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? e1 Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ❑ ❑ R R ' the capacity of existing or planned sionnwater drainage 1Less Than Potcntinlly Significant Isss Phan Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation impnct Impact systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? EJ ❑ ❑ 19 g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as ❑ 1:1 ❑ IR mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundan or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other Flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures E-1 ❑ 11 which would impede or redirect flood flows? if Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ El 0 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? 0 ❑ 11 k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and ❑ 1:1 ❑ directions of surface water and/or groundwater? 1) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? D 1:1 ❑ ' In) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the El El 0 following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and project ❑ El post -construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials ❑ El El ID storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, deliver- areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the ❑ 11 El flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases ❑ 11 El in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? v) Storm water discharges that would significantly ❑ El ❑ 23 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 hams to the biological integrity of drainage El El 11 systems, watersheds, and or water bodies? 13 14 Less Than ' Pntcnially Signifignl Less Than Sigtuficam With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Intact vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for El El El 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? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ El ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, El El 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 resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? , b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and 11 ❑ EJ inefficient manner? X11. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ® EJ 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 ❑ ❑ ® E] groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® El levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, El El El ® where such a plan has not been adopted, within two ' miles of a public airport or public use airport, would 14 1Less l ham ❑ Po(rnaally Significant Less Ilmn ❑ significant Wnh significant No ❑ Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X111. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, Necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, 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 night have an adverse physical effect on the environment? IS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E Less TMtt Prnnnially Significant Las Than ' Sigal icani With Significant No Impact Mitigation hnpact Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policyEl 11 0 11 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 11 El ® El 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 0 El ❑ ED 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 11 ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ' e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ El ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ 0 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? El XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 11 El ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or El ❑ El 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 El ❑ ❑ 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 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 providers existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 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 will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XIX. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME'DE MINIMUS' FINDING: a) Will the project have an adverse effect either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." 17 ❑ Less Than ❑ Potentially Significant Less Than 12 Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ '❑ Section and Subsections , Evaluation of Impacts I. AESTHETICS I a -d. No Impact. The City of Santa Clarita is located within Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susana Mountains to the southwest, and the mountains of the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests to the north. The surrounding natural mountains and ridgelines, some of which extend into the City, provide a visual backdrop for much of the City. Other scenic resources within or visible from the City include the Santa Clara River corridor, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons and natural drainages in portions of the City. The proposed amendments will address changes to the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan (DNSP). Changes to the DNSP are regulatory in nature and will not have any impact to aesthetics. The proposed changes consist of plan reformatting, minor grammar editing, and reorganization of certain sections to put lists into alphabetic order. Definitions were added to the glossary for the various terms used in the document and certain code sections ' were revised and clarified for ease of use. Changes to the zoning map are proposed that would reflect the existing land use in specific neighborhoods and clean up inconsistencies that were created when the initial zoning map was adopted in 2005. The proposed changes are regulatory in nature and would not have the potential to affect any scenic vista, would not damage scenic resources, degrade the visual character of Newhall, or create new lighting sources. Therefore, there would be no impact. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Ila. No Impact. Based on information from the California Department of Conservation, the project area is considered to be "Urban and Built -Up Land" that contains no farming resources. There are no agricultural operations located within the project area and the DNSP area is not located within an area of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the California Department of Conservation (Los Angeles Important Farmland 2008). The area is developed with both residential and commercial uses, along with developed parks and public facilities including a Metrolink station, library, and community center. Given that the ' project area has no potential to convert existing farmland to non - is ' agricultural use, the project would have no impact. II b. No Impact. The project area does not contain land subject to a Williamson Act contract nor would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses. Therefore, there would be no impact. II c. No Impact. The project area is located in a non -forested area, developed urban area, and has no potential to cause the rezoning/reduction of forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Therefore, the project would have no impact. II d. No Impact. The project consists of zoning and code language clean-ups to an adopted specific plan. The project area does not contain any forest land nor would the project result the conversion of forest land to non -forest uses. Therefore, there would be no impact. 