Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL SAND CYN HERMAN (2)Agenda Item: I'g> CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: DATE: May 13, 2008 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE REVIEW AND OAK TREE PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE SAND CANYON COMMUNITY DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case 07-225 (Hillside Review 07-011, Oak Tree Permit 08-004) to allow for the construction of an 11,085 square foot single family residence, 910 square foot detached garage, associated grading, and oak tree encroachment. BACKGROUND On November 11, 2007, the applicants, Rocky and Paige Herman, submitted a project with the request for a Hillside Review and an Oak Tree Permit to construct an 11,085 square foot house and a 910 square foot garage in the Sand Canyon community. The project site is currently two parcels. Parcel 1 is a 1.01 acre vacant parcel that was previously graded to accommodate one single family residence under a subdivision in the early 1990s. Parcel 1 takes access from Mandalay Road, which is a private road. There is one heritage oak tree located on Parcel 1. Parcel 2 is a 2.32 acre flag lot that consisted of a single family residence that was demolished in 2007. Access to Parcel 2 is provided from Sand Canyon Road via a driveway on an approximate ten -foot -wide flag strip. Parcel 2 was previously graded and consists of two oak trees and has minor topographical features. The project was brought before the Planning Commission on April 1, 2008, and was approved subject to the conditions of approval. The project was appealed on April 14, 2008, within the -Adopted Pc s o�-Nc� appeal period timeframe. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting to combine Parcels 1 and 2 into one lot that will total 3.33 acres, and grade a pad for a custom single family residence, detached garage, and a driveway/guest parking area. The proposed project consists of an 11,085 square foot custom home and detached garage proposed to be located on what is now Parcel 2, a paved driveway and guest parking area on Parcel 1, and a lot line adjustment that will combine Parcels 1 and 2. The current driveway access from Sand Canyon Road will no longer be used as the primary access. Primary access to the site will be taken from Mandalay Road. The subject property has an average cross slope of 19.55%. Together, the two parcels are rectangular in shape and have small topographic changes. The building pad is proposed on what is now Parcel 2, and the majority of the driveway and guest parking area is proposed to be located on Parcel 1. To allow for the creation of building pad and for the construction of the proposed driveway, the applicant is proposing 10,476 cubic yards of grading with 117 cubic yards of export. The new pad will be approximately fourteen feet lower than the existing topography in order to line up the driveway with the pad. There are three oak trees on the project site, one of heritage oak status. The heritage oak tree is proposed to be encroached upon to allow for the grading and paving of the driveway and guest parking area. The remaining two oak trees will not be affected by the proposed project. The site and surrounding properties are zoned Residential Very Low (RVL). All housing construction proposed as part of this application would comply with the RVL development standards in the Unified Development Code (UDC) such as height, setbacks, and access. The proposed residential lot is consistent with the surrounding lot sizes and the scale of the residential land uses. ANALYSIS Hillside Review The project includes the proposed grading and construction of a single family residence with a detached garage and driveway/guest parking area. The subject property has a cross slope of greater than 15% and therefore, is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance (Section 17.80 of the Unified Development Code) and review by the Planning Commission. The project requires the grading of approximately 10,476 cubic yards of earth, with the export of 117 cubic yards. The haul route for the movement of dirt will be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to grading permit issuance. The building pad and driveway have been proposed in locations that maintain the rural character of the project site. The site's proposed grading design will be rounded and contoured to blend with the existing natural terrain. The proposed building pad is in a location that is also in compliance with the regulations of the UDC and the Hillside Ordinance. Oak Tree Permit There are a total of three oak trees located on the subject property; one oak tree is of heritage status. The encroachment is proposed to allow for the construction of the driveway and parking area. To minimize any damage to the oak tree, mitigation for the encroachment of the heritage oak tree includes the installation of permeable concrete pavers, adjustment to the parking area dimensions, and landscape restrictions under the canopy of the subject oak. In addition, special construction methods will be used to ensure that the tree is not injured in the development of the property. The applicant is required to erect protective fencing five feet outside the perimeter of the drip line during grading and construction to prevent any damage during grading or the future construction of the home. °Vl' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study was completed evaluating the environmental impacts created with the proposed project. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the proposed project. The environmental documents were posted for public review from March 11, 2008 to April 1, 2008. The Initial Study considered the potential impacts of the proposed grading and development, and found that all impacts to the site were considered less than significant with mitigation. PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS City staff presented the proposed project to the Planning Commission on April 1, 2008, and subsequently, the proposed project was approved. During the public comment process, specific comments were provided regarding a pending civil lawsuit between the applicant and the property owners of 26862 Sand Canyon Road (the appellants). The lawsuit cites a slope failure that deemed a common driveway, owned in fee by the applicants, the appellants, and another neighbor, unusable. The appellant's claim is that the proposed project will adversely impact the slope failure area, and the project will prohibit emergency personnel access to all property owners involved. In response to the comment letter, staff requested that the Fire Department evaluate the proposed project and the claim by the appellants. The Fire Department found no correlation between the proposed project and the appellant's argument. However, the Fire Department did write additional conditions of approval to satisfy standard firefighting requirements. Furthermore, the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer visited the site to address the appellant's concerns, and the engineer concluded that based on the distance of the proposed project to the slope failure area and other soil and geologic factors, the proposed project would not destabilize the slope failure area. The applicant's engineer provided a letter and verbal testimony at the hearing addressing the matter. The City's Development Services Division reviewed the letter submitted by the applicant's engineer and substantiated the findings. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval An appeal of Master Case 07-225 was submitted to the City Clerk's office on April 14, 2008 by Joseph M. Cobert on behalf of his clients, David and Marisol Ballard (the appellants). The letter cites reasons for the appeal as "one of safety" and that the City should, as a development condition, require the Hermans to assist in the repair of the private driveway. The letter of appeal is attached to this agenda item for the Council's review. In addition, for the Council's reference, please see the attached letter of objection and supplemental documents provided by the applicants' and the appellants' representatives. PUBLIC REVIEW As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the subject property were notified by mail advertising the public hearing for Master Case 07-225. In addition, the public notice was placed in a local newspaper and a sign was posted at the site. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as determined by the Council. FISCAL IMPACT No negative fiscal impact is anticipated. The entire cost of development of the proposed project will be paid in full by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study Letter of Appeal and Supplemental Information Site Plan/Elevations/Cut-Fill Map Planning Commission Staff Report (Available in Reading File) Planning Commission Resolution (Available in Reading File) Initial Comment Letter March 24, 2008 (Available in Reading File) Fire Department Supplemental Conditions of Approval (Available in Reading File) Southwest Geotechnical Letter (Available in Reading File) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: ---1 A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, I" Floor, Santa Clarita, California, on May 13, 20081, at or after 6:00 p.m. to consider an appeal of the approval of Master Case 07-225. The applicants, Rocky and Paige Herman, are proposing the construction of an 11,085 square foot single family residence and a 910 square foot detached garage for the subject properties located at 25864 Sand Canyon Road and (APN: 2841-002-085). The applicant has submitted an application requesting a Hillside Review, a lot line adjustment to combine the two lots into one, and an Oak Tree Permit for the encroachment into the protected area of one heritage oak. The proposed project includes the grading for the building pad, driveway, and guest parking area. The site is zoned RVL (Residential Very Low). This application was approved by the Planning Commission on April 1, 2008. However on April 14, 2008, the action of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council. A DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and was made available for a public review period on March 11, 2008. A copy of the mitigated negative declaration and all supporting documents will be located at the Planning Division public counter located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. A copy of the mitigated negative declaration (without all supporting documents) was posted at the Los Angeles County Library, Valencia Branch during the public review period noted above. If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; Telephone- (661) 255-4330, Raymond Barragan, Assistant Planner I. Dated: April 21, 2008 Sharon L. Dawson, CMC City Clerk Publish Date: April 23, 2008 RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING MASTER CASE NO. 07-225 (HILLSIDE REVIEW 07-011, OAK TREE PERMIT 08-004) TO ALLOW FOR THE GRADING OF APPROXIMATELY 10,476 CUBIC YARDS TO CREATE A BUILDABLE PAD TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETACHED GARAGE AT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 2841-002-085 AND 2841- 019-052, ZONED RVL (RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. On November 13, 2007, the Department of Community Development, received Master Case Number 07-225, Hillside Review 07-011, Oak Tree Permit 08-004, entitlement application filed by Rocky and Paige Herman (the "Applicant"). The proposed project consists of an 11,085 square foot single family residence, a 910 square foot garage, grading of 10,476 cubic yards of earth, and the encroachment into the protected area of one heritage oak tree. The application is for Hillside Review, Oak Tree Permit for the encroachment of one tree (heritage status), and a lot line adjustment. The application was deemed complete on December 4, 2007; b. The subject property consists of two lots and is located at APN's (Assessor Parcel Numbers) 2841-002-085 and 2841-019-052. The project site is approximately 3.33 acres and is located at 26864 Sand Canyon Road in the Sand Canyon neighborhood. The project is located within the Sand Canyon Special Standards District; C. The subject property is in the RVL (Residential Very Low) zone with surrounding land,uses consisting of single-family residences to the north, south, east and west; d. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on April 1, 2008. This public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At the hearing, the Planning Commission considered staff s presentation, the staff report, and public testimony on the proposal; e. The Planning Commission approved the project as proposed on April 1, 2008; f. On April 14, 2008, Master Case 07-225 was appealed to the City Council; g. The City Council held a duly noticed hearing on this issue on May 13, 2008. This public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At the Resolution 08 - Master Case 07-225 Page 2 of 6 hearing, the City Council considered staff's presentation, the staff report, and public testimony on the proposal; and h. .Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, the City Council further finds and determines as follows: a. An Initial Study and a Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on March 11, 2008, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from March 11, 2008 through April 1, 2008; There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita; d. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is the Master Case 07-225 project file 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 3. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and the findings listed Section 17.17.090(H) of the Unified Development Code, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property. The applicant proposes to encroach upon one heritage oak tree on the subject site. Parcel 1 is approximately 163' wide and it is the location of one heritage oak tree. The proposed driveway and guest parking area would encroach into the protected zone of this tree. As part Resolution 08 - Master Case 07-225 Page 3 of 6 of the conditions of approval, the City's Oak Tree Specialist is requiring the applicant to modify the proposed parking area to allow for an increased protected zone along the east edge of the tree. The parking area shall be a minimum of 20' feet away from the trunk of the oak tree. The protected zone of the tree shall remain as natural as possible with very minimal impacts to both natural drainage and landscape. Due to the location of the heritage oak on Parcel 1 and the topographical constraints of the property, the project, as proposed, preserves this oak tree in place while allowing the property owner reasonable use of the site. Oak trees #91 and #92 will not be encroached upon and will remain in their natural state. b. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The purpose of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance is to "protect and preserve oak trees in the City and to provide regulatory measures designed to accomplish this purpose" (UDC §17.17.090(B)). As proposed, the oak tree preservation measures that are included with this project meet the purpose, spirit, and intent of the Oak Tree Ordinance. All oak trees will be preserved in place and permeable pavers will be used for the driveway and parking area under the oak tree canopy of the heritage oak, and special construction methods will be used to ensure that the tree is not injured in the development of the property. The remaining two oak trees will not be encroached upon. The City's Oak Tree Specialist supports the applicant's request. Upon completion, the property's oak inventory will remain intact. SECTION 4. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings (Section 17.80.030 of the Unified Development Code), the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of landform grading so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. The subject site is currently vacant. The proposed'project requires 10,476 cubic yards of grading, with 117 cubic yards of export to create a driveway and a buildable residential pad r -J for a single family home and detached garage on 3.33 acres. The site has an average cross slope of 19.55%, therefore requiring a hillside development review. Minor landform changes are proposed as part of this application and finished grading design will blend in with the natural topography existing on the subject property. Portions of the natural vegetation will be maintained, including the three oak trees. Therefore, the natural topographic features and character will be preserved on site. Resolution 08 - Master Case 07-225 Page 4 of 6 b. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent possible. There are no significant topographic features on the project site as identified in the City's General Plan. Minor landform changes are proposed and finished grading design will blend in with the natural topography existing on the subject property. Therefore, the topographic features will be retained to the maximum extent possible. c. That clustered sites and buildings are utilized where such techniques can be demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservations of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features and are compatible with existing neighborhoods. No clustering is proposed with the project, and there are no prominent landmark features on the project site. The Director of Community Development has reviewed plans for the residential structure, garage, and driveway for consistency with setbacks and height requirements. There are three existing oak trees located on the project site. The applicant submitted an Oak Tree Report, and the report concluded that one heritage oak tree is proposed to be encroached upon for the intent of constructing the driveway for future access to the subject property. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the oak tree encroachment with pavers and special construction methods under a certified arborist's direction. In addition, unaffected trees are required to have protective fencing around trees to prevent any impact during grading activities and construction of any structures. d. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized. The construction proposed and building pad location are consistent with the Hillside Ordinance, the surrounding properties, and the Sand Canyon community. In addition, all proposed structures meet UDC standards for the RVL zone, such as setbacks and height, as well as meet building material and architectural design requirements as outlined in the Santa Clarita Architectural Guidelines. e. Thatplant materials are conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation ofprominent trees and, to the extentpossible, reduce the maintenance cost to public and private property owners. The proposed grading is limited to areas on the project site that are needed for the driveway and for the building pad. All grading is proposed to be completed in a manner that will allow for the grading activities to blend into the natural topography. The applicant is proposing to Resolution 08 - Master Case 07-225 Page 5 of 6 keep most of the project site in a natural state and leave the vegetation undisturbed. In areas where grading is necessary and slopes are created, the applicant is proposing to plant and provide irrigation for native/drought resistant vegetation. There are three existing oak trees on site. All oak trees will remain and one will be encroached upon. The proposed oak tree encroachment is to allow for the grading of the driveway. Therefore, the project will preserve plant materials on site and will minimize visual effects of grading and construction. f. That curvilinear street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized. This project does not propose the construction of any public or private streets, only a private driveway. The driveway is proposed in a location that allows for minimal disturbance to the site, and for the most direct access to the proposed residence. g. That grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent properties utilized. All proposed grading will be contained on-site. The proposed grading impacts will be limited to match the natural topography of the site and the Sand Canyon community. Therefore, no grading disruption will occur to adjacent properties. h. That site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around and proposed development are utilized. The proposed project would not damage any visual resources as identified in the City's General Plan or on the City's planning maps. The future home and accessory structure will be constructed on the newly created pad and will be subject to the City's standards. The aesthetic details, including the site's architectural and landscape plans are subject to the City's review. Additionally, the project site is in an area planned for residential development. Residential developments are located on all sides of the project site. The project would not damage or impact any view corridors or scenic vistas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California: Adopt Resolution 08-_, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and approving Master Case No. 07-225, Hillside Review 07-011 and Oak Tree Permit 08-004, for the grading of a buildable pad for the construction of a single family home and detached garage subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). Resolution 08 - Master Case 07-225 Page 6 of 6 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 2008. J MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, Secretary, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of, 2008, by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK S \CD\CURRENT112007\07-225(HR07-011)\07-225 CC Reso doc EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE 07-225 HILLSIDE REVIEW 07-011; INITIAL STUDY 08-002; OAK TREE PERMIT 08-004 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GCL The approval of this permit shall expire if not put into use within two (2) years from the date of conditional approval. GC2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved permit prior to the date of expiration, for a period of time not to exceed one year. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration of the permit. GC3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Community Development Department in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the developer within 30 days of said change. GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include any entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit by the City, which action is provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event that the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, of if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: 1) the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform a settlement unless the entitlement is approved by the applicant. GC5. Details shown on the permit are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies must be specifically approved. GC6. At any point in the development process, a stop -work order shall be considered in effect upon the discovery of any historic or prehistoric artifacts and/or remains, at which time the City shall be notified. The applicant shall hire a qualified consultant that the Director of Community Development approves to study the site and recommend a course of action, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. GC7. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of the property involved (if other than permittee) have filed, with the Director of Community MC 07-225 April 1, 2008 Page 2 of 12 Development, their affidavit (Acceptance Form) stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. GCB. It is hereby declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute or ordinance is violated, the City may commence proceedings to revoke this approval. PLANNING DIVISION PL1. Approval is granted for the grading of approximately 10,476 cubic yards of earth on a hillside with an average cross slope of 19.55%, for the encroachment of one oak tree, and for the construction of a single-family residence and detached garage, as indicated on the approved site plan for the subject property located at Assessor Parcel Numbers: (2841-002-085) and (2841=619-052). PL2. Development of single-family residences on any parcel shall comply with the UDC standards of the applicable residential zone including but not limited to the following: a) True property lines for each parcel shall be extended to the center of private and future streets. Pursuant to Section 17.15.020, street setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate street right-of-way or from the maximum required street width if said street or proposed street is to be private. In residential zones where the sidewalk is located adjacent to the curb, the building setback shall be measured from six (6) feet from the curb. This allowance does not permit any encroachment within any portion of such street by the underlying fee owner. b) A minimum two car garage shall be provided for a single-family residence with a minimum twenty (20) feet by twenty (20) feet of interior space unobstructed by appliances, including, but not limited to refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers and water heaters. Garages shall be setback twenty (20) feet from all public and private rights -of -ways. Garages can be setback five (5) feet away from the property line (with the exception of flag lots) if no access is taken from that elevation and does not front a street. (Section 17.07.010). c) All new residential development shall require the planting of one twenty-four (24) inch box tree in the required front yard area. (Section 17.15.020) PL3. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall provide final landscape and irrigation plans for any graded slopes exceeding 5' in height for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. These slopes shall be landscaped to the Hillside Development Standards outlined in the Unified Development Code. This includes the planting 1 tree per every 150 square feet of slope area and one shrub per every 100 square feet of slope area. PL4. The applicant is required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance during site preparation, grading, and construction of the single-family residence. MC 07-225 April 1, 2008 Page 3 of 12 PLS. Prior to issuance of building permits, the lot line adjustment shall meet the following criteria: 1. The existing parcels are contiguous. 2. The existing parcels comply with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, as determined by the City Engineer. 3. A greater number of parcels than originally existed will not be created. 4. The adjusted parcels will comply with the goals and policies of the General Plan, provisions of the unified development code and zoning, and any other applicable statutes or regulations. Pre-existing, nonconforming lots or parcels may be merged into a single nonconforming parcel at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. 5. The adjusted configuration of the parcels will be in accord with the established neighborhood lot design patterns and will not violate good planning practices. 6. There will be no impairment of any existing access or creation of a need for any new access to any adjacent parcels. 7. There will be no impairment to any existing easements or creation of a need for any new easements serving any adjacent parcels. - 8. There will be no need to require substantial alteration to any existing improvements or create the need for any new improvements. 9. There is no adjustment of the boundary between existing parcels for which a covenant of improvement requirements has been recorded and all required improvements stated therein have not been completed unless the City Engineer determines the proposed boundary adjustment will not significantly affect said covenant of improvement requirements. PL6. All requirements of the Unified Development Code and of the Sand Canyon Special Standards District must be complied with unless set forth in the permit and/or shown on the submitted site plan. ENGINEERING DIVISION ENI. At issuance of permits or other grants of approval, the applicant agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. EN2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file with the County Recorder, a Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment to merge the parcels. Prior to being filed with the County Recorder, the Lot Line Adjustment shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. MC 07-225 April 1, 2008 Page 4 of 12 EN3. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent with the approved site plan, oak tree report and conditions of approval. The grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations. EN4. The site plan shows an import 117 CY of dirt to the project. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for this project, the applicant shall submit a copy of the grading permit for the export site and an exhibit of the proposed haul route. The applicant is responsible to obtain approval from all applicable agencies for the dirt hauling operation. ENS. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements for the dirt hauling operation: • Obtain an encroachment permit for the work. • The hours of operation shall be between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm. • Provide non-stop street sweeping service on all City streets along the haul route during all hours of work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • Provide traffic control and flagging personnel along the haul route to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN6. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall repair any pavement damaged by the dirt hauling operation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The limits of the road repairs shall be consistent with the approved haul route. ENT The site is located within a mapped liquefiable area, per the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report which adequately addresses the Seismic Hazard Zone. All required mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the development plans. EN8. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading over all easements. EN9. Prior to grading permit, if applicable, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading outside of the property lines/tract boundary from the adjacent property owner(s). EN10. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Acceptance of Drainage Form from adjacent property owners if drainage is being diverted to an adjacent property. ENI 1. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall show on the grading plan, a means of collecting water on-site and draining it to the existing storm drain pipe in Mandalay Road. EN12. Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public or private street right-of-way, the applicant shall submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved site MC 07-225 April 1, 2008 Page 5 of 12 plan, oak tree report and conditions of approval and obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Division. EN13. Prior to occupancy, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV within or fronting the project site shall be installed underground. EN14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate additional street right- of-way for a total of 42 feet from centerline on Sand Canyon Road along the project frontage, as directed by the City Engineer. EN15. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install mailboxes and posts in accordance with the US Postal Service, and secure approval of the Postal Service prior to installation. EN16. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk, and refurbish the half section of pavement on streets within or abutting the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN17. The on-site sewer shall be a privately maintained system. All sewer lines shall have a minimum 2% slope and pipe inverts shall be 6 feet below the curb grade. Private on-site sewers are reviewed and approved by the City's Building & Safety Division. EN18. Prior to building permit, the applicant shall pay the Sand Canyon Sewer User Connection Fee ($1837.85 per parcel) and processing fee (currently $76.65 per parcel) for a total of $3829.00. The processing fee is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. The Sand Canyon Sewer User Connection Fee is not subject to change. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FDL The applicant shall submit a complete set of architectural plans shall be submitted for Los Angeles County Fire Department plan review and approval. FD2. The Fire Department access shall be taken from where the home is addressed from. FD3. The fire hydrant location(s) will be set by the Santa Clarita Fire Prevention Office - Engineering Unit. FD4. The applicant shall provide a minimum, unobstructive paved driveway width of 20 feet, clear -to -sky to be posted "No Parking - Fire Lane" to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of a building. FDS. An "approved" Fire Department turnaround is required. FD6. Specific water system requirements will be set by the Santa Clarita Fire Prevention Office - Engineering Unit. FD7. The maximum allowable grade shall not exceed 15 percent except where the topography makes impracticable to keep within such grade and then an absolute maximum of 20 MC 07-225 April 1, 2008 Page 6 of 12 percent will be allowed for up to 150 feet in distance. The average maximum allowed grade including topography difficulties shall be no more than 17 percent. Grade breaks shall not exceed 10 percent in 10 feet. FD8. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (formerly Fire Zone 4). A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted and approved prior to final map clearance. (Contact Fuel Modification Unit, Fire Station #32, 605 North Angeleno Avenue, Azusa, CA 91702-2904, Phone (626) 969- 5205, for details). FD9. The applicant shall submit two complete set of architectural drawings to the Fire Prevention Engineering Section Building Plan Check Unit in Santa Clarita. Contact 661- 286-8821 for additional information and submittal location. Provide the following information on the site plan: • Cross -hatch any on-site Fire Department vehicular access • Show any existing fire hydrants within 300 feet of the lot frontage • Show type of construction, occupancy classification, square footage of structure per floor and number of floors • Indicate address of subject property 171310. The applicant shall submit the original copy of the fire flow availability form (Form 195) to the Fire Department's Santa Clarita Fire Prevention Office - Engineering Unit for review. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION BS 1. All structures shall comply with the detailed requirements of the 2001 California Building, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes, 2004 California Electrical Code, 2005 California Energy Code, and the 2002 City of Santa Clarita amendments to the California codes. A copy of the City amendments is available at the Building and Safety public counter and on our website at www.santa-clarita.com. BS2. Projects submitted for plan review after January 1", 2008, shall comply with the new ICC Building and Mechanical Codes, new IAPMO Plumbing Code, and the new NFPA Electrical Code. BS3. The applicant shall submit two complete sets of plans prepared by a licensed Architect or Engineer shall be submitted to Building and Safety for a building permit(s). The MC 07-225 Apnl 1, 2008 Page 7 of 12 submitted plans shall include architectural and structural plans, structural and energy calculations, soil/geology report, truss drawings and calculations, etc. BS4. The applicant shall submit a complete soils and geology report for the project. The report shall be formally submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. BSS. Prior to issuance of building permits: rough grading and/or recompaction must be completed; a final compaction report and rough grading or pad certification shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division. BS6. The property is located within 1000 feet of a natural hillside brush area and shall comply with the City's Fire Hazard Zone Ordinance. BST All structures (including pools and fences) shall be setback from any ascending and descending slopes per section 1806.5 of the California Building Code. Depending on the height of slopes, buildings may need to be setback up to 15 feet from the toe of slopes and up to 40 feet from the top of slopes. BSB. Drain Waste Vent and on-site sewer lines and laterals shall have a minimum 2% slope per CPC. Set your pads accordingly. BS9. Prior to issuance of building permits, additional clearances from the following agencies will be required: a. William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district, J b. Castaic Lake Water Agency, c. L. A. County Health Services, Water & Sewerage Control (for on-site sewers). An agency referral list is available at the Building and Safety public counter. BS 10. Prior to submitting plans to Building and Safety, please contact Deanna Hamrick, (661) 255-4935, for addresses. An application, site plan and floor plan will be required. BSI 1. The Building and Safety Division is scanning plans for permanent storage. To facilitate this effort, please incorporate the following information into the plans: a. The Permit Number, Sheet Title, and the Sheet Number shall be located in the lower right hand corner of each sheet of the drawings. b. A copy of the Planning Conditions. c. The Truss drawings. d. ICBG, UL and other outside agency reports for products or materials, when those reports contain information required by the contractor for construction or installation. MC 07-225 April 1, 2008 Page 8 of 12 e. The Recommendation Section of the Soils Report. BS12. These conditions are based on a review of conceptual plans submitted by the applicant. A thorough review will be performed and specific conditions will be generated when the final plans are submitted to Building and Safety. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ES 1. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as a single-family residence located on a graded hillside. In lieu of a separate Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP), "Special Provisions" shall be addressed and included on the Grading Plan. These provisions are: 1) Conserve natural areas; 2) Protect slopes and channels; 3) Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage; 4) Divert roof runoff to vegetated areas before discharge unless the diversion would result in slope instability; and 5) Direct surface flow to vegetated areas before discharge unless the diversion would result in slope instability. ES2. The surface area disturbed is greater than one acre; therefore, the project is subject to a General Construction Permit under the City's Municipal Stormwater Permit. The applicant must submit a State Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City for acceptance prior to obtaining grading or building permits. ES3. The review fee for the SWPPP, currently $507, is due upon formal submittal of the SWPPP documents (if needed). Contact the Environmental Services Division at (661) 284-1422 with any questions. ES4. All single family residential dwellings shall be designed with space provided for three 90 -gallon trash bins. ESS. All new construction projects valuated greater than $500,000 must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. ES6. If the project is valuated above $500,000 the applicant shall: • Divert a minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 50% of the remaining C&D materials. • Have a Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining permits. • Submit a deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $50,000, whichever is less. The deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was diverted. MC 07-225 Apn1 1, 2008 Page 9 of 12 EST All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's nine franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please contact Environmental Services staff for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City. TRANSIT DIVISION TRI. The Transit Impact Fee does apply. Currently the rate is $200 per residential unit. This fee is currently under revision. Applicant shall pay the current fee at the time of final map recordation or building permit issuance, whichever comes first. URBAN FORESTRY DIVISON UFL The applicant shall be required to apply for a separate oak tree encroachment permit for this application. Additional impacts beyond the previous grading which has already taken place are proposed and therefore must be addressed in a separate permit. UF2. The applicant and their contractors shall remain compliant with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times throughout the said project. Failure to comply will result in a Stop All Work, UF3. The applicant and their contractors shall adhere to all recommendations issued from the project arborist. Recommendations include those listed in the submitted oak tree report and any recommendation issued on site during the required monitoring. Failure to comply will result in a Stop All Work. U174. Prior to grading and/or any other form of construction, the applicant shall have installed all required protective fencing. The applicant shall replace the existing 4' foot high orange vinyl fencing around the heritage oak with five (5') foot high chain link material. UF5. A minimum of two signs that read "THIS FENCE IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THESE OAK TREES AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OR THE CITY OAK TREE SPECIALIST" shall be installed on the protective fence. This sign shall be visible from all locations of the proposed construction. One facing the driveway, the other facing the parking area. U176. Prior to grading the applicant shall contact the City Oak Tree Specialist for a preconstruction meeting to be held on site. At this time the protective fencing may be approved for installation. MC 07-225 April 1, 2008 Page 10 of 12 UFT The applicant is given permission to encroach into the protected zone of one (1) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees as proposed in the submitted application for the new construction of a single family residence, parking area and driveway. This tree is identified as oak tree number #93. UF8. All work performed within the oak trees protected zone shall be conducted in the presence of the applicant's oak tree consultant (project arborist). Daily monitoring reports (including written documentation and photos) of all work within the protected zone shall be submitted to the City Oak Tree Specialist at the end of each day. These reports may be in the form of electronic mail (e-mail). UF9. All work performed within the protected zone of any%oak trees shall be performed by the use of hand tools only. At no time shall any form of machine operated equipment be used within the oak tree protected zone unless waived by the City Oak Tree Specialist. UF 10. The applicant shall be required to use permeable concrete pavers for all areas proposed below the protected zone of the oak tree. Base shall consist of sand and gravel only. Concrete may only be use for the outer edge/ribbon to secure the pavers. UF 11. Drainage of the proposed guest parking shall be directed away from the protected zone of the oak tree and must be shown on all site plans including grading and general construction plans. UF12. The applicant shall be required to install a 24" inch landscape wall along the edge of the guest parking which separates the parking area from the protected zone of the heritage oak tree. This wall will serve as a permanent protective barrier for the heritage oak tree. The wall may be designed by the applicant to match and accommodate the proposed driveway and additional hardscape as long as the footing does not exceed 12" x 12". UF13. The applicant shall modify the proposed parking area to allow for an increased protected zone along the east edge of the tree. The parking area shall be a minimum of 20' feet away from the trunk of the oak tree. The protected zone of the tree shall remain as natural as possible with very minimal impacts to both natural drainage and landscape. UF14. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall be required to install a 3-4 inch layer of natural wood chips below the canopy and throughout the protected zone. UF15. No landscaping shall be permitted within the protected zone of oak tree number #93 unless approved by the City Oak Tree Specialist. At no time shall additional irrigation, nuisance water or run off water other than natural rain fall be permitted to enter the oak tree protected zone. UF16. All roots 2"inches in diameter or larger shall be preserved at all times throughout construction by wrapping moistened layers of burlap immediately around the root. All MC 07-225 April 1, 2008 Page 11 of 12 roots that are less than two (2") inches in diameter shall be properly pruned with an appropriate pruning devise by the applicant's project arborist. UF 17. All required trenching and/or footings within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be back filled with surrounding onsite native soil only. All excess soil generated from trenching, grading and excavation shall be hauled off site or kept a minimum distance of 100 feet away from any on site oak tree. UF 18. At no time shall there be any storage of construction material or equipment within the protected zone. Rinsing or cleansing of any tools or equipment or any other form of liquid contaminate shall not be permitted to enter the protected zone of the oak tree at any time. Setting up work stations for cutting of tiles or any form of construction material is not permitted within the protected of the oak tree at any time. UF19. Any necessary trimming of oak trees shall be performed by a qualified tree trimming contractor and shall be compliant with the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Pruning Standards and the latest edition of the ANSI A300 Companion Publication Best Management Practices Tree Pruning. A list of qualified tree trimmers may be obtained from the City Oak Tree Specialist. UF20. All wood chips generated from the pruning of the oak trees shall be evenly distributed within the protected zone of remaining onsite oak trees. Additional mulch may be applied'at a depth of three to four inches thick within the protected zone of the tree. UF21. The applicant shall be advised that pursuant to the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines, the property owner is responsible to maintain all oak trees on said property within reasonable means. The applicant is strongly encouraged to consult with the City Oak tree Specialist for all questions related to the care and maintenance of onsite oak trees. UF22. The applicant and their contractors shall not deviate from the scope of work as described in the applicant's site plan. The above "Conditions of Approval" have been prepared for the proposed work submitted by the applicant and do not authorize any additional encroachments or removals not listed within this application. UF23. The applicant and their contractors shall remain compliant with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times throughout the said project. Failure to comply may result in a "Stop All Work" until any/all violations have been brought current. U1724. The applicant and their contractor shall adhere to all recommendations set forth by the project arborist Kerry Norman both within the contents of the oak tree report and any recommendation issued verbally during the required monitoring. Failure to comply may MC 07-225 April 1, 2008 Page 12 of 12 result in a "Stop All Work" until the requested recommendation has been brought current. UF25. The applicant shall be advised that these Conditions of Approval are for the work proposed with in this application only. Any additional proposals including but not limited to barns, stables, perimeter fencing, detached garages, work shops, detached covered patios or swimming pools are not permitted within this application. UF26. Upon completion of the said project, the applicant shall contact the City Oak Tree Specialist for a final inspection to verify compliance with the above conditions. The applicant's project arborist shall submit a final letter of compliance for all work which has taken place within the protected zone. At this time the protective fencing may be approved for removal. UF27. The applicant may contact the City Oak Tree Specialist at (661) 294-2548 for any questions related to the above conditions or the proposed project. S\CD\CURRENRf2007\07-225(HR07-011)1MC07-225 CondmonsI doc l Initial Study Page 1 of 44 Project Title/Master Case Number: Lead Agency name and address: Contact person and phone number: Project location: Applicant's name and address: General Plan designation: Zoning: Description of project and setting: INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 26864 Sand Canyon Road (MC#07-225, HR#07-011, OTP#08-004, LLA#07-016, IS#08-002) City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Raymond Barragan, Assistant Planner I — (661) 255-4330 26864 Sand Canyon Road Rocky and Paige Herman 15882 Condor Ridge Road Santa Clarita, CA 91387 Residential Very Low (RVL) Residential Very Low (RVL) The proposed project site is located on Sand Canyon Road in the community of Sand Canyon, in the City of Santa Clarita The property is zoned Residential Very Low. This project is for the construction of an 11,085 square foot single family home on two lots that will be combined into a 3.33 acre parcel. The project proposes grading of 10,476 cubic yards with approximately 117 cubic yards of export Currently the site consists of two parcels The first parcel (Parcel 1) is approximately 101 acres and is currently graded with a pad to accommodate a single family residence The second parcel (Parcel 2) is approximately 2 32 acres and was developed with a single family residence that has been demolished. Both parcels will be combined under a lot line adjustment. The applicant's proposal is consistent with the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan, the Residential Very Low designation in the Unified Development Code, and the Sand Canyon Special District Standards of the Unified Development Code. The average cross slope of the entire project is over 15%, thus requiring hillside development review There are three oak trees located on the property, and of the three trees, one tree will be encroached upon by the development. Initial Study Surrounding land uses: Other public agencies whose approval is required: The project site is surrounded by Residential Very Low property to the north, south, east, and west of the project site and Sand Canyon Road running along the western side of the property Surrounding land uses include single family residences to the west, east, and south, and vacant land previously graded to accommodate single family residences (under another project) north of the project site. Los Angeles County Fire Department Initial Study PROJECT LOCATION ;*v �"o —,\ I— lz�'4 r-40 No 3 6:�th r- r Initial Study 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 [ ] [x] Biological Resources [x] [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] [ ] Mineral Resources C] Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Air Quality [x] Geology /Soils [ ] Land Use / Planning [ ] Population / Housing [ ] Transportation/Traffic [ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance B. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: Check one [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared [x] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required Signature Raymond Barragan, Assistant Planner I Date Signature Jeff Hogan, AICP, Senior Planner .19 Date Initial Study Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? e)Other I I I [] II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of [ ] [ ] [ ] - [x] Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? d)Other [] [] [] I 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 applicable air [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] existing or projected air quality violation? E Initial Study Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation c) Result to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] 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] [ ] concentrations9 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] people? f)Other [] [] I I IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 Service9 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] ESA Delineation Map? Con Initial Study Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation g) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] historical resource as defined in '15064 5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] archaeological resource pursuant to '15064 59 c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] resource or site or unique geologic feature9 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x] b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] topsoil, either on or off site9 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 7 Initial Study 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? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [l [] [] [x] h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural [ ] grade? i) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic [ ] or physical feature? j) Other [ ] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ] through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ) through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)9 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely [ ] hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school9 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous [ ] materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where [ ] such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the [ ] project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? H Initial Study Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an [ ] [ ] [ J [x] adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan9 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 health [ ] [ ] [ J [x] hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? j)Other [] I I I VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge [ J [ ] [xJ [ ] requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, [ J [] [xJ [] 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 site or area, [] [ ] [] [x] including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity [] [ ] [x] [] of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality9 [ J [] [x] [] g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a [ ] [ ] [] [x] federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would [ ] [ ] [] [x] impede or redirect flood flows? 