1I e. No Impact. The project does not have the potential to result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use because no such lands or resources exist in the project area, nor could the project result the conversion of forest lands to non -forest use. Therefore, there would be no impact. III. AIR QUALITY III a -e. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Santa Clarita is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifies region -wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for stationary -source polluters; facilitation of new transportation technologies, such as low -emission vehicles; and 1 IE capital improvements, such as park-and-ride facilities and public I transit improvements. The most recently adopted plan is the 2012 AQMP, adopted on December 7, 2012. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). This plan is designed to implement the California Clean Air Act and in tum implement the Federal Clean Air Act administered by the EPA. The AQMP accommodates population growth and transportation projections based on the predictions made by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Thus, projects that are consistent with employment and population forecasts are consistent with the AQMD. The proposed amendments to the DNSP will not alter any of the aforementioned measures directly in that the proposed amendments will address minor amendments to the DNSP that are regulatory in nature and will have no direct impact to air quality. The potential impacts as a result of any development under the proposed amendments would be subject to the applicable air quality regulations under CEQA in place at the time that development is proposed. The proposed amendments would change the zoning designation of ' certain parcels within the DNSP area; however, these changes are considered minor and are being made to reflect existing conditions, not to increase development potential or density. Under the proposed amendments, the Corridor zone, a primarily commercial zone, would be increased by 6.81 acres. This change would come from rezoning 5.1 acres from the Creative District, a primarily industrial zone, and 2.34 acres from the Urban General 2 zone which is a hybrid residential/commercial zone. None of these changes is expected to increase development potential. One .96 acre parcel that was inadvertently zoned as Open Space in 2005 will be rezoned to Corridor. Changing the zoning designation to Corridor would not create any significant changes in air quality because the parcel has been used historically for commercial purposes and most recently was used for temporary outdoor sales. The change would make zoning consistent with neighboring commercial properties and would not substantially generate any new pollutants verses what was envisioned by the DNSP when the original zoning map was adopted in 2005. Any impact related to air quality, criteria pollutants, sensitive receptors, or odors, would be less than significant. L 20 I IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES General Biological Characteristics of the Site The DNSP plan area is largely developed except for the Newhall Creek bed and the open space areas within the William S. Hart Park property. The project area contains street trees, landscaped residential yards, and hardscape in the Main Street area. IV a -g. No Impact. The proposed amendments to the DNSP 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 DNSP amendments will not have any adverse effect on any riparian habitat, wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other biological resources as the proposed amendments include land that is located in an urban portion of the City that has been predominantly entitled and/or developed. The proposed DNSP amendments include various regulatory changes and will not allow for any development specifically. One .96 acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from Open Space to Corridor. The parcel is located at the corner of Newhall Avenue and Pine Street and used for commercial purposes up until the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The parcel was inadvertently zoned as Open Space when the DNSP zoning map was adopted in 2005. The parcel is located in an industrial area, is fully graded, fenced, and bordered by arterial streets and the Metrolink right-of-way. The parcel contains no habitat or wilderness area and the new zoning designation will not affect wildlife or other biological resources. The amendments will not alter any wildlife corridor or migratory fish corridor and will not affect any regulation or code protecting such resources. Therefore, the proposed DNSP amendments are not anticipated to have an impact to biological resources. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES V a -d. No Impact. The proposed amendments to the DNSP will not impact cultural resources in the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed amendments will not alter any unique geological feature, paleontological resource, any human remains, or affect any other historical or ' archeological resource. No construction is proposed with these amendments. While future development may occur, the scope and intensity of that development is unknown. The kind of 21 development that could occur under the proposed amendments is ' the same development that could occur currently, Therefore, amending the plan would have no impact or effect. Furthermore, any future development would be required to comply with the City's General Plan and associated regulations for the preservation of historical and culturally significant resources. Therefore, no impact to archeological, historical or cultural resource would be caused by the proposed UDC amendments. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS VI a -g. No Impact. Southern California has numerous active and potentially active faults that could affect the City. As stated in the City's General Plan, the City is susceptible to geologic hazards in the event of a major earthquake (magnitude 8.3) along the San Andreas Fault. This could result in ground failure and liquefaction. However, the proposed amendments to the DNSP would not change the requirements of future development to follow all state and City building codes and regulations. The proposed amendments would be regulatory in nature and any future development would be required to address the geologic and/or soils conditions on its specific project site prior to the issuance of any building permits on the project site. Therefore, the proposed DNSP amendments are ' not anticipated to have any impact related to geology and soils. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS VII a -b. No Impact. "Greenhouse gases," so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth, are emitted by human activity and are implicated in global climate change. These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG ' statues and executive orders (EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, 22 ' Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Most notably AB 32 mandates California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The proposed amendments to the DNSP are regulatory in nature and do not propose any development or increase in density, population, or employment in the specific plan area. The amendments would not result in major alterations to any air quality plan as it relates to any greenhouse emissions. The amendments remain consistent with the City's General Plan and Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the proposed DNSP amendments are not anticipated to have any impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VIII a -i. No Impact. The proposed amendments to the DNSP would not directly expose people to health hazards or hazardous 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 DNSP are regulatory in nature, providing clarity to various issues that have come up in implementing the DNSP, along with updating the zoning map to reflect existing land uses. Therefore, given that the amendments would not substantially alter land use or create potential hazards to the public, the proposed DNSP amendments are not anticipated to have any impact to hazards or hazardous materials. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IX a -m. No Impact. The proposed project would not impact water quality standards, nor affect groundwater supplies. The proposed amendments to the DNSP include various regulatory changes, and do not propose any development at this time. 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 future construction related activity within the DNSP would comply with the zoning codes in place at the time that revisions are requested, including any additional ' CEQA review if applicable. Therefore, the proposed DNSP 23 amendments are not anticipated to have an impact to hydrology I and water quality. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING X a. No Impact. No established community would be disrupted or physically divided due to the proposed amendments, Therefore, there would be no impact. X b. No Impact. The proposed amendments to the DNSP include various regulatory changes for the Old Town Newhall area and also minor changes to the zoning map to reflect existing land uses and would not conflict with any land use policy or plan. The changes are consistent with the City's General Plan and are in keeping with the DNSP's goal of creating an arts and entertainment district in Old Town Newhall. Therefore, there would be no impact. X c. No Impact. The proposed amendments would not affect 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 revisions are requested. Therefore, the project would have no impact on conservation plans XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES XI a -c. No Impact. Gold mining and oil production historically have been the principal mineral extraction activities in and around the Santa Clarita Valley. Other minerals found in the planning area include construction aggregate, titanium, and tuff. Mineral resources and extraction areas are shown in the City's General Plan. The proposed DNSP amendments will not affect mineral resources in Santa Clarita generally or in the Old Town Newhall area specifically. Therefore, there would be no impact. XII. NOISE XII a -d. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed DNSP amendments will not expose persons to an increased level of temporary noise, ground -borne vibration, or ambient noise. The proposed amendments are regulatory in nature and do not include any development. Changes to the zoning map would not increase noise in residential areas and would, in fact, , ensure that an existing single-family neighborhood remains 24 ' residential and preclude industrial uses in the area, maintaining the existing condition. The proposed amendments do not diminish or remove any noise -related regulations and would not or could not create additional significant noise in the Old Town Newhall area. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated with relation to noise. XII c -f. No Impact. There are no airports, airfields, or airport land use plans within the City. Therefore, the proposed DNSP amendments would cause no impacts related to airport noise. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING XIII a-e.No Impact. The proposed amendments to the DNSP are not anticipated to the induce substantial population growth in the Santa Clarita Valley, either directly or indirectly, nor would any of the proposed provisions cause displacement of existing homes or people. The DNSP amendments are regulatory in nature. Further, the proposed amendments are meant to clarify issues that have come up as the DNSP has been implemented and will not create an increase, or substantially impact any existing residential uses. The proposed ' project is a regulatory adjustment and does not include any development activity or proposal. The DNSP amendments would not alter the City's population projections and are consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, the DNSP amendments would have no impact to population and housing. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES XIV a. (1) No Impact. The proposed amendments will not directly increase the need for fire protection services. However, any future development would be subject to any applicable development fees, which are established to compensate for growth. Since the proposed DNSP amendments are not anticipated to have a direct impact on fire protection services, and given that future development would remain subject to development fees, the amendments would have no impact to fire services. (ii) No Impact. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to directly increase the need for police services. However, any future development would be subject to development fees, which ' are established to compensate for growth. Since the 25 proposed DNSP amendments would have no direct impact ' on police services, and given that future development would remain subject to development fees, the amendments would have no impact to police services. (iii) No Impact. The site is located within the Newhall Union Elementary School District and also the William S. Hart Union High School District. The proposed project is not anticipated to directly increase the population of the City of Santa Clarita. However, any future residential development would be subject to school development fees, which are established to compensate for growth. Since the proposed DNSP amendments would have no direct impact on school services, and given that future development would be subject to school development fees, the amendments would have no impact to school services. (iv) No Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to directly increase number of persons using public parks. However, any future development would be subject to park impact fees, which are established to compensate for residential growth. Since ' the proposed DNSP amendments would have no direct impact on parks, and given that future development would remain subject to park impact fees, the amendments would have no impact to parks XV. RECREATION XV a -b. No Impact. The proposed amendments to the DNSP will not have any impact on recreational amenities within the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed project is a regulatory adjustment and does not include any development activities. Subsequent projects would be required to comply with the City's General Plan and would be subject to the City's park impact fees as applicable. Therefore, no impact to recreation is anticipated with the proposed DNSP amendments. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC XVI a -b. Less Than Significant Impact. While the proposed amendments to the DNSP are regulatory in nature and are not anticipated to have direct developmental impacts that alter traffic load or capacity on street systems, the amendments do include minor changes to the zoning map that includes 28 properties. 26 ' One parcel, a .96 acre vacant lot, would be rezoned from Open Space to Corridor. This change would clean-up a mapping error from the 2005 zoning map. The parcel is located at the intersection of Pine Street and Newhall Avenue and has been used for commercial purposes in the past up until the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Most recently the parcel was used for a holiday sales lot. The zone change would not substantially alter the use of the property or change traffic volumes in the area. J Other zone changes would preserve an existing single-family neighborhood (13 residential parcels) that was previously zoned Creative District (an industrial zone). The zone change will prevent increased traffic volume that industrial uses would bring. Twelve parcels (12) in the vicinity of Chestnut Street would be rezoned from Urban General 2 (UG -2), a predominantly residential zone, to Corridor, a predominantly commercial zone. Nine parcels are currently used for commercial purposes. Given that the area is built out and that the UG -2 zone already allows for the uses that currently exist, the zone change is not expected to increase development density or change the character of the area. The remaining zone changes would apply to two commercial lots on Newhall Avenue that are split between the Corridor zone and Creative District zone. Assigning a single zoning designation to the parcels would not increase their existing development potential nor significantly change the types of uses that the parcels could accommodate. The changes are intended to make the zoning map consistent with existing lot lines. Given that the proposed amendments are regulatory in nature, that they do not include any development activities, and that any subsequent development would be regulated by the DNSP, the City's UDC, General Plan, transportation policies, and would be subject to additional CEQA review to determine project related impacts, the project is not expected to create any substantial impacts to intersections, streets, highways, bicycle paths, mass transit, or pedestrian paths. Furthermore, the project would not substantially impact any Congestion Management Plan roadway nor significantly impact level of service standards. And impact would be less than significant. XVI c -g. No Impact. The project area is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of public airport or public use airport. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect any airport facilities and would not cause a change in the directional patterns of aircraft. The amendments would not change the roadway network, thereby 27 eliminating any chance of creating curves or dangerous ' intersections, or introducing farm equipment to the area. The amendments would not reduce emergency access nor would they conflict with adopted policies or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or in any other way decrease the performance and safety of such facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS XVII a -g. No Impact. The 2014 DNSP amendments do not include any new development proposals. The amendments are regulatory in nature and would not result in the construction of new water facilities, expansion of existing facilities, affect drainage patterns, water treatment services, nor would the amendments have the potential to impact landfill capacity or demand. Any subsequent development would be required to comply with the City's General Plan, current development regulations, the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and all applicable utility purveyors. Compliance with these requirements would ensure all federal, state and local statutes and imposed regulations are met. Therefore, no impact to utilities or service systems is anticipated as a result of the approval of the proposed DNSP amendments. ' XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE XVIII a -c. No Impact. The proposed 2014 DNSP amendments will not impact the environment, will not lead to a substantial reduction in habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or reduce or restrict the number of rare, threatened or endangered species. The proposed amendments are regulatory in nature. As such, the proposed amendments do not remove any established City regulations that protect any plant and animal species. The proposal would not contribute to any cumulative impacts and would not cause environmental effects that would adversely affect humans. Therefore, there would be no impact. XIX. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME'DE MINIMUS' FINDING: XVIII a. No Impact. The legislative intent of the Department of Fish and Game 'De Minimus' Finding is "to extend the current user -based funding system by allocating the transactional costs of wildlife protection and management to those who would consume those resources through urbanization and development..." (AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, effective January 1, 1991, Section 1(c)). ' The proposed 2014 DNSP amendments would not entitle any new 28 ' development; and any future development proposal seeking discretionary approval would remain subject to CEQA and the CDFG Code. Since the proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources, the project's impacts on fish and wildlife are de minimus. 29