0 Initial Study H Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or [] [] [] [x] death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow9 [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] of surface water and/or groundwater? 1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] m) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the following ways: [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] i) Potential impact of project construction and project post- [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] 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 [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] velocity or volume of storm water runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] of the project site or surrounding areas? v) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair or [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] 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, [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for the [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community (including [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] a low-income or minority community)? H Initial Study Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 effect9 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural [ ] community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource [ ] that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral [ ] resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient [ ] manner? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess [ ] of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne [ ] vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the [ ] project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise [ ] levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? - e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where [ ] such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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? g) 11 [ ] [xl [ l [ l [XI [ l [ l [x] [ l 1 Initial Study Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? XIV. 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 accelerated9 - b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i e , result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) 12 I [J [x] [J [l [] [] [x] [J [] [] [x] [l [l [] [x] [] [x] [] I [x] I [] I [] [x] Initial Study Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service [ ] [] [x] [] standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways9 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an [ ] increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., [ ] sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access9 [ ] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity [ ] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting [ ] alternative transportation (e.g , bus turnouts, bicycle racks) h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable [ ] Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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 effects9 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 needed9 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? 13 [ ] [ l [x] [ ] [ l [x] [ ] [ l [x] [ l [ l [x] [] I [x] [] I [xl [ ] [xl [ l [ ] [xl [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] Initial Study 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? 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 14 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] 11 11 1x1 [ 1 U [x1 [x 1 Initial Study D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS: Section and Subsections I Evaluation of Impacts I. AESTHETICS a) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita lies within Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susanna Mountains to the southwest, and the mountains of the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests to the north. The surrounding natural mountains and ridgelines, some of which extend into the City, provide a visual backdrop for the City. Other scenic resources within or visible from the City include the Santa Clara River corridor, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons and natural drainages in portions of the City. The proposed project would not damage any scenic resources and would not interrupt any views of scenic resources. The project location is located on two parcels. The first, is a 1.01 acre parcel on Mandalay that was previously subdivided and graded for a single family home under a separate project. A portion of this parcel will be utilized as the driveway. The second is a 2.32 acre parcel that will be the location of the 11,085 square foot single family home. The latter parcel was the location of a single home that was leveled in 2007 for the proposed project. The location and elevation of the new pad for the home will not be visible from any scenic vista, therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic vistas. b) No Impact: The only roadway within the City of Santa Clarita that is identified in the California Department of Transportation's State Scenic Highway program is the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway, which is designated as an "Eligible State Scenic Highway" This designated eligible segment of the I-5 Freeway extends from the I- 210 Freeway interchange to the SR126/Newhall Ranch Road interchange. SR 126 from the City's boundary at the I-5 west to SR 150 in Ventura County is also designated an "Eligible State Scenic Highway". The proposed project is not visible from either the I-5 freeway or SR 126. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts on scenic resources within a state scenic highway c) No Impact: The proposed project consists of one single family home, which is a land use that is consistent with the surrounding parcels. The proposed development meets all height, massing, and setback requirements in the City's UDC zoning and would be in character with the surrounding structures Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings. The homes in Sand Canyon range in styles and sizes, and the architectural style of the proposed project is consistent with existing single family residences in the area, and the City's architectural design guidelines. d) Less than Significant Impact: The project site is currently undeveloped, and as a result, does not generate any nighttime light. The proposed project would increase the ambient light by adding safety and landscape lighting, and the light induced by automobiles and other typical nighttime residential activity. However, this amount of light would be consistent with the illumination in the surrounding residential uses on all sides of the project site. Additionally, none of the proposed lighting would spill onto any sensitive uses, but would rather only increase the ambient light in the project vicinity. No daytime or nighttime views would be adversely affected by the proposed lighting. Therefore, although the project would add lighting, the project would not cause significant lighting or glare impacts 15 Initial Study II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a) No Impact: There are currently no agricultural operations being conducted on the project site, and the City of Santa Clarita General Plan does not identify any important farmlands or any lands for farmland use. In addition, the site is not within an area of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance as identified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection on the Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2002 map (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2004). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. III. AIR QUALITY b) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita does not have any agricultural zoning designations, nor does the City's General Plan identify any agricultural land use designations. Further, there is no Williamson Act contract land in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contracts, and would have no related impacts. c) No Impact: The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes Additionally, the development of the project site would not, in any way, hinder the operations of any existing agricultural practices. Therefore, the project will not have an impact that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use a) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifies region -wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for stationary -source polluters, facilitation of new transportation technologies, such as low -emission vehicles, and capital improvements, such as park-and-ride facilities and public transit improvements. The most recently adopted plan is the 2003 AQMP, adopted on August 1, 2003. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). This plan is designed to achieve the 5 percent annual reduction goal of the California Clean Air Act 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 project is consistent with the Zoning and General Plan Land Use designations for the site. As a result, the project is consistent with the growth expectations for the region The proposed project is therefore consistent with the AQMP, and would have no associated impacts. b) Less than Significant Impact: Santa Clarita is located in a non -attainment area, an area that frequently exceeds national ambient air quality standards Initial Study However, the project itself is well below the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) land use, construction, and mobile emission thresholds for significant air quality impacts, according to the 1993 updated SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts related to the air quality standards. c) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed is Section III.b), the proposed project would not exceed the thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. The SCQAMD established these thresholds in consideration of cumulative air pollution in the SCAB. As such, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds are not considered to not significantly contribute to cumulative air quality impacts d) Less than Significant Impacts: Certain residents, such as the very young, the elderly and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities, are particularly sensitive to air pollution and are considered sensitive receptors. In addition, active park users, such as participants in sporting events, are sensitive air pollutant receptors due to increased breathing rates Land uses where sensitive air pollutant receptors congregate include schools, day care centers, parks, recreational areas, medical facilities, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. The project site is not adjacent to any sensitive receptors, and the proposed project would not place sensitive land uses adjacent to substantial air pollution sources. Therefore, the proposed project would have less than significant air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. e) No Impact: The proposed use of the site and the surrounding uses are not shown on Figure 5-5 "Land Uses Associated with Odor Complaints" of the 1993 SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, the proposed project would have no odor -related impacts. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) No Impact: The project site is currently two lots: Parcel 2 was improved with a single family residence that was demolished in 2007, and the second lot was graded to accommodate a single family residence. The applicant applied for a lot line adjustment to combine the two lots into one. The project site is surrounded by other single family residences The proposed project and associated grading would be constructed on previously disturbed areas. The site is not within an ecologically sensitive area or an area of importance to the California gnatcatcher, as shown on the City's respective mapping and not within an adopted Critical Habitat area for the Least Bell's Vireo The site is not known or expected to contain any species identified as 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. Further, the site does not contain any habitat capable of supporting special status species. Therefore, the project would have no impacts on special status species b) No Impact: The project site contains no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulation or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish or Wildlife Service. Vegetation on-site consists of non-native vegetation. Therefore, the project would have no impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. C) No Impact: The project site is currently two lots: one a vacant, graded lot and the latter parcel was previously improved with a single family home. The proposed project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 17 Initial Study 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc ) Therefore, the proposed project would not have adverse effects on protected wetlands. d) No Impact: The site is currently a vacant, graded parcel and a parcel that was previously developed that are both within a developed area This portion of the City does not support the dispersal of wildlife and the proposed project would not restrict wildlife movement. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on the movement of fish or wildlife, wildlife corridors, or the use of wildlife nursery sites. e) Less than Significant with Mitigation: The project site contains three oak trees subject to the City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance (Ordinance 88-34). One of the three trees will be encroached upon by the proposed project. Protective fencing is required around all oak trees and specific conditions have been drafted by the City's Oak Tree Specialist to address the encroachment concerns. Therefore, the project is consistent with the City's Oak tree Ordinance, and the project will have less than significant impacts. Mitigation Measure IV -1 Preservation of Existing Oak Trees Fencing 01 Prior to grading and/or any other form of construction, the applicant shall have installed all required protective fencing. The applicant shall replace the existing 4' foot high orange vinyl fencing around the heritage oak with five (5') foot high chain link material. 02. A minimum of two signs that read "THIS FENCE IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THESE OAK TREES AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OR THE CITY OAK TREE SPECIALIST" shall be installed on the protective fence. This sign shall be visible from all locations of the proposed construction. One facing the driveway, the other facing the parking area Encroachment 03 All work performed within the protected zone of any oak trees shall be performed by the use of hand tools only. At no time shall any form of machine operated equipment be used within the oak tree protected zone unless waived by the City Oak Tree Specialist. 04. The applicant shall be required to use permeable concrete pavers for all areas proposed below the protected zone of the oak tree Base shall consist of sand and gravel only Concrete may only be use for the outer edge/ribbon to secure the pavers. 05 Drainage of the proposed guest parking shall be directed away from the protected zone of the oak tree and must be shown on all site plans including grading and general construction plans. 06 The applicant shall be required to install a 24" inch landscape wall along the edge of the guest parking which separates the parking area from the protected zone of the heritage oak tree. This wall will serve as a 18 Initial Study permanent protective barrier for the heritage oak tree. The wall may be designed by the applicant to match and accommodate the proposed driveway and additional hardscape as long as the footing does not exceed 12" x 12". 07. The applicant shall modify the proposed parking area to allow for an increased protected zone along the east edge of the tree. The parking area shall be a minimum of 20' feet away from the trunk of the oak tree. The protected zone of the tree shall remain as natural as possible with very minimal impacts to both natural drainage and landscape. 08 Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall be required to install a 3-4 inch layer of natural wood chips below the canopy and throughout the protected zone. 09. No landscaping shall be permitted within the protected zone of oak tree number #93 unless approved by the City Oak Tree Specialist. At no time shall additional irrigation, nuisance water or run off water other than natural rain fall be permitted to enter the oak tree protected zone. 10. All roots 2"inches in diameter or larger shall be preserved at all times throughout construction by wrapping moistened layers of burlap immediately around the root. All roots that are less than two (2") inches in diameter shall be properly pruned with an appropriate pruning devise by the applicant's project arborist. 11. All required trenching and/or footings within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be back filled with surrounding onsite native soil only. All excess soil generated from trenching, grading and excavation shall be hauled off site or kept a minimum distance of 100 feet away from any on site oak tree. Monitoring and Documentation 12 All work performed within the oak trees protected zone shall be conducted in the presence of the applicant's oak tree consultant (project arborist) Daily monitoring reports (including written documentation and photos) of all work within the protected zone shall be submitted to the City Oak Tree Specialist at the end of each day. These reports may be in the form of electronic mail (e-mail). f) No Impact: The project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plans, and the project would have no related impacts ' g) No Impact: The project site is not within a Significant Ecological Area identified on either the Exhibit OS -2 of the City's General Plan or the Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area mapping. The project site is also not within a Significant Natural Area identified by the CDFG Therefore, the proposed project would not affect Significant Ecological Area or Significant Natural Area. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact: There are no known buildings, structures, natural features, works of art or similar objects on the site which are listed on the National Register of Initial Study Historic Places, the California Register or a local register or which have a significant historic value to the City which are to be demolished, relocated, removed, or significantly altered by the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and the project would have no related impacts. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation: There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites on the project site. However, the project may involve grading into previously undisturbed soils and the project site itself has not been surveyed for archeological resource. Thus, construction of the project could encounter previously undiscovered archeological resources. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are encountered during grading or construction of the project, Mitigation Measure CUL V-1 requires all project grading and construction efforts, to halt until an archeologist examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL V-lwould ensure the proposed project would not significantly impact archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL V-1• If archaeological resources are encountered during project construction, all construction activities shall halt until an archeologist certified by the Society of Professional Architects examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action Construction in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until the site archaeologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities will not damage significant archaeological resources. c) No Impact: No paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to exist on-site. Furthermore, the project does not involve excavation for subterranean levels or other extensive grading. The grading proposed is for site preparation and utility installation. This minor grading would occur in surface earth materials and would not extend into deep, older earth materials or bedrock where paleontological resources may be found. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would encounter any paleontological resources, and the project would have no impacts. d) No Impact: There are no known human remains on the site. The project site is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of historic or prehistoric human remains. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project construction, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires the project to halt until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097 98 Compliance with these regulations would ensure the proposed project would not impact human remains. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a)i. No Impact: The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or within any other fault zones identified on Exhibit S-2 of the City's General Plan. Regardless, the proposed project is required to comply with the California Building Code that establishes regulations for structures in potentially hazardous areas, in order to withstand impacts caused from localized earthquake activity Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake fault and would cause no associated impacts 20 Initial Study a)ii. Less than Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is within a seismically active region of southern California. Consequently, the proposed residential development will likely be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. However, the risks of earthquake damage can be minimized through proper engineering, design, and construction. The proposed structures are required to be built according to the Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, and are subject to building inspection during and after construction. Structures for human habitation must be designed to meet or exceed California Uniform Building Code standards for Seismic Zone 4. Conforming to these required standards will ensure the proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking a)iii. No Impact: The project site is located within a liquefaction area shown on Exhibit S-3 of the City's General Plan. The project's geotechnical engineering report analyzed potential impacts regarding liquefaction. The report provides the following discussion of liquefaction: The proposed residence will be supported on bedrock or new certified compacted fill supported in the bedrock, neither of which is considered to be prone to liquefaction. The proposed workshop [garage] building is not considered to be a "project" as designated by Special Designation 117 issued by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Therefore, a liquefaction study (calculations) is neither required nor has one been performed. This satisfies the requirement of the State of California, Public Resources Code, Section 2690 et seq. (seismic Hazard Mapping Act). In summary, the project's geotechnical engineering report determined the site's liquefaction potential is negligible; therefore the project would not result in any liquefaction impact's. a)iv. No Impact: The project site is not -within a landslide hazard zone identified on City or State mapping. Furthermore, there are no unstable slopes on the project site Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides and would have no associated impacts. b) Less than Significant: During construction of the proposed project, the soils on-site may become exposed, and thus subject to erosion. However, the project is required to comply with existing regulations that reduce erosion potential The proposed project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which as described in Section III of this report would reduce the potential for wind erosion. Similarly, water erosion during construction would be substantially reduced by complying with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) As further detailed in Section VIII of this report, NPDES requires the construction of the project to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and prevent eroded soils from washing offsite. Thus, the potential to increase erosion during any construction activity would be effectively mitigated through the required compliance activities. Operation of the proposed single family residence would not cause wind or water erosion or the loss of topsoil. c) No Impact: The project site is located within a landslide/liquefaction area; however, the portion of the site that the landslide area is located on is a driveway easement that will be vacated as part of the project and will not be developed. Furthermore, according to the geotechnical engineering report, liquefaction potential is negligible and the project would not result in any liquefaction impacts. a Initial Study As a result, the applicant is not required to submit a liquefaction study; therefore, this project will have no impacts. d) Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation: The project site is underlain by alluvium soil. This type of surface material has a medium expansion potential, and per the Soils Engineering Report, recommendations for foundation and slab construction can be found in Attachment 1. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in less than significant impacts related to expansive soils. e) No Impact: The project will be connected to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, soil suitability for septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems is not applicable in this case, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts. f) Less than Significant Impact: The project's geotechnical report provides the following description of the topography of the proposed project site as: "consisting of relatively level, elevated building pads atop south -and east -facing slopes that descend from the south and east sides of the building pads to a very gently inclined alluvial basin in the southeastern portion of the subject property. The slope gradient on the site ranges from slightly flatter thean 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) in the steepest portions to flatter than 10:1 in the aforementioned lower alluvial basin J area The maximum vertical relief of the site between the northeast portion of the site and the southerly property line is approximately 50 feet, over an approximate horizontal span of 270 feet " The proposed grading consists of 10,476 cubic yards of cut and 9,311 cubic yards of fill with the majority of the grading occurring on Parcel 2. Minor landform changes are proposed natural topographically prominent features and appearances are to be conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slope or drainage benches into the natural topography. Graded slopes will be rounded and contoured to blend with the existing terrain as much as possible. Therefore, as proposed, the impact of the project on slopes slightly greater than 10% would be less than significant. Furthermore, the project site is subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance because there is a 19.55% cross -slope on the property. The Hillside Development Ordinance is applied to parcels that have an average cross -slope that exceeds 10%. The Hillside Development Ordinance assures that development minimizes adverse affects of hillside development and preserves the welfare and safety of community residents by: (1) providing hillside development standards to maximize positive impacts of site design and grading, landscape, building architecture as well as ensuring that the projects are in compliance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, (2) assures maintenance of the essential natural characteristics of the area such as major landforms, vegetation and wildlife communities, hydrologic features, scenic qualities and open space that contributes to a sense of place (3) retain the integrity of predominant off-site and on-site views in hillside areas in order to maintain the identitiy, image and environmental quality of the City With compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance, impacts that may result from the implementation of project activities will ensure that impacts will be lessened to a less than significant level. Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes 10,476 cubic yards of 22 Initial Study cut and 9,311 cubic yards of fill. Slopes, grading design, construction and use must conform to all applicable sections of Chapter 17.80 Hillside Development Ordinance as well as other sections of the City's Uniform Development Code. Slopes and pads that will be graded will be a 2:1 slope or less as required by the City of Santa Clarita. The balance of 117 cubic yards will be trucked to an offsite location that will be determined. As proposed, the impacts of earth movement for the project shall be in conformance with the UDC and would be less than significant. h) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will require Hillside Development Review as part of the development process as stated above. Development proposals on properties having an average cross -slope equal to or greater than 10% require Hillside Development Review. The average cross -slope of the property is 19.55%. Natural topographically prominent features and appearances are to be conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slope or drainage benches into the natural topography. Graded slopes will be rounded and contoured to blend with the existing terrain as much as possible Therefore, as proposed, the impact of the project on slopes slightly greater than 10% would be less than significant i) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project site does not contain major ridgelines or other regionally notable topographic features. Since the project site subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance, the project proposes to preserve the site's topography to the greatest extent possible. The subject site was previously graded so any proposed grading would be modifying previously graded areas. Grading has been designed to avoid the flood hazard areas and will not dramatically cut into the slope. The most change in pad elevation will be a 14 -foot reduction in elevation for the building pad on Parcel 2 The existing elevation of the parcel is currently 1,804 feet and this will be reduced to 1,790 feet amsl. Natural topographic features and appearances are to be conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slope or drainage benches into the natural topography. Therefore, as proposed, the project would not result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature, and would have no significant related impacts. J.) N/A VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS a) Less Than Significant Impacts: The project does not involve the use or MATERIALS storage of hazardous substances other than the small amounts of pesticides, fertilizers and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of the structure and landscaping The project must adhere to applicable zoning and fire regulations regarding the use and storage of any hazardous substances. Further there is no evidence that the site has been used for underground storage of hazardous materials b) No Impact: The site is not known or expected to contain any underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), gas lines, or other hazardous material conduits or storage facilities. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to 65962.5. There exists no evidence of industrial abuse, legal/illegal dumping, mining, or oil and gas exploration/production. Furthermore, the project does not propose any industrial uses, waste treatment/storage facilities, power plants, or other land uses that are typically associated with hazardous material accidents. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through 23 Initial Study reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and the project would have no related impacts. c) No Impact: The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school Furthermore, as discussed in Section VII.a) of this report, the proposed uses are not anticipated to store, use, or generate substantial amounts of hazardous materials, and are not anticipated to utilize any acutely hazardous materials Therefore, the project would have no related impacts. d) No Impact: The project site was previously developed and is not known or expected to contain any hazardous materials. The site is not found on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (http://www envirostor.dtsc.ca._,ov/public/default.asp) and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) No Impact: There are no airports located within two miles of the project site; and the project site is not within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in proximity to an airport, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts. I) No Impact: The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. There are no airplane transportation facilities, public or private, within two miles miles of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in proximity to an private airstrip, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts. g) No Impact: The construction and operation of the proposed project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public streets. Furthermore, the project site is not utilized by any emergency response agencies, and no emergency response facilities exist in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to emergency response planning h) No Impact: As identified on the City's Fire Hazards Zone map (Exhibit S-5 of the City's General Plan), the project site is not within a fire hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and the project would have no associated impacts i) No Impact: The site is not known or expected to contain any electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil lines, or other hazardous material conduits or storage facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards, and the project would have no related impacts. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Less than Significant Impact: Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to develop water quality standards to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters. In accordance with California's Porter/Cologne Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are required to develop water quality objectives that ensure their region meets the requirements of Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. Santa Clarita is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Los Angeles RWQCB adopted water quality objectives in its Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP). This SQMP is designed to ensure stormwater achieves 24 Initial Study compliance with receiving water limitations Thus, stormwater generated by a development that complies with the SQMP does not exceed the limitations of receiving waters, and thus does not exceed water quality standards Compliance with the SQMP is ensured by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which is known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Under this section, municipalities are required to obtain permits for the water pollution generated by stormwater in their jurisdiction. These permits are known as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permits. Los Angeles County and 85 incorporated Cities therein, including the City of Santa Clarita, obtained an MS4 (Permit # 01-182) from the Los Angeles RWQCB, most recently in 2001 Under this MS4, each permitted municipality is required to implement the SQMP. In addition, as required by the MS4 permit, the City of Santa Clarita has adopted a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) ordinance to ensure new developments comply with SQMP. The City's SUSMP ordinance requires new developments to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that reduce water quality impacts, including erosion and siltation, to the maximum extent practicable This ordinance also requires most new developments to submit a plan to the City that demonstrates how the project will comply with the City's SUSMP and identifies the project -specific BMP's that will be implemented The project consists of developing a single family residence. None of the proposed uses are point source generators of water pollutants, and thus, no quantifiable water quality standards apply to the project. As an urban development, the proposed project would add typical, urban, nonpoint-source pollutants to storm water runoff. As discussed, these pollutants are permitted by the County -wide MS4 permit, and would not exceed any receiving water limitations. Furthermore, the proposed development does not meet the City's SUSMP requirement thresholds, and thus, water pollutants generated from the development are considered negligible. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and would have no related significant impacts b) Less than Significant: The project would not install any groundwater wells, and would not otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater. In addition, there are no known aquifer conditions at the project site or in the surrounding area, which could be intercepted by excavation or development of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically interfere with any groundwater supplies. The Santa Clara River and its tributaries are the primary groundwater recharge areas for the Santa Clarita Valley (City of Santa Clarita General Plan, 1991). The site's runoff currently flows into the natural drainage system and empties into the Santa Clara River. The proposed project would alter the drainage of the site by adding impermeable surfaces, however, the proposed project would maintain the site's outflow into the supporting drain system. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and the project would have no related significant impacts. c) Less than Significant: Development projects that increase the volume or velocity of surface water can result in an increase in erosion and siltation. Increased surface water volume and velocity causes an increase in siltation and sedimentation by increasing both soil/water interaction time and the sediment load potential of water. The proposed project would alter the sites' drainage by replacing the existing natural sheet flows with engineered drainage systems. In addition to surface water NAI Initial Study that currently occurs on-site, the developments' drainage systems will be designed to convey the increased runoff created by the proposed new impermeable surfaces. As required by the City of Santa Clarita and the Countywide MS -4 Permit, the final design of the developments' drainage systems will be engineered so that post - development peak runoff discharge rates ( a measure of the volume and velocity of water flows)'are equal to or less than pre -development peak runoff rates. Due to the drainage features included in the proposed site plans, standard engineering practices are expected to achieve this requirement. Consequently, the project would not substantially increase erosion or siltation off-site. Furthermore, the project does not propose channelizing any natural drainage courses or focusing surface water flow into any areas of exposed soil. In addition, the onsite drainage systems, in accordance with the NPDES requirements discussed above Section VIII(a). are also requird to include BMPs to reduce erosion and siltation to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, with the application of standard engineering practices, NPDES requirements, and City standards, the projects would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and the projects would have no related significant impacts. d) No Impact: As discussed in section VIII.c) of this report, the proposed project would include a drainage system that will comply with the MS4 permit to handle both the runoff that currently flows to the site from surrounding development and the increased runoff from the proposed impermeable surfaces on-site. Furthermore, there are no major or minor on-site drainage courses. Therefore, the project would not result in flooding on- or off-site, and the project would have no related impacts. e) Less Than Significant Impacts: The proposed project could increase runoff by installing impermeable surfaces. However, as discussed above in Sections VIII.c) and VIIIA), compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance would ensure that post -development peak water runoff rates to exceed pre -development peak storm water runoff rates. Therefore, the off-site drainage network that supports the project sites and surrounding watershed will be adequate to handle the project's post development runoff. Similarly, as discussed in VIII.a) and VIII.c), the projects would generate only typical, non -point source, urban stormwater pollutants These pollutants are covered by the County -wide MS -4 permit, and the projects, through the City's SUSMP ordinance, are required to implement BMPs to reduce stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, the proposed projects would not create runoff that would exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage system and would not provide a substantial additional source of polluted runoff. f) Less than Significant: The proposed project will not alter the water sources on the site and the surrounding area The proposed development will not be a point - source generator of water pollutants. Compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance will ensure that the proposed project would not generate stormwater pollutants that would substantially degrade water quality. The project, however, also has the potential to generate short-term water pollutants during construction, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and equipment fluids The Countywide MS4 permit requires construction sites to implement BMPs to reduce the potential for construction -induced water pollutant impacts These BMPs include methods to prevent contaminated construction site IM Initial Study stormwater from entering the drainage system and preventing construction -induced contaminates from entering the drainage system. The MS4 identifies the following minimum requirements for construction sites in Los Angeles County: 1 Sediments generated on the project site shall be retained using adequate Treatment Control or Structural BMPs; 2. Construction -related materials, wastes, spills or residues shall be retained at the project site to avoid discharge to streets, drainage facilities, receiving waters, or adjacent properties by wind or runoff; 3. Non -storm water runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and any other activity shall be contained at the project site; and 4 Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of BMPs (as approved in Regional Board Resolution No. 99-03), such as the limiting of grading scheduled during the wet season; inspecting graded areas during rain events, planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes; and covering erosion susceptible slopes. In addition, projects with a construction site of one acre or greater, such as the project site, are subject to additional stormwater pollution requirements during construction. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) maintains a statewide NPDES permit for all construction activities within California that result in one (1) or more acres of land disturbance. This permit is known as the State's General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit or the State's General NPDES Permit. Since the proposed project involves greater than one (1) acre of land disturbance, the project is required to submit to the SWRCB a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the State's General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit This NOI must include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that outlines the BMPs that will be incorporated during construction. These BMPs will minimize construction -induced water pollutants by controlling erosion and sediment, establishing waste handling/disposal requirements, and providing non - storm water management procedures. Complying with both the MS4's construction site requirements and the State's General Construction Permit, as well as implementing a SWPPP will ensure that future construction activity on the project site would not significantly impact water quality g) No Impact: A portion of the project site is within the 100 -year or 500 -year flood zones as shown on the City's "Flood Zones" map; however, the subject portion is an easement that will be vacated as part of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not place future housing in flood hazard areas and would have no related impacts h) No Impact: A portion of the project site is within the 100 -year or 500 -year flood zones as shown on the City's "Flood Zones" map; however, the subject portion is an easement that will be vacated as part of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not place future housing in flood hazard areas and would have no related impacts. i) No Impact: The project site is not within a flood hazard area and there are no levees, dams, or other water detention facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, and the project would have no related impacts 27 Initial Study j) Less Than Significant Impact: There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the project site that are capable of producing seiche or tsunami. Similarly, the project site is not in an area prone to landslides, soil slips, or slumps. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. k) Less than Significant Impact: The project would alter the site's drainage patterns However, as discussed above in Sections VIII.c) and VIIIA), compliance with City engineering requirements and the City's SUSMP ordinance would proper design of the proposed drainage system. In addition, the project involves grading for single family residence. However, the project does not involve grading or excavation into the groundwater table, and would not place any subterranean structures or foundations that would encroach into groundwater aquifer. Consequently, groundwater flows would not be affected. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts from changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and groundwater. 1) No Impact: The project site or adjacent properties do not have any washes, channels, creeks, or rivers; therefore, the project would not cause any other impacts due to the modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river m) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed above in Sections VIII.a), VIII.c), VIIIA), and VIII e) of this report, the project is required to comply with the City's SUSMP ordinance, the Countywide MS4 permit, the State' NPDES General Construction Permit, and required to implement a SUSMP compliance plan and SWPPP. Compliance with these requirements of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES will ensure the proposed project would not significantly impact stormwater management m)i. Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not have a potential significant impact resulting from construction and post construction activity regarding storm water runoff, because the project is required to comply with the Countywide MS4 permit process, the State's NPDES General Construction Permit process as well as implementing a SUSMP compliance plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) m)ii. Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not have potential discharges from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous material handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks or other outdoor work areas because none of these activities are proposed as part of the project Additionally, the project is required to comply with the Countywide MS4 permit process, the State's NPDES General Construction Permit process as well as implementing a SUSMP compliance plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) In particular, the SWPPP would establish BMP's for use, storage and handling of construction equipment onsite m)iii Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not significantly environmentally increase the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff because the project is required to comply with the Countywide MS4 permit process, the State's NPDES General Construction Permit process as well as implementing a SUSMP compliance plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). See also section VII (c). m)iv. Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not significantly or environmentally harmfully increase the erosion of the project site or surrounding areas because the project is required to comply with the Countywide MS4 permit 28 Initial Study process, the State's NPDES General Construction Permit process as well as implementing a SUSMP compliance plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). See also section VII (c). m)v. Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits such are riparian corridors or wetlands. See also section VII (a) m)vi Less Than Significnat Impact: Implementation of project activities will not cause harm to the biological integrity of the drainage systems, watersheds or water bodies Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project will generate pollutants in an amount or concentration that could affect the biological integrity of the drainage system or watercourses As previously discussed the project must further incorporate BMP's to minimize emissions of water pollutants from the site. m)vii. Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes a residential use that will eventually be constructed on the building pad that will be created as a result of grading Construction and operation of the project are required to comply with the California Waste Management Act, which requires a 50% or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City complies with this act through the City's franchised solid waste management services, which will provide waste disposal service to proposed homes IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) No Impact: The proposed project is located within the Sand Canyon sub - community of the Canyon Country community of the City of Santa Clarita The area surrounding the parcels is developed with sparse homes on large estate style parcels The homes are characterized generally as individually constructed custom estate homes. The pattern of development is quasi -rural Development in the area has not followed an established pattern or plan. Development of the subject parcel map would further develop the suburban pattern of development. The proposed development would be consistent with the residential development in the project area and would not segment any existing communities. In addition, all development for the project would occur on the individual project sites Thus, the proposed project would not impose any physical barriers on any existing pedestrian, equestrian, or vehicle travel routes The project is consistent with the surrounding development, it would not segment any existing communities; and would not affect travel routes Therefore the proposed project would not physically divide an established community and would have no associated impacts. b) No Impact: The project site is not part of a specific plan or redevelopment plan, and the City of Santa Clarita is not within the Coastal Zone, as described in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1966, or any other plan designed with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project site is zoned Residential Very Low (RVL), which is consistent with the proposed uses for the property. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause impacts due to conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. c) No Impact: As discussed in Section IV.f) of this report, the project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved environmental resource conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted environmental conservation plans, and the project would have no related impacts 29 Initial Study No impacts will result to land use and planning from the project and therefore no further analysis is necessary. X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES a -b) No Impact: The project site is not within a mineral area identified on Exhibit OS -5 "Mineral Resources" of the City's General Plan, and is not otherwise known to contain mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, and the project would have no related impacts XI. NOISE c) Less than Significant Impact: The project would utilize building materials and human resources for construction of the project. Many of the resources utilized for construction are nonrenewable, including manpower, sand, gravel, earth, iron, steel, and hardscape materials. Other construction resources, such as lumber, are slowly renewable. In addition, the project would commit energy and water resources as a result of the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed development. Much of the energy that will be utilized on-site will be generated through combustion of fossil fuels, which are nonrenewable resources. Market -rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and manpower during construction Similarly, the energy and water resources that would be utilized by the proposed office development would be supplied by the regional utility purveyors, which participate in various conservation programs. Furthermore, there are no unique conditions that would require excessive use of nonrenewable resources on-site, and the project is expected to utilize energy or water resources in the same manner as typical modern development. Therefore, the proposed project would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner, and the project would have no related significant impacts. a) No Impact• The proposed project involves the development of a single family residence Residential uses are not considered sensitive noise receptors. The Noise Element in the City's General Plan (Exhibit N-1) identifies the City's normally acceptable noise level for residential areas at 55 dBA. Based on the City's Noise Contour Map (General Plan Exhibit N-3), the proposed single family residence would be placed within a 25 dBA Contour area and, thus, in an area acceptable for residential uses. The land uses in the project vicinity include single family residential. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing land uses in the area and will not produce noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of,other agencies. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to excess noise levels, and would have no related impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact There are no established vibration standards in the City of Santa Clarita. Regardless, the proposed residential uses at the specified location would neither generate, nor expose people to excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels Construction of the project may temporarily generate vibrations. However, the proposed project does not involve construction practices that are typically associated with vibrations, such as pile driving and large-scale demolition. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause significant vibration impacts c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of developing a single family residence. The project will not likely generate trips that would increase traffic noise levels in the surrounding roadway areas due do the fact that M Initial Study the project is decreasing the net total approved housing units by one dwelling unit. However, the existing roadways surrounding the project site create substantial amounts of noise, and the potential decrease in traffic volumes that would be caused by the proposed project would not cause a noticeable increase in roadway noise. Therefore, no significant long-term noise impacts are anticipated from the project (See also Section XI a) d) Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the project will generate short- term noise. Examples of the level of noise generated by construction equipment at 50 feet from the source is presented in the following table: Table XI -1 Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction E ui ment Type of Equipment Range of Sound Levels Suggested Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Pile driver (12,000- 18,000 ft-lb/blow) 81 —96 93 Rock drill 83-99 96 Jack hammer 75 —85 82 Pneumatic tools 78-88 85 Pumps 68-80 77 Dozer 85-90 88 Tractor 77-82 80 Concrete mixer 75-88 85 Front-end loader 86-90 88 Hydraulic backhoe 81 —90 86 Hydraulic excavator 81-90 86 Grader 79-89 86 Air compressor 76-86 86 Truck 81 —87 86 Source• EPA 1971 Noise levels decrease substantially with distance Tractors, trucks and graders result in noise levels in the 80-86 dBA level at 50 feet Title 11, Chapter 44, Noise Regulations of the City's Municipal Code (Section 11.44.040) provides the following noise production limitations: A. It shall be unlawful for any person within the City to produce or cause or allow to be produced noise which is received on property occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the following levels, except as expressly provided otherwise herein: 31 Initial Study Region Time Sound Level dB Residential zone Day 65 Residential zone Night 55 Commercial and manufacturing Day 80 Commercial and manufacturing Night 70 At the boundary line between a residential property and a commercial and manufacturing property, the noise level of the quieter zone shall be used B Corrections to Noise Limits. The numerical limits given in Subsection A above shall be adjusted by the following corrections, where the following noise conditions exist: Noise Condition Correction (in dB) (1) Repetitive impulsive noise -5 (2) Steady whine, screech or hum -5 The following corrections apply to day only. (3) Noise occurring more than 5 but less than 15 minutes per hour +5 (4) Noise occurring more than 1 but less than 5 minutes per hour +10 (5) Noise occurring less than 1 minute per hour +20 Section 11.44.080 of the Municipal Code places the following limitations on construction times for purposes of limiting noise impacts and the project will be subject to this limitation, therefore, no nighttime noise impacts are anticipated. No person shall engage in any construction work which requires a building permit from the City on sites within three hundred (300) feet of a residentially zoned property except between the hours of seven a m to seven p.m. Monday through Friday and eight a m. to six p m. on Saturday. Further, no work shall be performed on the following public holidays- New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day and Labor Day Project construction is required to meet these standards, and the project poses no unique conditions that require excessive noise to be generated during construction, such as hack -hammering or demolition Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any significant impacts from temporarily generating noise. e) No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan of within two miles of a public airport. f) No Impact: The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Less than Significant Impact: Growth -inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that foster or encourage population and/or economic growth. These characteristics include adding residential units or businesses, expanding infrastructure, and generating employment opportunities. Consequently, Ria Initial Study XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES the project would subtract one residential unit from the City's housing stock that was previously approved but not constructed, which is expected to subtract 2.95 residents from the City's population (based on an the City's average household size of 2 95 persons, as reported in the U.S Census 2000). This represents a 99 percent decrease to the City's total population of 151,088, as reported by the U.S. Census 2000. This direct minor decrease in the City's population is not a significant impact. Rather, the decrease in the City's housing stock is accommodating of the growth that is being experienced in the City's and region -wide. This level of growth is planned for by both the Southern California Association of Governments and the City of Santa Clarita. Since the project is growth -accommodating rather than growth -inducing; is consistent with the growth forecasts for the region; and the infrastructure improvements included in the project are not oversized, the project would not have significant growth -inducing impacts. b) No Impact: The project site is currently on two vacant parcels: one graded and vacant and the second includes one housing unit that was demolished to accommodate the proposed single family residence. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any housing, and would have no associated impacts. c) No Impact: The project site is two parcels: one that is currently vacant and graded and the second that was previously developed with a single family residence that will be replaced. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any people, and would have no associated impacts. a)i. No Impact: The proposed project will not result in the need for additional new or altered fire protection services and will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The proposed project would develop two currently zoned residential lots with one single family residence, and, in turn, would not increase the structures served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department The project itself is not large enough to require the development of additional Fire Department facilities Furthermore, the project applicant is required to pay development fees, which are established to offset incremental increases to fire service demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact fire protection services. a)ii. No Impact: The proposed project will not result in the need for additional new or altered police protection services and will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The proposed project would develop two residential parcels with one single family residence, and, in turn, would not increase the structures served by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The project itself is not large enough to require the development of additional police facilities. Furthermore, the project applicant is required to pay development fees, which are established to offset incremental increases to police service demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact police protection services. a)iii. No Impact: The proposed project would decrease one equivalent dwelling unit to the City of Santa Clanta. This decrease in residences would be within the Sulphur Springs School District (SSSD) for elementary school, and the William S. Hart School District (WHSD) for junior high and high school. It is reasonably foreseeable that this decrease in housing stock would lead to a decrease in enrollment at the schools in these districts. 33 Initial Study 34 However, the school districts impose development fees for new residential units constructed within the District As specified by Section 65995(h) of the Government Code, the payment of the school impact fee "in the amount specified in Section 65995 and, if applicable, any amounts specified in Section 65995.5 or 65995 7 are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073, on the provision of adequate school facilities " Thus, the payment of the school impact fee fully mitigates any impacts of new residential development on schools. Therefore, with the payment of the appropriate school development fees the proposed project would not significantly impact the public school system. a)iv. No Impact: The proposed project would decrease the amount of homes to the City of Santa Clarita by one, which would likely not increase the use of the local and regional parks system. The City's General Plan establishes Park Standards to ensure adequate Community and Neighborhood Parks are provided for its residents. To maintain these park standards, and in accordance with the Quimby Act, the City collects impact fees to offset the increased use of parks generated by new development. Payment of these fees mitigates the project's potential to increase the use of parks. With the payment of the City's park impact fees, the project would not impact park services. XIV. RECREATION a) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section XIII.a)iv of this report, the proposed project would likely decrease the use of neighborhood and regional parks Furthermore, the City collects a park impact fee for each residential unit constructed These fees are used to fund the City's park maintenance and improvement program Therefore, the project itself would not lead to substantial physical deterioration of any recreational facilities, and would have no related significant impacts. b). No Impact: The proposed project does not involve, and would not require, the construction or expansion of off-site recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project does not involve the development of recreational facilities that would have an adverse effect on the environment, and the project would have no associated impacts. No significant impacts will result to recreation from the project and therefore no further analysis is necessary. XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC a) Less than Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita adopted the Circulation Element of its General Plan in 1997. This Circulation Element includes a master plan for the City's highway and roadway system (General Plan Exhibit C- 2) This master plan was developed to serve the City's existing transportation needs, as well as the City's projected transportation needs. The City's projected transportation needs were determined largely by evaluating build -out conditions of the City in accordance with land use designations. As such, the master plan for the City's highway and roadway system was established to accommodate the traffic generated by a built-up Santa Clarita. The project site is designated for residential use in both the City's General Plan and zoning code Thus, the master plan designations for the City's roadways in the roject vicinity were established to accommodate residential use of the site. The 34 Initial Study project will be accessed via Mandalay Road. Thus, development along Mandalay Drive is consistent with land use designations, or development that generates less traffic than land uses allowed under current designations, is not expected to substantially affect the traffic load and capacity of the street. Thus, project trip generation is consistent with the uses that were used to establish the City's master plan of highways and roadways. As a result, the roadway network that will support the project, and is adequately sized to handle the project -generated trips. Therefore, although the proposed project would generate vehicle trips, the project would not significantly impact the traffic load and capacity of the street system. b) Less than Significant Impact: The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) adopted their most recent Congestion Management Program (CMP) in 2004. This CMP identifies level of service (LOS) E or better as acceptable for the designated CMP highway and road system. The CMP further states, "a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C [volume to capacity ratio] = 0.02), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00). If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C = 0.02) " In addition to CMP thresholds, Policy 1.8 of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan identifies that traffic mitigation is required for "projects where traffic increases at any location where the V/C ratio increases more than two percentage points (0.02) and where the final ratio is equal to or less than 0.90 (Level of Service D) or where traffic increases at any location where the V/C ratio increases more than one percentage point (0.01) and where the final ratio is greater than 0.90 (Level of Service E) " The proposed project would not add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours to any CMP facility, and would not add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours to a mainline freeway. Thus, due to the size of the project, an impact analysis for CMP facilities is not required for the proposed project. In addition, the City's Traffic Division has determined that a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required for the project because the roadway network that will support the project, as existing, is adequate to handle the project's trips; and the project -generated trips are negligible in comparison to the traffic load currently handled by the supporting roadway network. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, an established level of service standard, and would have no related significant impacts c) No Impact: The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a 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. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to air traffic patterns. d) No Impact: The project has been evaluated by the City's Traffic Division and its circulation design has been found not to contain any hazardous conditions. In addition, the project's circulation design meets the City's engineering standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use, and would have no associated impacts. e) No Impact: The project's ingress/egress and circulation are required to meet the Los Angeles County Fire Department's standards, which ensure new developments provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The project site and surrounding 35 Initial Study roadway network do not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets. Thus, standard engineering practices are expected to achieve the Fire Department's standards Furthermore, final project plans are subject to review and approval by the Fire Department to ensure that the site's access complies with all Fire Department ordinances and policies With the required compliance with all Fire Department ordinances and policies, the project would not cause significant impacts due to inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to emergency access. f) No Impact: Based on the City's parking standards, the proposed project would require two parking spaces. The proposed project includes five total parking spaces, consisting of two garages Therefore, the project complies with the City's parking standards, and the project would have no impact to parking. g) No Impact: The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. h) No Impact: The proposed project involves the construction and grading for one single family residence. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers'on any existing public streets Furthermore, all development for the proposed project would occur onsite, and thus, the proposed project would not impose any physical barriers on any existing pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle travel routes Therefore, the proposed project would not create hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists, and the project would have no related impacts. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) No Impact: The proposed project proposes developing one single family residence. The proposed project is in compliance with the existing zoning and General Plan designations None of the proposed uses would generate atypical wastewater such as industrial or agricultural effluent. All wastewater generated by the proposed project is expected to be domestic sewage. Wastewater treatment facilities are designed to treat domestic sewage; and thus, typical domestic sewage does not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Since the project would not generate atypical wastewater, and is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, and the project would have no associated impacts. b) No Impact: The proposed development would increase the demand for water and wastewater service. However, as discussed in Sections XVI. d) and e) of this report, the increase to water/wastewater service demand, is minimal in comparison to the existing service areas of the water and wastewater service purveyors. In addition, the facilities currently maintained by the service purveyors are adequate to serve the proposed increase in demand. The only water and wastewater improvements required for the project are on-site pipelines and unit connections to the infrastructure systems, which are subject to connection fees. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities off-site, and the project would have no associated impacts. c) Less than Significant: As discussed in section VII, the project will not significantly impact the stormwater drainage system. d) Less than Significant: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning Santa Clarita Water (SCW) provides water services to 36 Initial Study the project site. The SCW's water sources are derived from the State Water Project and local groundwater resources generated primarily from the Santa Clara River These existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or expanded water entitlements, and the project would have no related significant impacts. e) Less than Significant: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning The Los Angeles County Sanitation District' provides wastewater services to the project site. The Sanitation District's existing facilities are sufficient to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has adequate capacity to serve the proposed development, and the project would have no related significant impacts. f) No Impact: The project will be served by one of two landfills serving the area. Chiquita Canyon with a total capacity of 63,900,000 cubic yards has 35,800,000 cubic yards (56%) remaining, estimated closure date 11/2019. The other Sunshine Canyon SLF, with a total capacity of 23,720,000 cubic yards, has 16,000,000 cubic yards (67.5%) remaining, estimated closure date 2/2008. Like many areas in southern California, LA County faces a growing shortage of solid wastes collection capacity To meet growing needs of the entire Metropolitan area, new landfills have been proposed within the Santa Clarita Valley. As proposed, the project will not have any significant impacts from solid waste on the environment. g) No Impact: The California Integrated Waste Management Act requires that jurisdictions maintain a 50% or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City implements this requirement through the City's franchised Solid Waste Management Services. Per the agreements between the City and the franchised, trash disposal companies, each franchisee is responsible for meeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of 50% on a quarterly basis. Franchisees are further - encouraged to meet the City's overall diversion rate goal of 75%. The proposed project is required to comply with the applicable solid waste franchise's recycling system, and thus, will meet the City's and California's solid waste diversion regulations Therefore, the project would not cause any significant impacts from conflicting with statutes or regulations related to solid waste XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF a) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section IV of this document, SIGNIFICANCE the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to special status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration. Furthermore, the proposed project would not affect the local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and would not threaten any plant communities. Similarly, as discussed in Section V of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources, and thus, would not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory Therefore, the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to impacts to biological or cultural resources. b) Less Than Significant Impacts: The proposed project would not cause impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The project has the potential to contribute to cumulative air quality, biological resource, hydrology, noise and traffic impacts. However, the project's contribution to these cumulative impacts would not be considerable Therefore, the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. No Impact: As discussed in Sections VIII and XV of this document, the 37 Initial Study proposed project, would not expose persons to flooding or transportation hazards. Section VI of this document explains that residents of the proposed projects could be exposed to strong seismic earth shaking due to the potential for earthquakes in Southern California However, modern engineering practices would ensure that the geologic and seismic conditions of the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on humans Section VII of this document examines the projects for potential impacts from hazards and hazardous material. As explained in Section VII, there are no hazardous conditions on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance from environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on humans. 38 Initial Study MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities I. AESTHETICS None Required II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES None Required III. AIR QUALITY None Required IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to Grading Permit Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Mitigation Measure IV -1 Preservation of Existing Oak Trees Fencing 13. Prior to grading and/or any other form of construction, the applicant shall have installed all required protective fencing The applicant shall replace the existing 4' foot high orange vinyl fencing around the heritage oak with five (5') foot high chain link material. 14. A minimum of two signs that read "THIS FENCE IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THESE OAK TREES AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OR THE CITY OAK TREE SPECIALIST" shall be installed on the protective fence. This sign shall be visible from all locations of the proposed construction. One facing the driveway, the other facing the parking area. Encroachment 15. All work performed within the protected zone of any oak trees shall be performed by the use of hand tools only At no time shall any form of machine operated equipment be used within the oak tree protected zone unless waived by the City Oak Tree Specialist. 16. The applicant shall be required to use permeable concrete pavers for all areas proposed below the protected zone of the oak tree. Base shall consist of sand and gravel only Concrete may only be use for the outer edge/ribbon to secure the pavers 17. Drainage of the proposed guest parking shall be directed away from the protected zone of the oak tree and must be shown on all site plans including grading and general construction plans. 18. The applicant shall be required to install a 24" inch landscape wall along the edge of the guest parking which separates the parking area from the protected zone of the heritage oak tree. This wall will serve as a permanent protective barrier for the heritage oak tree. The wall may be designed by the applicant to match and accommodate the proposed driveway and additional hardscape as long as the footing does 39 Initial Study Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities not exceed 12" x 12". 19 The applicant shall modify the proposed parking area to allow for an increased protected zone along the east edge of the tree The parking area shall be a minimum of 20' feet away from the trunk of the oak tree. The protected zone of the tree shall remain as natural as possible with very minimal impacts to both natural drainage and landscape 20. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall be required to install a 3-4 inch layer of natural wood chips below the canopy and throughout the protected zone. 21. No landscaping shall be permitted within the protected zone of oak tree number #93 unless approved by the City Oak Tree Specialist. At no time shall additional irrigation, nuisance water or run off water other than natural rain fall be permitted to enter the oak tree protected zone. 22. All roots 2"inches in diameter or larger shall be preserved at all times throughout construction by wrapping moistened layers of burlap immediately around the root. All roots that are less than two (2") inches in diameter shall be properly pruned with an appropriate pruning devise by the applicant's project arborist 23 All required trenching and/or footings within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be back filled with surrounding onsite native soil only All excess soil generated from trenching, grading and excavation shall be hauled off site or kept a minimum distance of 100 feet away from any on site oak tree. Monitoring and Documentation 24. All work performed within the oak trees protected zone -shall be conducted in the presence of the applicant's oak tree consultant (project arborist). Daily monitoring reports (including written documentation and photos) of all work within the protected zone shall be submitted to the City Oak Tree Specialist at the end of each day These reports may be in the form of electronic mail (e-mail). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: At any time Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Mitigation Measure CUL V-1: If archaeological resources are encountered during project construction, all construction activities shall halt until an archeologist certified by the Society of Professional Architects examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until the site archaeologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities will not damage significant archaeological resources. VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to Grading Permit Q17 Initial Study Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Engineering Department Refer to Attachment 1: Table A VII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS None Required VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY None Required IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING None Required X MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES None Required XI. NOISE None Required XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING None Required XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES None Required XIV. RECREATION None Required XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC None Required XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS None Required R Initial Study OTHER INTERNET,RESOURCES CEQA Resources: California Environmental Resources Evaluation System: htfp:H"w v:ceres.ca.gov/ CEQA Case Law Index: htt ://cei•es.ca.aov/to tc/env law/ce a/cases/ NEPAIRe.sources: NEPA'net:',htt'p://ceq.eh.doe.gov/iiepa/nepanet.litm AASHTO` Center for Environmental- Excellence (NEPA and other Environmental Information for..,Transpo'rtation Projects): http://erivii•oninent.transpot-tation.or"/environmental issues/nepa- re invention/docurrients reports .htm Regulations Sources: Califorii4'.Code of Regulations: http://www.calre.2s.com/ Califorriia.Legislative Info:.http://www.leginfo.ca.,gov/ Code -of Federal •Regulations:. http://www,.gpoaccess:Qov'/cfr%index:'htnil'or http:%/lula:la11v cornell,.edt.t/cfr/ tfnifed States'Code: htip://w'wW4':Iaw.comell.edii/uscod6/ Air Quality: The`Clean'Air'Act: http://www.epa.gov/oar/6aq—caa-.htinl Biological 'Resources Biological' Resource Regulations, site maintained U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/reslaws.html Plant Info: http://www.calflora.ora/ National :Plant, Database: http://plants.usda.2ov/ Nuisance and`Exotic Plant Species: http://www.dfg.ca.govlhcpb/species/nuis exo/nuis exo.shtml List of Birds Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: http://mi�.rat:orvbirds. fws..aov/intrnitr/mbta/mbtaiidx.httnl 42 Initial Study Wetlands The Wetlands Regulation Center: litti)://www.wetIaiids.com/re,sAlpae04b.htm California Wetlands Information System: http://ceres.ca.aov/wetlands/ National, Wetlands Inventory Mapper: http://www.nwi.fws.,ov/mapper tool.htm National`.Wetland'Plant List: http://www.nwi.fws.2ov/bha/downloaa/1996/nati6 l:pdf State Water Resources Control Board: http://www.swrcb,.ca.goV/ Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board:. htt6://www.swrcb.ca-.gov/-�rwgcb4/ Geology, and: Soils California-Geological.Survey: http://www.consrv.ca:eov/cgs/incler:htm' Hazardous Materials: EP:A Envirofacts Data Warehouse: http://www.epa.aov/enviro/indexjava.htinl Floodplains: FEMA Map Service Center: http://www.msc.fema.�6v/ Public 'Utilities: Information•.on SB 221- and 610: http://www.leaalelite.com/articles/A-sweston-221.htni Miscellaneous,Federal Regulations: Sole Source Aquifers: htti)://www.access.LJpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx 02/40cfr149 02-.htm1 Wild and Scenic:Rivers, http://www:nps.aov/rivers/wildkive'rslist.html Section=4f:- http://www:secti6n4f.com/ Biological. Resource Regulations, site maintained U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Service: littp://Iaws.fws.gov/lawsdi2est/i-eslaws.html Caltrans/FHWA: 43 Initial Study Caltrans Environmental Handbooks: http:/hvwNy.dot. ca.aov/:ser/envhaiid1bh Caltrans L'ocal_-Assistance Website: http://www.dot.ca.,2ov/hq/LocalProarams/ FHWA:Environmental Handbook: http://ww�v.fliwa.dot.Qov/environinehUgtiid6bo6lt/ USGS Map Database: UCSB itilap Library: http://webclient. ilexanciria.ucsb.edtV SCAG Data: http://www.s'caQ.ca.(aov/d.itzi.htm http://www.scaiz:ca. Qov/census/ 44 JOSEPH M. COBERT A Professional Corporation 16027 Ventura Boulevard Suite 610 Encino, California 91436 (818)986-4200 Fax(818)986-5584 April 14, 2008 City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Master Case 07-225; Project Located at 26864 Sand Canyon Road APN 2841-002-085 and APN 2841-019-052 (the "Subject Property"); Project Applicants Rocky and Paige Herman (the "Hermans") Dear Sirs and Madames: This correspondence is intended to constitute an appeal by David and Marisol Ballard (the "Ballards") from a decision made on April 1, 2008 by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita (the "Commission"). The matter was Agenda Item 1 that evening. The Ballards live at 26862 Sand Canyon Road, adjacent to the Subject Property. This office represents the Ballards and appeared on their behalf at the April 1, 2008 meeting, where such decision was rendered as part of the above -numbered case. Besides a filing fee check for $1,095, I enclose herewith a copy of my letter dated March 24. 2008 furnished to the Commission in advance of the April 1 session plus copies of other materials also timely delivered to the Commission. The issues of concern specified then, and reiterated now, on behalf of the Ballards are ones of safety. Specifically, the Ballards are of the belief that the City of Santa Clarita should not sidestep the issue of -- but should require the Hermans as a development condition to help effect the repair of -- the private driveway from Sand Canyon Road which provides access to the Ballards' property and that of the Hermans. In approving the recommendation of the Planning Department for the Subject Property, the Commission relied on a letter and testimony by the geologist for the Hermans to the effect thi t I here was no risk of further slope damage from the Hermans' development (because of distance a rid o(l ier factors). Our geological experts disagree. As a result, the Ballards believe that the Commission acted precipitously and in abuse of its discretion. To rectify the situation, we would like the opportunity to furnish data to that effect, data which we cannot fully obtain before the April 16 appeal deadline. Additionally, the Ballards question whether the one-page County of Los Angeles Fire Department document (dated March 27, 2008) presented at the April 1 hearing reflected clue consideration o f the C \ACTIVE\Ballard\Letters\SantaClaritaCityCouncil 041408.wpd City Council City of Santa Clarita April 14, 2008 Page 2 circumstances. Here again, the Ballards urge that the project not be fully approved until the Ballards have had a reasonable opportunity to adduce the evidence to show the unwarranted risk of allowing development before the private driveway is adequately repaired. Please understand. It is not the Ballards' desire to prevent the Hermans from building their "dream house" or to "get a free ride." The Ballards are prepared to cooperate and contribute their share financially. As the Complaint in the parties' litigation shows, however, the Ballards cannot solve the problem without cooperation from the Hermans too. This relates not only to financial participation but also consent (1) to go onto the Hermans' land (as well as that of the Cloyds and the Ferlings) and (2) to make physical repairs (temporarily and permanently) on those various parties' properties. It is submitted that the City Council should, as a matter of its exercise of discretion, not simply "rubber stamp" the Commission ruling. I propose that instead the City Council set a hearing on this matter for a date in early June, when discovery will have been adequately conducted so that the full factual picture may be presented.' To that end, a structural engineer and a soils engineer have been retained by the Ballards to work with their geologist -- and anyone who is willing to participate for the Hermans, Cloyds and/or Ferlings -- to produce more conclusive findings and more persuasive recommendations. Such a delay would be a minor inconvenience for the Hermans. However, it is a small price to pay to be sure that the situation has been appropriately assessed by yourselves and all other applicable municipal authorities. Thank you. Enclosures cc: David and Marisol Ballard 'This is also in part an accommodation to my schedule because I will be out of the country from May 5 through May 28. C \ACTIVE\Ballard\Letters\SantaClaritaCityCouncil 041408 wpd Preliminary Examination BALLARD PROPERTY LANDSLIDE CONDITIONS 26862 Sand Canyon Road Santa Clarita, California for Dr. and Mrs. David Ballard 26862 Sand Canyon Road Santa Clarita, California by E.D. MICHAEL, CONSULTING GEOLOGIST ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ❑ HYDROGEOLOGY ❑ FORENSICS 6225 Bonsall Drive, Malibu, California 90265 (310) 457-9319, FAX (310) 457-9217 edm@malibuonline corn March 4, 2008 Contents 1 0 INTRODUCTION - 1 1.1 Purpose - 1 1 2 Site Boundaries - 1 1 3 Qualification - 2 2 0 SITE DESCRIPTION - 2 2.1 Topography - 2 2.2 Grading - 3 2.3 Structural Improvements - 4 2.4 Drainage - 4 3 0 GEOLOGY - 5 3.1 Geologic Formations - 5 3. 1.1 Mint Canyon Formation - 5 3.1.2 Terrace Deposits - 6 3.1 3 Artificial Fill - 6 3 1.4 Landslide Debris - 6 3.2 Geologic Structure - 6 3 3 Mass Movements - 7 3.3.1 Creep - 7 3.3.2 Landsliding - 8 4.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS - 10 4 1 Character of the Lot 12 Slide - 10 4 2 Cause of the Lot 12 Slide,- 10 4.3 Effects of Continued Lot 12 Slide Movement - 11 4.4 Remedial Work - 11 References - 12 Figure 1 Property Boundaries, Vicinity of Ballard Property - 2 2. Part of Dibblee (1998) Geologic Map - 5 Photo 1 Edge of Access Road - 3 2 Edge of Access Road - 3 3 Fractures in Asphalt of Access Road - 8 4 Upper Margin of the Lot 12 Slide from the East - 9 5 Upper Margin of the Lot 12 Slide from the West - 9 ,6 Toe of Lot 12 Slide - 10 D 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for Joseph M. Cobert, Esq. It concerns a landslide that has developed and now is affecting the property of Dr. and Mrs. David Ballard at 26862 Sand Canyon Road in the City of Santa Clarita, California. It is based on field examina- tions conducted on January 9, February 1, and February 12, 2008, brief interviews with various individuals including Dr. Ballard, Mr. William Cloyd Sr., Mr. William Cloyd Jr., who have interests in Tract 47786 which is adjacent to that of the Ballards, Mr Garreth Mills, geologist employed by the Leighton Group, and Mr Michael Hannaway, an engi- neer employed by the City of Santa Clarita. In addition, a certain amount of research, still in progress, has been conducted, particularly concerning the development of Tract 47785. 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the preliminary examination is to obtain data as a basis to offer opinions regarding the cause of the landslide and appropriate means for its- remediation. The preliminary nature of this examination is necessary both because research is still in pro- gress and because there are indications that the landslide is still active. As to the pre- liminary character of the research, a document designated "Plate 1, Geotechnical Map," from a Leighton Group report dated June 26, 2003, has not yet been made available; consequently, that report cannot be interpreted. As to landslide activity, certain cracks in walls and other surfaces of the Ballard house which have been noticed only recently may be enlarging. If that is the case, there could be little doubt that they are related to the landslide because of the coincidence in time. 1.2 SITE BOUNDARIES The site of the landslide includes a part of Tract 47785, an undetermined area of ti;e Ballard property, and parts of two neighboring properties. For present purposes, the various property boundaries need to be described. In this regard, reference to Figure 1 will be found useful. The manner in which the local properties have been established is not entirely clear. It appears that originally properties with Sand Canyon Road addresses of 26862, 26864 and 26866 were developed as lot splits recorded in County Parcel Map Book 87, Pages 94 - 95. All were developed, although the house at 26864 recently was removed and the Ballard house and grounds have been significantly improved since initial develop- ment in 1979. In any event, all three lots for these addresses are "flag" lots each of which has a 10 -foot wide "panhandle" leading to Sand Canyon Road. The three appar- ently have reciprocal easements thus allowing for a 30 -foot wide roadway, hereinafter the "access road," to each of the properties. Whether these easements are also for other uses such as utilities is undetermined. Lots 12, 13, and 14 of Tract 37802 are part of a development originally undertaken by the Cloyd Construction Company, hereinafter "Cloyd," about 1986. Geotechnical as- pects of its development were initially considered by Robert Stone & Associates. So far, however, it is uncertain when these lots were first graded. At the present time, the local Cloyd interest appears to involve essentially a single development of about 35 lots, in- cluding Lots 1 -20 of Tract 47786, Lots 1 - 12 of Tract 47785, and Lots 12 - 14 of Tract 37802. Of present direct interest is only Lot 12 of Tract 37802. March 4, 2008 2 Cobert/Ballard CJJ I ` O a t U O� 15 52 -�� 301 120 Sa 60, 0�' 106.04 I 152.56 h` i 1213 <c 1 h' Qo 0> 135 9O 0 138 01 r °`R: oA! V D AL A Y P.= 970 2 U5 AG,1 SVT ST �S RD cn R=B9 R=93 4 / co 14 % 93 44 16 gc g3 2Fj 40 120 709 7', 4, E4 ` 1 44 40 E } CC}� _ ` _. �-� :-= - r 5694 -10510 y J 44 95 79 23 `hhP 2s 93°� �' ' M 4p as i Part of f �--- OridLnal Tract 37802 -- i 12 ,, "co t o p 20 3 _ 2 0 Co a7 s �N N ' 112 I N ti �, 1� ;�. N n N �'`, i ' G `" i i 101 AC �a 37460*SF / A { 3 — 8777 M 119 i- 71 M - I M 126.82 0 c /; �� •r 15 a5 '1 L� S 6S., 9�na 1 y 4�C.7� ., .rj :7 Approximate Limit of Landslide 26862 n',^ ZJ~� 26864 t -1- �=� Approximate Location of Ballard Ho se `, To 26866 Figure 1. Property Boundaries, Vicinity of Ballard Property. This map combines parts of County Tax Assessor Maps 2841-002 in which Lots 12, 13, and 14 of original Tract 37802 and Lots 10, 11, and 12 of Tract 47785 are shown Lot 20 and that north of it are part of Tract 47786. The approximate location of the landslide, as shown, truncates panhandles to 26864 and 26866 Sand Canyon Road as well as the part of the Ballard property burdened by the easement North is to the top of the page 1.3 QUALIFICATION This report is of a preliminary nature because of the urgency the present conditions E,, suggest. There is evidence that the Ballard house is undergoing stress that can only be ascribed to landslide movement. It therefore is qualified because all relevant data have not yet been made available. In particular, an important map that accompanied the first Leighton Group geotechnical report for the Cloyd Construction Company, dated June 26, 2003, and which included the lot involved in the landsliding, was not contained in the files of the City's Engineering Division examined on February 25, 2006. Pending an op- portunity to review that map in the context of the report, the conclusions reached herein are subject to revision. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The area in which the landslide has occurred requires to a limited extent a certain amount of description Additional investigation may require expanding this somewhat. 2.1 TOPOGRAPHY The area in the immediate vicinity of the landslide includes a section of the access road ^° part of the building site of the Ballard house south of the access road, and the slope north of the access road. The access road section in front of the Ballard house is close E.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6225 Bonsall Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 i FA t� r �s March 4, 2008 3 Cobert/Ballard to level and includes not only a part of the Ballard property but also the two parallel 10 - foot wide panhandles of the properties at 26864 and 26866. The Ballard building site is about 2-3 feet higher than the access road . The slope' north of the access road has a gradient of about 0.5, i.e., about 26.6 degrees from horizontal. It is estimated to be 18 - 20 feet high. Its upper edge prior to the failure was within the panhandle of 26864, and that is also the case for sections of the upper edge that have not yet failed. The location of the southern boundary of Lot 12, i.e., the northern boundary of 26864, is based on a statement by Mr William Cloyd, Sr. (pers comm., 02/01/08) that a power pole near the top of the slope is on the property bound- ary. That pole is shown in Photo 1 (EDM, -2/01/08). This appears to be confirmed by the location of a surveyor's stake in the slope roughly 100 feet west of the power pole and a few feet north of the access road as shown in Photo 2 (EDM, 02/12/08). Photo 1. Photo 2. The paved edge of the access road is just visible in the lower left corner of Photo 1, and the top of the graded slope is about at the edge of the gravel strip next to the chin -link fence. A similar condition is shown in Photo 2 where the end of the tape is at a stake next to a surveyor's 1 -inch Iron pipe marker. The tape where it is bent over the access road berm reads 7 feet, and the top of the graded slope is about at the chain-link fence. In both photos, the slope is in Lot 12 of Tract 37802. E 2.2 GRADING Grading can be defined as changing the configuration of the ground surface by artificial > means. Commonly, it refers to excavation and filling according to some plan in order to render land more useful. Most public agencies in California issue grading permits when t a grading plan is based on the recommendations of a licensed geotechnical engineer who must take into account recommendations of a licensed engineering geologist. Those limitations apply to the City of Santa Clarita. Lots 12- 14 of Tract 37802, and Lots E.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6225 Bonsall Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 !f1_ r i 04 March 4, 2008 4 Cobert/Ballard 10 - 12 of Tract 47785 appear to have been fully graded by the end of 2007 Grading specifications adopted as part of Santa Clarita Municipal Code, Title 17, Division 3, closely follow those of the California Building Code. Of particular relevance for present purposes is Section 17.27.040 B : - The top of cut slopes shall not be made nearer to a site boundary line than one-fifth the height of cut with a minimum of two (2) feet and a maximum of ten (10) feet. The setback may need to be increased for any required interceptor drains The following sequence of events is based on information received from Doctor Ballard (pers. comm., 02/11/08). Extensive grading was in progress during April, 2007 in the Cloyd property immediately north of 26862. During the following June, Lot 12 of Tract 37802, was resurveyed. Presumably this was for the purpose of lowering the level of that lot 5 feet. This was accomplished with "heavy equipment" during July and August of 2007. 2.3 STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS The Ballard property is improved with a two-story residence and includes a 3 -car ga- rage. It was built in 1979. Its present eclectic design is a result of extensive remodeling since the Ballard's took title in August, 2003. Various aspects of this structure and the surrounding grounds may have relevance as conditions become more apparent. For present purposes however, only the front part of the house and the graded area be- tween it and the access road is of interest. The access road pavement is also a structural improvement of some concern. It con- sists of an asphalt layer 3 inches thick, except where is has been resurfaced in front of the Ballard house There, an additional 3 -inch layer was placed in June, 2005. The original pavement apparently was laid years ago when the properties at 26862, 26864, and 26866 were first developed. 2.4 DRAINAGE Runoff from the Ballard property is directed to the access road which carries it to Sand Canyon Road. Part of the runoff is collected in eave gutters and downspouts, one east of the main house entrance and one west of it. These downspouts feed to buried drain pipes that connect to a header drainpipe buried along the paved edge of the access road in the Ballard property. Surface runoff from the eastern side of the house drive- way, supplemented by runoff from the roof of the wing containing the garage, originally fed to a surface drain inlet which connected to the header drain pipe prior to the land- slide. Runoff from the western side of the front yard collects on the driveway and then either is fed to a surface drain inlet connected to the header drain pipe or flows directly on to the access road. Essentially all surface drainage from the Ballard property to the access road occurs in this manner. The header pipe has its outlet at the southern edge of the access road pavement about 10 feet west of the southwestern corner of the main Ballard lot There it feeds to a recently installed 4 -inch diameter ABS flexible pipe which replaced a previ- ously installed T -fitting (Wm Cloy,d, Sr. pers. comm., 02/01/08). E.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6225 Bonsall Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 March 4, 2008 5 Cobert/Ballard 3.0 GEOLOGY Relevant general aspects of the local geology can be inferred from the work of Dibblee (1996). Reproduction of part of his map is shown in Figure 2. Gla 0;n Figure 2. Part of Dibblee (1998) Geologic Map. The uncolored areas are Quaternary deposits of alluvium (Qa) and stream gravel (Qg) The tan -shaded area is Mint Canyon Formation The dotted symbol indicates an area modified by grading North is to the top of the page; approximate scale 1 inch = 1,000 feet 3.1 GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS A geologic formation is defined as any mappable lithologic unit. Formations therefore are defined both as their areal extent and the map scale allows. Four formations are of interest for present purposes: the Mint Canyon Formation, which underlies either at the surface or at shallow depths much of the Sand Canyon area, terrace deposits, artificial fill, and landslide debris. Interpretation of the local geology prior to grading is based primarily on the geologic map of Merrill, et al. (1986). Plate 1, their geologic map, al- though somewhat difficult to interpret, apparently is intended to show proposed cuts and fills. This is indicated by their geologic sections (op. cit., PI. 2) which designate both ex- isting ground surfaces and proposed grades. 3.1.1 Mint Canyon Formation The Mint Canyon formation is exposed over more than 100 square miles in what is re- ferred to as "Canyon Country," and also almost all of the local hilly area in Sand Can- yon. It is recognized as a series of terrestrial deposits of stream and valley fill ranging in age from Middle to early Late Miocene. According to Dibblee (1996), it consists of weakly lithified but coherent deposits ranging in texture from pebble conglomerates to claystones. Merrill, et al., (1986, p. 4) indicates Tract 37802 to be underlain by "... light brown to light green sandstone and sandy conglomerate with less abundant interbeds of light to medium green fine sandstone, siltstone, and silty claystone." The exposure in E.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6226 Bonsall Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 Sand '; _` x`Mandalay S � Kit .•�i:-`.�;. Bal f ar`WH\ Huse 0;n Figure 2. Part of Dibblee (1998) Geologic Map. The uncolored areas are Quaternary deposits of alluvium (Qa) and stream gravel (Qg) The tan -shaded area is Mint Canyon Formation The dotted symbol indicates an area modified by grading North is to the top of the page; approximate scale 1 inch = 1,000 feet 3.1 GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS A geologic formation is defined as any mappable lithologic unit. Formations therefore are defined both as their areal extent and the map scale allows. Four formations are of interest for present purposes: the Mint Canyon Formation, which underlies either at the surface or at shallow depths much of the Sand Canyon area, terrace deposits, artificial fill, and landslide debris. Interpretation of the local geology prior to grading is based primarily on the geologic map of Merrill, et al. (1986). Plate 1, their geologic map, al- though somewhat difficult to interpret, apparently is intended to show proposed cuts and fills. This is indicated by their geologic sections (op. cit., PI. 2) which designate both ex- isting ground surfaces and proposed grades. 3.1.1 Mint Canyon Formation The Mint Canyon formation is exposed over more than 100 square miles in what is re- ferred to as "Canyon Country," and also almost all of the local hilly area in Sand Can- yon. It is recognized as a series of terrestrial deposits of stream and valley fill ranging in age from Middle to early Late Miocene. According to Dibblee (1996), it consists of weakly lithified but coherent deposits ranging in texture from pebble conglomerates to claystones. Merrill, et al., (1986, p. 4) indicates Tract 37802 to be underlain by "... light brown to light green sandstone and sandy conglomerate with less abundant interbeds of light to medium green fine sandstone, siltstone, and silty claystone." The exposure in E.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6226 Bonsall Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 March 4, 2008 6 Cobert/Ballard the scarp of the landslide which recently occurred is gray claystone with zones that are plastic 3.1.2 Terrace Deposits Terrace deposits originally covered eroded areas of the Mint Canyon Formation in the local area. Merrill, et al (1986, p. 5 ) described them as ... dark brown and orange brown silty and clayey sandstones with moderately abundant cobbles and pebbles." 3.1.3 Artificial Fill Artificial fill has been deposited in the vicinity of the Ballard property along the northern side of the access road as part of the road base. This fill probably is no thicker than 3 or 4 feet. Almost certainly, it has not been placed under controlled conditions, i.e., on a benched surface constructed to receive fill and compacted to some degree of maximum density at optimum moisture content. Rather, it has simply been dumped along one side of the roadway to widen it - a practice common in the construction of private roads. 3.1.4 Landslide Debris Material involved in a landslide is, by definition, landslide debris regardless of the mate- rial from which it is derived. A section of the slope mostly in Lot 12 of Tract 37802 that failed as a landslide has produced landslide debris almost entirely derived from the Mint Canyon Formation, although a section of artificial fill that was deposited along the ac- cess road, was carried with the landslide. A topographic map would be necessary to accurately estimate the volume of this debris. Probably, its maximum vertical thickness is no more than about 10 feet. Its volume is certainly less than 100 cubic yard and may be no more than about 50 cubic yards. '3.2 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE The term "geologic structure" refers to the spatial relationships and the origin of con- tacts between geologic formations and the manner in which formations, or units within them, have been deformed. Of particular concern for present purposes are the "forma- tion contact", i.e., the surface between two geologic formations, and "bedding plane," i.e., the surface between two layers, or beds, of differing lithology or period of formation. According to the geologic map of Merrill and his co-workers, (op. cit., PI 1), there ex- isted prior to any grading a small subsidiary ridge extending northward from the access road with its crest approximately along the common boundary of Lots 12 and 13 of Tract 37802. Mint Canyon Formation was exposed in the crest of this ridge, and terrace de- posits covered its lower flanks. The bedrock -terrace deposit contact extended in a southeasterly direction about 175 feet from a point on the ridge crest about 140 feet north of the access road to a point on the southern boundary of Lot 12 about 40 feet west of its southeastern corner. This means that the cut along the southern boundary of F Lot 12 initially exposed a section of the Mint Canyon Formation. Boring B-2 of Merrill and his co-workers (op cit., PI 1) was located on the eastern boundary of Lot 12 about 37 feet north of the southeastern lot corner. The log of that boring reports two bedding planes at a depth of 28.5 feet, one dipping 18 degrees " N65W and another dipping 9 degrees N49W. The log of the bedrock section between depths of 25 and 35 feet reports, generally, green claystone of the Mint Canyon Forma- tion that is poorly bedded, slightly cemented, moderately to highly fractured and E.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6225 Bonsall Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 E r e I r March,4, 2008 7 Cobert/Ballard sheared, and producing minor ground -water seepage. These dips are generally consis- tent with those reported by Dibblee (1966) as shown in Figure 2. The "attitude," i.e., the position in space of a planar surface such as a bedding plane, is described in terms of its "strike" and its "dip." The strike is the direction of a horizontal line on the surface, and the dip is the angle the surface makes with horizontal measured normal to the strike. The dips reported in Boring B-2 in the Mint Canyon Formation indi- cate that there exist apparent dips out of the existing graded slope. An apparent dip is a dip observed in a section taken other than parallel to the true dip. According to Billings (1942, p. 421, ) the tangent of the apparent dip from horizontal in a vertical plane through dipping strata is equal to the product of the tangent of the true dip and the sine of the angle between the section and the strike of the bed, or in equation form, tan p= tan a(sin a) One of the attitude observations in boring B-2 gives a a -value of 18 degrees and an a - value of 22 degrees, resulting in an apparent dip, p, of 6.9 degrees out of the slope. Similarly, the other set of observations, a a -value of 9 degrees and an a -value of 48 de- grees, results in an apparent dip of 6.7 degrees out of the slope. Considering the con- sistency of bedding attitudes reported locally by Dibblee (1996), it is reasonable to as- sume that a section taken normal to the 26.6 -degree cut below the access road in Lot 12 would have apparent dips of between 6 and 7 degrees. That is to say, there are un- supported bedding planes with apparent dips out of the cut slope in Lot 12 at angles of 6 to 7 degrees from horizontal along a section taken perpendicular to the cut. 3.3 MASS MOVEMENTS Two types of mass movement occur in the vicinity of the Ballard property. One is re- ferred to as "creep." The other is landsliding. Both have some relevance for present purposes. 3.3.1 Creep The type of mass movement referred to as "creep" is defined as small, incremental movements of surficial materials such as soil, or other unconsolidated granular materi- als such as artificial fill in response to gravity when such materials are either subject to a force, especially that induced by flowing water, or as a result of a loss in strength in clay which when reasonably dry gives such granular materials a degree of cohesive strength. This type of movement is to be distinguished from increasing strain along shear surfaces of materials at depth under constant stress, which also is referred to as creep by some authorities. Creep also is distinguished from landsliding essentially because of the slowness and periodicity of its occurrence. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to cause rupture This is es- pecially well illustrated by cracks forming in structures supported by materials that creep. It is clear that creep has formed an extensive pattern of fractures in the pave- ment of the access road where it seems obvious that the creeping material is the artifi- cial fill section of the road base. The creep there may be occurring In the fill itself or in soil over which the artificial fill was originally deposited Photo 3 illustrates the manner in which creep has been affecting the access road probably for many years. E.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6225 Bonsall Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 "" ,:1"` ate, �"r �.'q�;-^'e.'. _ �y'i " "d?` _ _ _ t._., �t::':r� < <.'y.,'�-.;'-"^ - :i'.,w , - ,.i;sr•'��Z• 'w - '",w+'».,.e'G;;, fir.+„ �';��I 11119611 ,2111 ,s �`'--�-,�, ""'�.,n,:-,� r;�f� .L-.5�;:`,.�`�.,-'�.��,�,-cz=�r �'+ r' �yd,t� uw .2 `J°.� y 're# 'l •1s��,�£i ,;�_y_f it ,i 'vr�tr w'=s. -t'raav'�:�;M�`Y�.-'s4 k.,.;J.._v��,,..{4:.,s,S^3`C.._df.uuis.,��'s�iE._, �n.vnt4'.i 5? U ,�r6'l 9�4°r1'!, March 4, 2008 8 Cobert/Ballard Photo 3. Fractures in Asphalt of Access Road. These fractures are due to creep in artificial fill and possibly underlying soil along the northern side of the access road above Lot 12 of Tract 37802 and Lots 12 and 13 of Tract 47785 Photo- EDM, 01/09/08 3.3.2 Landsliding A landslide is defined as a relatively rapid, downward and outward movement of earth material in response to gravity. Landslides are commonly classified according to the manner in which they fail and therefore include essentially falls, flows and shears. Falls occur when a mass simply breaks away from a steep slope and commonly become air- borne. Flows develop when sections of more or less unconsolidated materials become saturated with ground water so that shear strength is lost throughout much of the mass. Shear landslides develop when the shear strength of a mass is reduced to such an ex- tent that failure occurs along a discrete "critical" surface, i.e, a surface along which the reduction in shear strength is greatest. Critical surfaces can be controlled by an existing relatively weak surface within a mass such as a bedding plane, or it may be simply a function of stress distribution within an otherwise essentially homogeneous mass. Shear landslides with surfaces of failure that are curvilinear are referred to as "rota- tional," and those with surfaces that have little curvature and may actually be planar are commonly referred to as "translational." Translational landslides occurring on planar surfaces such as bedding planes are sometimes referred to as "block glides." In any event, all shear landslides commonly develop two structural features. One is a j� fairly steep to vertical or even overhanging surface at the uppermost edge of the slide I� where the debris has broken away from the parent material that remains in place. That surface is called the landslide "scarp " The other is a highly fractured mass of debris at the lowermost advancing end of the slide. The fracturing there is so great that the entire original structure is lost and throughout the mass, the level of shear strength is reduced to a relatively low value As a result, the mass commonly takes on the characteristics of a flow which splays out from the lower part of the slide mass. Such a feature is referred to as the landslide "toe." dE.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6225 Bonsall Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 March 4, 2008 9 Cobert/Ballard The landslide that has developed in Lot 12 of Tract 37802 and an adjacent section of the access road, hereinafter the "Lot 12 slide," is a translational landslide. It has a scarp about 4 feet high and a well developed toe. Photos 4, 5, and 6 show some of the characteristics of this landslide. Photo 4. Upper Margin of the Lot 12 Slide from the East. This vertical surface over part of which the plastic sheeting is draped is part of the land- slide scarp Fractures in the asphalt pavement, foreground, are probably due to creep in underlying artificial road fill Their extension into the patched area indicates the creep was in progress after June, 2005 View is west Photo EDM, 02/01/08 Photo 5. Upper Margin of the Lot 12 Slide from the West. The vertical surface below the three traffic cones in the right background is the landslide scarp. Note the position of the power pole which is on the northern boundary of Lot 12 It is clear that the mass of debris adjacent to the scarp has distinct components of lateral and vertical movement The vertical component has left the displaced patch of pavement in a position essentially parallel with the adjacent stable roadway sections This demon- strates the translational character of the movement View is east Photo EDM, 01/09/08 E.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6225 Bonsall Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 March 4, 2008 10 Cobert/Ballard Photo 6. Toe of the Lot 12 Slide. The flowage character of the toe is quite apparent The Ballard house is that in the mid- dle ground Note the position of the power pole with reference to Photos 1 and 5 View is southwest Photo EDM, 01/09/08 4.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS The data thus far adduced are sufficient upon which to base preliminary conclusions as to the character of the Lot 12 slide, its cause, and its effects if the movement continues. 4.1 CHARACTER OF THE LOT 12 SLIDE The characteristics of the Lot 12 landslide indicate that its movement has been transla- tional. This strongly suggests a shear failure along one or more bedding planes in the Mint Canyon Formation section all of which have apparent dips of 6 to 7 degrees out of the slope. 4.2 CAUSE OF THE LOT 12 SLIDE Ground water, combined with a particular slope geometry is the cause of almost all landslide in graded areas The cause of the Lot 12 slide is a combination of the pres- ence of ground water and the removal of support from the base of the cut slope. In massive saturated sections, the ground water force reduces frictional strength by induc- ing a buoyant force. In bedded sections however, the ground water may transmit a force along bedding planes or in especially permeable beds which is a function of the hydraulic head. In that case, the reduction in shear strength may be much greater that that due simply to saturation. In either case, the shear strength is reduced to some value of effective stress which is too low to generate enough frictional strength to avoid failure Either mechanism may have been operating in the case of the Lot 12 slide. Ground water was noted in the local Mint Canyon Formation section as early as 1986 during the investigation by Merrill et al., (1996) At that time, the equilibrium ground- water level may have been a few feet below or above the elevation of the present slope base in Lot 12 However, before grading for Lot 12 was undertaken there was no slope steep enough to become unstable. Initial grading for Lot 12 introduced a slope that should have required stability analysis. However, there is no indication in the record so far reviewed that the slope in Lot 12 was analyzed for stability. The lowering of the level E.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6225 Bonsall Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 March 4, 2008 11 Cobert/Ballard of Lot 12 simply exacerbated conditions, and, apparently, the rains of early January, 2008 caused ground -water conditions to develop which then resulted in the slide. The manner in which the rain became ground water and its introduction to the slope is un- certain. It is to be noted that as of the time of the landslide, a grading permit had not been issued for the lowering of Lot 12 (M. Hannaway, pers. comm., 02/25/08). 4.3 EFFECTS OF CONTINUED LOT 12 SLIDE MOVEMENT The main episode of movement of the Lot 12 slide probably has occurred. However, additional incremental movement may develop if it has not already done so. Since it is possible that the Lot 12 slide is a bedding -plane landslide, movement would be con- trolled by apparent dips in the slope. For example, assuming the height of the slope to be 18 feet, projecting southward from the base of the slope the potential surface of fail- ure of a bedding plane with an apparent dip of 6.5 degrees would mean that movement would be expected to occur for a distance of about 160 feet south from the base of the slope. Therefore, almost the entire Ballard house would be in the area of movement. Although the movement might occur as a sort of block glide with the mass moving as a unit, it is much more likely that at least some rupturing within the mass would occur with the resulting introduction of abnormal shear stresses in the house frame. Typical resi- dential construction is notoriously "unforgiving" with respect to such stress Hence, total destruction of the Ballard house is possible, and it is therefore important to begin reme- dial work to stabilize the Lot 12 slide. 4.4 REMEDIAL WORK Specific plans for remedial work are difficult to determine with so little data on the char- acter of the Lot 12 slide. Because of the possibly critical condition of continuing move- ment, emergency measures may be required. In that case, two procedures need to be implemented. One is the installation of a line of soldier piles along the access road to buttress the mass south of the road that underlies the Ballard house; the other is a de- watering well close to the base of the slope in Lot 12 to reduce ground -water levels lo- cally with the hope of thus increasing effective stress along surfaces of failure. Upon assurance that such emergency measures have temporarily stabilized the move- ment, normal remedial work could be undertaken to provide permanent stability of the slope. The conditions now suggest a retaining wall along the base of the slope in Lot 12 designed to resist further slide movement and backfilled to support the access road. E.D. Michael G EOt E.D. MIICHJ Engineering Geologist 157 Hydrogeolog,lst 5-14 E, iragon: 0 E.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6225 Bonsall Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 March 4, 2008 12 References Cobert/Ballard Billings, Marland P., 1942, Structural Geology: Prentice -Hall, inc., NY, 473 pp. Dibblee, Thomas W, Jr., 1996, Geologic Map of the Mint Canyon Quadrangle, Los An- geles County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF -57. Merrill, Robert A., Mark Oborne, and Paul Elliott, 1986, review plemental geologic Tract and soil engineering investigation ssocates cconsupltant rpt. Job No. 15601-01, Log. No 9075, for Cloyd Robert Stone Construction Co., July 7. E.D. MICHAEL, Consulting Geologist, 6225 Bonsall,Dr., Malibu, CA 90265, 310.457.9319 In 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 JOSEPH M COBERT, ESQ , STATE BAR NO. 053308 JOSEPH M COBERT, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 16027 Ventura Boulevard Suite 610 Encino, California 91436-2749 Telephone (818) 986-4200 Attorney for Plaintiffs a� CONS FORN,tIEDp' aaCH py�, COPY OFORIGINAL tl� DB-�1L� D Los Ang�10 536P,erior Court john ,k Clarke, Executive,Officer/C! irk / C, y �u — , Der uty D". . V1'IAIN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES J 8 -7157 157 Uv DAVID J. BALLARD and MARISOL ) CASE NO BALLARD, ) COMPLAINT FOR: Plaintiffs, ) 1. NEGLIGENCE V ) 2. BREACH OF IMPLIED AGREEMENT WILLIAM C CLOYD and JEANETTE M. ) 3. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CLOYD, individually and as Trustees of The ) 4. CONTRIBUTION UNDER CIVIL Cloyd Family Trust Dated November 3, 2003, ) CODE §845 THE PRESERVE IN SAND CANYON, LLC, a ) 5. MANDATORY INJUNCTION California Limited Liability Company, ROCKY ) 6. DECLARATORY RELIEF HERMAN, individually and as a Trustee of The ) 7. DECLARATORY RELIEF Rocky and Paige Herman 2001 Family Trust ) 8. VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE Dated September 13, 2001, PAIGE HERMAN, ) §1708 individually and as a Trustee of The Rocky and ) Paige Herman 2001 Family Trust Dated ) September 13, 2001, LARS FERLING, ) individually and as a Trustee of The Ferling ) Family Trust, Established January 21, 1999, ) JANIE FERLING, individually and as a Trustee ) of The Ferling Family Trust, Established ) January 21, 1999, and DOE 1 through DOE 200, ) inclusive, ) Defendants. ) Plaintiffs DAVID BALLARD ('`DAVID") and MARISOL BALLARD ("MARISOL"),jointly "Plaintiffs," allege as follows I HI C 1.-�CTNE\BallardTleadmos\Complaint wpd -I- COMPLAINT I- COMPLAINT 1 J 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 r FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Negligence -- Against All Defendants Except the HERMANS, Individually and as Trustees, the FERLNGS, Individually and as Trustees, and DOE 151 through DOE 200) 1 Plaintiffs are and at all tines material hereto were (a) husband and wife, (b) residents of the real property located at 26862 Sand Canyon Road in the City of Santa Clarita, California, the legal description of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (the "BALLARD Property"), (c) entitled by easement to use for ingress and egress a private driveway (the "Private Driveway"), which extends from Sand Canyon Road to the BALLARD Property and then beyond it to 26864 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, California (the HERMAN Property") and 26866 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarrta, California (the "FERLING Property"), (d) obligated to share the use of, and maintenance costs of, the Private Dri •.eway with the owners and occupants of the HERMAN Property and the FERLING Property; and (e) successors in interest to the rights and obligations existing under that certain easement for ingress and egress shown on the map filed inBook 87, Pages 94-95 of Parcel Map 8252 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County Recoider of Los Angeles County, California (the "Access Easement") 2 MARISOL is and at all times since a date in September of 2005 has been the fee owner of the BALLARD Property. However, both of the BALLARD Shave contributed funds before and since September of 2005 to improve the BALLARD Property 3 At all times material hereto, WILLIAM C CLOYD and JEANETTE M CLOYD (the -`CLOYDS"') have been husband and wife Prior to November 3, 2003, the CLOYDS individi, ally were the owners of certain property (the "CLOYD Property") which abuts the Private Driveway The legal description of that portion of the CLOYD Property relevant to this litigation is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 On November 3, 2003, the CLOYDS as Trustees of the Cloyd Family Trust Dated C \,-\CTIVE\Ballard\Pleaduies\Comulamt wpd -?- COMPLAINT I November 3, 2003 (the"2003 Trust") caused to be recorded a quitclaim deed as to part of the CLOYD 2 Property wherein they as such Trustees of the 2003 Trust were named as the grantors and THE 3 PRESERVE IN SAND CANYON, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (the "LLC'') was 4 named the grantee In December of 2003, the CLOYDS caused to be recorded a quitclaim deed as to 5 the same part of the CLOYD Property wherein the CLOYDS individually were named as the grantors 6 and the CLOYDS as Trustees of the 2003 Trust were named as the grantees 7 4 At all times material hereto, ROCKY HERMAN and PAIGE IIERMAN (the S "HERMANS") have been husband and wife plus -- individually and or as Trustees of The Rocky and 9 Paige Herman 2001 Family Trust Dated September 13, 2001 -- the fee owners of the HERMAN 10 Property The IERMAN Property is legally described on Exhibit 3 attached hereto Itis and at all tunes 11 material hereto has been subject to the Access Easement 12 5 At all times material hereto, LARS FERLING and JANIE FERLING (the "FERLINGS") 13 have been husband and wife plus -- individually and/or as Trustees of The Ferhng Family Trust, 14 Established January 21, 1999 -- the fee owners of the FERLING Property The FERLING Property is 15 legally described on Exhibit 4 attached hereto. It is and at all times material hereto has been subject to 16 the Access Easement 17 6. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as 1S DOE 1 through DOE 200, inclusive, and they therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names 1 o Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of such 20 Defendants when they have ascertained same Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that 21 each fictitiously named Defendant is in some manner responsible for each and every act and obligation 22 hereinafter alleged and has proximately caused the damages complained of 23 7 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, at all times mentioned herein; 24 DOE 1 through DOE 200 were and now are the agents; servants, employees, partners, principals, 25 representatives and/or alter egos of each other and in doing the things hereinafter alleged were acting 26 within the course and scope of then authority as such agents, servants; employees, partners, principals, 27 representatives and/or alter egos with the permission and consent of the remaining Defendants 28 C', ACTIVE\B allard\Pleadtnas\Complaint �Npd -3- COMPLAINT l 8 The I IERAIANS and FERLINGS, individually and/or as trustees oftheir respects ve trusts, 2 are and at all times material hereto have been 3 (a) entitled by the Access Easement to use a portion of the Private Driveway; and 4 (b) obligated to share the use of, as well as the repair and maintenance costs of, thy, 5 Private Driveway with the owners of the BALLARD Property 6 9 The LLOYDS, individually and as Trustees of the 2003 Trust, the LLC and thein 7 predecessois in interest -- directly and/or indirectly through contractors they ietanned -- have done 8 extensive grading on the CLOYD Property Some of that grading 9 (a) has been done without required permits, 10 (b) has been done in a manner contrary to applicable codes and ordinances because, 11 inter alia, the top of the cut is in the Private Driveway instead of being on the 12 Cloyd Property (at a prescribed height), l i (c) has, under the circumstances (which include a dip slope with apparent clips of 14 6° to 7° fiom horizontal and lack of adequate stability analysis), created an 15 unstable slope configuration in the CLOYD Property and extending into the 16 Private Driveway as well as beyond same and onto the BALLARD Property. and 17 (d) caused loss of support, inducing sliding and/or creep of parts of such slope 18 10 The BALLARDS' residence is located on the BALLARD Propeity, which also has 19 extensive grounds The BALLARD Property is immediately adjacent to a sizeable stretch of the Private 20 Driveway 21 11 As owners of land adjacent to the Private Driveway and close to the BALLARD Property, 22 the Defendants named in this cause of action possessed a duty of reasonable care in developing the 23 LLOYD Propei;ty 2'1 ? 2 The vvrongftil conduct described in paragraph 9 of this Complaint 1. 25 (a) violated the duty of reasonable care owed to the BALLARDS by the Defendants 26 named in this cause of action, 27 (b) was reckless, 28 (c) caused substantial crackil9 to occur i1 the Private DiivevNay during 2008, C �ACTIVE\Ballard\Plead inas\Complaint �kod -4- COMPLAINT 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 18 19 20 21 23 24 75 26 27 28 (d) caused cracking in pipes located in the BALLARD Property duiing 2008 to patio bricks and other expensive improvements on the BALLARD Pioperty and throughout the BALLARDS' residence there, (e) was not something of which Plaintiffs were aware or could, with reasonable diligence, have been aware until a significant slide occurred in 2008; (1) has caused the BALLARDS to suffer emotional distress during 2008, i (g) has resulted in damages to the BALLARDS during 2008, both for such emotional distress and to the extent of injury to the BALLARD PROPERTY, the injury to the BALLARD PROPERTY being considerable as the lesser oC costs to repa;i same or reduction in the market value of the BALLARD PROPERTY 13 The amount of damages caused to the BALLARDS by reason of the foiegoing is not as yet ascertained but is in excess of the minimum figure for unlimited jurisdiction of this Court. The BALLARDS will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to state the exact amount of such damages when ascertained SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Breach of Implied Agreement -- Against the HERMANS as Tiustees, the FERLINGS as Trustees and DOE 151 duough DOE 200 Only) 14 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Complaint 15 The Access Easement creates an implied agreement for sharing maintenance and repair of the Private Driveway as well as sharing the costs of such maintenance and repair 16 The BALLARDS and their predecessors in interest as owners and residents of the BALLARD Property have performed all obligations required of them under the Access Easement except as prevented or excused by the Defendants named in this cause of action The BALLARDS have demanded in 2008 that such Defendants perform those Defendants' obligations undei the Access A-reernent C `,ACTIVE\DallaidTlead inas\Complain t wpd -5- CO\/IPLAINT — 1 17 NVithrn the twoea y is last past, the Defendants named in this cause oI action have 2 breached the Access Easement by failing to repair and maintain the Private Driveway as well a, 13y 3 failing to pay their share of the costs of repair and maintenance of the Private Driveway (including but 4 not limited to costs involved to repair and maintain damage identified first in 2008) 5 18 The amount of damages caused to the BALLARDS by reason of the foregoing is not as 6 yet ascertained but is in excess of the rrimi mum figure for unlmnited jurisdiction of this Court The 7 BALLARDS will sect-, leave of Court to amend this Complaint to state the exact amount of such 8 damages when asceitaiied 9 10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (For Specific Performance -- Against the IIERMANS as Trustees, 1 the FERLINGS as Trustees and DOE 151 through DOE 200 Only) 13 19 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by referenc: each and every allegation contained 14 in paragraphs 1 through 9 and 15 through 17 of this Complaint 15 20 Civil Code §845(b) entitles Plaintiffs to specific performance of the repair and 16 maintenance obligations of the Access Easement, and, except as so provided, Plaintiffs Jack a plain, 17 speedy or adequate remedy at law Plaintiffs have promptly and timely urged the Defendants named in 18 this cause of action to perform such obligations 19 21 Unless the Defendants named in this cause of action perform thein repair and maintenance 20 obligations under the Access Easement, dainage will continue to the BALLARD Property -- wluch is 21 ,unique -- resulting in the ultimate collapse of the house on the BALLARD Property and much of the 22 other improvements thereon 24 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 (For Contribution.UnderCivil Code §845 -- Against the HERiNIANS as Trustees, 26 the FERLINGS as Tiustees and DOE 151 through DOE 200 Only) 7 22 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained 28 in paragraphs 1 tluough 9, 15 and 16 of this Complaint C_ \.ACTIVE\Q aIIardTlead uiQs\comolamt N\ -pd -6- COMPLAINT 4 5' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 Under Civil Code §845, the Defendants named in this cause of action owe the BALI -ARDS a duty to contribute then share of the costs of repair anti maintenance of the Private Driveway (including but not limited to costs involved to repaii and maintain claniage idcntilled (list it, 2008) 24 Within the two years last past, the Defendants named in this cause of action have ✓ie;,ated Civil Code §845 by failing to repair and maintain the Private Driveway as well as farlmg to pay their share of the costs of repair and maintenance of such Private Driveway (including but not limited to Bests involved to repair and maintain damage identified first in 2008) 25 The amount of damages caused to the BALLARDS by reason of the foregoing is not as yet ascertained but is in excess of the minimunn figure for unlimited jurisdiction of this Court The BALLARDS will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to state the exact amount of such damages when ascertained FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTI (For A Mandatory Injunction -- Against All Defendants) 26 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate hereon by reference each and every allegation contained, in paragraphs 1 through 12, 15 through 17, 23 and 24 of this Complaint 27 More of the Private Driveway and much of the BALLARD Property are threatened and likely to collapse unless remediated by temporary and permanent measures Such measures include but are not necessarily limited to the following (a) construction of a de -watering Nvell at a reasonable location on Lot 12 of the CLOYD Property, the exact location to be specified by Plaintiffs' qualified Professional representatives and the exact specifications for same to be specified by such representatives, (b) installation of soldier piles along the boundary between the CLOYD Property and the Private Driveway for a length as specified by such iepresentatn,es and the exact specifications for same to be specified by such representatives; plus C 'ACTfVE Ballard\PleaduiaslComulamt ��Dd - /- CONIPLAINT 1 �1 1 (c) erection of a ietaining wall on Lot 12 of the CLOYD Property and perhaps adjoining lots on either side thereof on the CLOYD Property; the exact location and length of which and the exact specifications Tor same to be specriied by such 4 representatives 5 28 riot only have Defendants failed to make financial contributions toward the 6 innplementation of the measures described in paragraph 27 of this Complaint, they have also unjustly 7 and improperly refused to allow or even to cooperate with same 8 29 Plaintiffs lack a speedy, plain or adequate remedy at taw 9 30 Under the circumstances, without an injunctive order mandating that Defendants allow 10,1 (and cooperate with) the implementation of the measures descitbed in paragraph 27 of this Cr.,niplaunt, 11 the further damage described in such paragraph will likely transpire and thereby produce waste as well ID 12 as great or irreparable injury to Plaintiffs Such injury would not be adequately compensated by 13 monetary award alone, although monetary compensation for damages sustained is appropriate and 14 warranted Consequently, the Court should also issue a mandatory injunction as prayed foi 15 16 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 17 (For Declaratory Relief -- Against All Defendants Except the HERMANS, Individually and as 18 Trustees, the FERLINGS, Individually and as Trustees, and DOE 151 through DOE 200) 19 31 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained 20 in paragraphs 1 through 11 of this Complaint 21 32 Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants named in this cause of action possess a duty to 'I repair the Private Driveway, the slope leading from the CLOYD Property up to such Private Driveway 23 and the BALLARD Property with respect to all damage from slide and creep as described in this cause 24 of action. The Defendants named in this cause of action deny all such contentions 25 33 A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and the Defendants named in 26 this cause of action By reason thereof. Plaintiffs believe they ai e entitled to a declaratory judgment that 27 their contentions as described above are correct 28 /// C 1ACTIVE\Ballard\Pleadin2s\Complaint wod -8- CONIPLAINT 1 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -, 1 28 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Declaratory Relief -- Against the HERMANS, Individually and as Trustees the FERLINGS, Individually and as Trustees, and DOE 151 through DOE 200 Only) 34 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation Couta>ned in paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint 35 Plaintiffs contend (a) that the failure of the Defendants named in this cause of action to perform their obligations of maintenance and repair to the Private Driveway helped cause dannage thereto as well as to the BALLARD Property and (b) that the failure by such Defendants to contribute toward costs of maintenance and repair is increasing the damage to the Private Driveway as well as to the BALLARD Property 36 The Defendants named in this cause of action deny all of the contentions set out in paragraph 35 of this Complaint 37 ' A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and the Defendants nanned in this cause of action. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs believe they are entitled to a declaratory Ud(nient that . their contentions as described above are correct EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Violation of Civil Code §1708 -- Against All Defendants) 3 8 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 12, 16, 17 and 28 of this Complaint 39 All Defendants are bound by a duty under Civil Code 51708 to abstain from injuring the person or property of the BALLARDS By reason of facts alleged in this Complaint, they have violated such duty 40 The amount of damages caused to the BALLARDS by reason of the foregoni- is not as yet ascertained but is in excess of the minimum figure for unhinitedjurisdiction of this Court The BALLARDS will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to state the exact amount of such damages when ascertained C \ \C FVE\Dallard\P lead inas\CompIamt Nvpd -9- CONIPLAIN� T NVF-IEREFORE. Plaintiffs pray forjudgment as follows ON THE FIRST- SECOND AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION 1 For damages accoiding to proof ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 2 For specific performance of the repair and maintenance obligations of the Defendants under the Access Easement ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 3 For contribution of costs of repair and maintenance as required under Civil Code §845 ON TILE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 For amandatory injunctionregtunng all of the Defendants to allow, and to cooperate with Plaintiffs in implementing, the following measures (a) construction of a de -watering well at a seasonable location on Lot 12 of the �CLOYD Property, the exact location to be specified by Plaintiffs' qualified professional representatives and the exact specifications for same to be specified by such representatives; ,(b) installation of soldier piles along the boundary between the CLOYD Propel -ty and the Private Driveway foi a length as specified by such representatives and the exact specifications for same to be specified by such repiesentatives, plus (c) erection of a retaining wall on Lot 12 of the CLOYD Property and perhaps adjoining lots on eithei side thereof on the CLOYD Property; the exact location and length of which and the exact specifications foi same to be specified b� such representatives C ACTIVE\Ballaid\Pleadmes\Complaint \\,pd -1 O - COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 os ON 1 -1 -IE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 5 For a declaratoiy lodgment that the Defendants named Irl this cause of action possess a duty to repair the Private Driveway, the slope leading hom the C1 OYD Piopeity up to such Private Drive\vay and the BALLARD Property with iespect to all damage from slide and cieep as described in this cause of action ON THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 6 For a declaratoryjudgment (a) that the failure of the Defendants named in this cause of action to perform their obligations of maintenance and repair to the Private Diiveway helped cause damage thereto as \•veli as to the BALLARD Property and (b) that the failure by such Defendants to contribute toward costs of nnaintenance and repair is increasing the damages to the Private Driveway as well as to the BALLARD Property ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 7 For costs of suit S For such other relief as is proper DATED March 11, 2008 JOSEPH M COBEPT A Pro fessionaVCorp6'ration , By JOSP�I i\%I' COBERT :A,l rney,,for Plaintiffs = \ACT[\'E\Qallard\P lead inasTomoiaint wpd- CO-MPLAfNT 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 III 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 _)5 26 27 28 PARCEL I OF PARCEL MAP NO 8252, IN THE CITY OFSANTA A CL/kRil-A_ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. STI�TE OF CALIFORNIA. AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 87. PAGES 94 ;\NFD 95 OF MAPS. IN "CITE- OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUN"[Y EXCEPT THEREFROM AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN ALL OIL, GAS, MINER_A LS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEP1-1-1 SI -TOWN BELOW BIJT WITH NO RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS PROVIDED IN DEED DEPTH 500 FELT RECORDED MARCH U; 1972 AS INSTRUMENT NO 4377, OFFICIAL RECORDS I C +ACTT\,[\Ballard'Pleadinss\Conu)laint \� Elhibit 1 CONIPLAI\TT LOTS I ; 12. 13, 14 & 15 OF TRACT 37802 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1081. PAGES 56 57 AND 58 OF MAPS AS RECORDED ON FEBRUARY 4. 1987 z^•.S INSTRUNIENTNO 87-165003 N THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY_ CALIFORNIA Exhibit C `,ACTNE',BalIaid\Ple dmas\Complamt N�pd CONIPL AINT 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 8252; IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARIIA_ COUNTY OI= LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 87, PAGES 94 AND 95 OF PARCEL MAPS. IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY Exhibit 3 C \,ACTr\,E\Ballard\Pleaduiss\Complantt \\Dd CO\/1PL aINT 1 4 5' 6 7 8 9 10, r 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP 8252. N THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. COUNTY OI-, LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AS PER \VIAP FILED IN BOOK 87, PAGES 94 AND 95 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY EXCEPT THERE FROM AN UNDIVIDED ONE -I IALFINTEREST IN AND TO ALL OIL, GAS AND MINER -ILS LYNG AND BEING MORE THAN 500 FEET BELOW THE RESPECTIVE PRESENT SURFACE ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPERTY, PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT S UCH EXCEPTED OWNERSHIP OF SUCH ONTE-HALF NTEREST IN AND TO SUCH OIL, GAS AND MINERALS, DOES NOT INCLUDE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE ANY RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY UPON ANY PART OF THE SURFACE OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY FOR TIIE PURPOSE OF EXPLORATION, STORAGE OR OTITER ACTIVLrFY ANCILLARY TO TIIE REMOVAL OF SUCH OIL, GAS OR MNERALS, AS RESER:\/ ED BY GLENN COX AND OPAL F. COX, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS TONT TENANTS, N DEED RECORDED MARCH 13, 1972; AS INSTRUMENT NO 6377; IN BOOK D-5398, PAGE 36 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS Exhibit 4 C \-�CTNE\Ballard\Pleaduvs\Comolain[ «pd CO-11,4PLAINT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 07-225 HILLSIDE REVIEW 07-011 INITIAL STUDY 08-002, OAK TREE PERMIT 08-004 DATE: April 1, 2008 TO: Chairperson Berger and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lisa M. Hardy, AICP, Planning Manager CASE PLANNER: Raymond Barragan, Assistant Planner I APPLICANT: Rocky and Paige Herman LOCATION: 26864 Sand Canyon Road Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 2841-002-085 and 2841-019-052 REQUEST: This is a request for the construction of an 11,085 square foot single family home and detached, 910 square foot, two -car garage. The subject property is currently two vacant, previously graded lots. The project proposes to combine the two existing lots into one 3.33 acre lot. Access to the property is proposed to be taken from Mandalay Road. The proposed project requires a Hillside Review because the cross slope of the subject property exceeds 15%, and more than 1,500 cubic yards of earth is proposed to be moved. There are three oaks on the subject property, and one oak tree will be encroached upon with the proposed project. BACKGROUND On November 11, 2007, the applicants, Rocky and Paige Herman, submitted a project with the request for a Hillside Review and an Oak Tree Permit to construct an 11,085 square foot house and a 910 square foot garage in the Sand Canyon community. The project site is currently two parcels. Parcel 1 is a 1.01 acre vacant parcel that was previously graded to accommodate one single family residence under a subdivision in the early 1990s. Parcel 1 takes access from Mandalay Road, which is a private road. There is one heritage oak tree located on Parcel 1. Parcel 2 is a 2.32 acre flag lot that consisted of a single family residence that was demolished in 2007. Access to Parcel 2 is provided from Sand Canyon Road via a driveway on an approximate ten foot wide flag strip. Parcel 2 was previously graded and consists of two oak trees and has minor topographical features. Master Case No 07-225 HR 07-011, IS 08-002, OTP 08-004 April 1, 2008 Page 2 of 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting to combine Parcels 1 and 2 into one lot that will total 3.33 acres, and grade a pad for a custom single family residence, detached garage, and a driveway/guest parking area. The proposed project consists of an 11,085 square foot custom home and detached garage proposed to be located on what is now Parcel 2, a paved driveway and guest parking area on Parcel 1, and a lot line adjustment that will combine Parcels 1 and 2. The current driveway access from Sand Canyon Road will be removed and access to the site will be taken from Mandalay Road. The subject property has an average cross slope of 19.55%. Together, the two parcels are rectangular in shape and have small topographic changes. The building pad is proposed on what is now Parcel 2, and the majority of the driveway and guest parking area is proposed to be located on Parcel 1. To allow for the creation of building pad and for the construction of the proposed driveway, the applicant is proposing 10,476 cubic yards of grading with 117 cubic yards of export. The new pad will be approximately fourteen feet lower than the existing topography in order to line up the driveway with the pad. There are three oak trees on the project site, one of heritage oak status. The heritage oak tree will be encroached upon to allow for the grading and paving of the driveway and guest parking area. The remaining two oak trees will not be affected by the proposed project. All housing construction proposed as part of this application would comply with the RVL development standards in the Unified Development Code (UDC) such as height, setbacks, and access. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, ZONING, SURROUNDING LAND USES The City of Santa Clarita General Plan designates the project site Residential Very Low (RVL) with a zoning classification -of RVL (Residential Very Low). As defined by the City's UDC, the RVL zone" is intended for large custom single-family homes with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per gross acre. This zone will permit the rural character of a number of existing neighborhoods to be maintained. The keeping of horses and related animals as an accessory use is generally found in this zone. (Section 17.11.020.C) The proposed lot is consistent with the surrounding lot sizes and future development of the subject property would be residential, consistent with the scale of existing land uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The new lot would be in compliance with the RVL development standards. The following table illustrates the General Plan land use designation, zoning designation and current land uses of the subject property and surrounding properties. Master Case No. 07-225 HR 07-011, IS 08-002, OTP 08-004 April 1, 2008 Page 3 of 4 ANALYSIS HILLSIDE REVIEW The project includes the proposed grading and construction of a single family residence with a detached garage and driveway/guest parking area. The subject property has a cross slope of greater than 15% and therefore, is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance (Section 17.80 of the Unified Development Code) and review by the Planning Commission. The project requires the grading of approximately 10,476 cubic yards of earth, with the export of 117 cubic yards. The haul route for the movement of dirt will be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to grading permit issuance. The building pad and driveway have been proposed in locations that maintain the rural character of the project site. The site's proposed grading design will be rounded and contoured to blend with the existing natural terrain to the extent possible. The proposed building pad is in a location that is also in compliance with the regulations of the UDC and the Hillside Ordinance. OAK TREE PERMIT There are a total of three oak trees located on the subject property; one oak tree is of heritage status. The encroachment is proposed to allow for the construction of the driveway and parking area. To minimize any damage to the oak tree, mitigation for the encroachment of the heritage oak tree includes the installation of permeable concrete pavers, adjustment to the parking area dimensions, and landscape restrictions under the canopy of the subject oak. In addition, special construction methods will be used to ensure that the tree is not injured in the development of the property. The applicant is required to erect protective fencing five feet outside the perimeter of the drip line during grading and construction to prevent any damage during grading or the future construction of the GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND DIRECTION DESIGNATION DESIGNATION USE SUBJEC'TPROPERTY Residential 'ery ,�, SirigleFam�lyResidential-" (1dwelling-u: per acre) NORTH Residential Very Low (RVL) RVL Residential Very Single Family Residential (1 dwelling unit per acre) Low EAST Residential Very Low (RVL) RVL Residential Very Single Family Residential (1 dwelling unit per acre) Low SOUTH Residential Very Low (RVL) RVL Residential Very Single Family Residential (1 dwelling unit per acre) Low WEST Residential Very Low (RVL) RVL Residential Very Single Family Residential (1 dwelling unit per acre) Low ANALYSIS HILLSIDE REVIEW The project includes the proposed grading and construction of a single family residence with a detached garage and driveway/guest parking area. The subject property has a cross slope of greater than 15% and therefore, is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance (Section 17.80 of the Unified Development Code) and review by the Planning Commission. The project requires the grading of approximately 10,476 cubic yards of earth, with the export of 117 cubic yards. The haul route for the movement of dirt will be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to grading permit issuance. The building pad and driveway have been proposed in locations that maintain the rural character of the project site. The site's proposed grading design will be rounded and contoured to blend with the existing natural terrain to the extent possible. The proposed building pad is in a location that is also in compliance with the regulations of the UDC and the Hillside Ordinance. OAK TREE PERMIT There are a total of three oak trees located on the subject property; one oak tree is of heritage status. The encroachment is proposed to allow for the construction of the driveway and parking area. To minimize any damage to the oak tree, mitigation for the encroachment of the heritage oak tree includes the installation of permeable concrete pavers, adjustment to the parking area dimensions, and landscape restrictions under the canopy of the subject oak. In addition, special construction methods will be used to ensure that the tree is not injured in the development of the property. The applicant is required to erect protective fencing five feet outside the perimeter of the drip line during grading and construction to prevent any damage during grading or the future construction of the Master Case No 07-225 HR 07-011, IS 08-002, OTP 08-004 April 1, 2008 Page 4 of 4 home. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study was completed evaluating the environmental impacts created with the proposed project. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the proposed project. The environmental documents were posted for public review from March 11, 2008 to April 1, 2008. The Initial Study considered the potential impacts of the proposed grading and development, and found that all impacts to the site were considered less than significant with mitigation. PUBLIC REVIEW As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the subject property were notified by mail advertising the public hearing for Master Case 07-225. In addition, the public notice was placed in a local newspaper and a sign was posted at the site. The Planning Division has not received any letters regarding this project to date. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P08-07 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case No. 07-225, Hillside Review 07-011, and Oak Tree Permit 08-004 for a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated grading subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Resolution P08-07 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study Grading Plan Architectural Plans S \CD\CURREN R12007\07-225(HR07-011)TIannmg CommissionWC07-225 Staff Report doe RESOLUTION NO. P08-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARITION AND APPROVING MASTER CASE NUMBER 07-225 (HILLSIDE REVIEW 07-011, OAK TREE PERMIT 08-004) TO ALLOW FOR THE GRADING OF APPROXIMATELY 10,476 CUBIC YARDS TO CREATE A BUILDABLE PAD TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETACHED GARAGE AT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 2841-002-085 AND 2841- 019-052, ZONED RVL (RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. On November 13, 2007, the Department of Community Development, received Master Case Number 07-225, Hillside Review 07-008, Oak Tree Permit 06-027, entitlement application filed by Rocky and Paige Herman (the "Applicant"). The application is for Hillside Development Review, Oak Tree Permit for the encroachment of one tree (heritage status), and a lot line adjustment. The application was deemed complete on December 4, 2007; b. The subject property consists of two lots and is located at APN's (Assessor Parcel Numbers) 2841-002-085 and 2841-019-052. The project site is approximately 3.33 acres and is located at 26864 Sand Canyon Road in the community of Sand Canyon. The project is located within the Sand Canyon Special Standards District; C. The subject property is in the RVL (Residential Very Low) zone with surrounding land uses consisting of single-family residences to the north, south, east and west; d. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on April 1, 2008. This public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At the hearing, the Planning Commission considered staff's presentation, the staff report, and public testimony on the proposal; and e. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State, of California were duly followed. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, the Planning Commission further finds and determines as follows: a. An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Resolution P08-07 Master Case 07-225 Page 2 of 6 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on March 11, 2008, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from March 11, 2008 through April 1, 2008; C. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita; d. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is the Master Case 07-225 project file within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and The Planning Commission, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 3. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and the findings listed Section 17.17.090(H) of the Unified Development Code, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property. The applicant proposes to encroach upon one heritage oak tree on the subject site. Parcel 1 is approximately 163' wide and it is the location of one heritage oak tree. The proposed driveway and guest parking area would encroach into the protected zone of this tree. As part of the conditions of approval, the City's Oak Tree Specialist is requiring the applicant to modify the proposed parking area to allow for an increased protected zone along the east edge of the tree. The parking area shall be a minimum of 20' feet away from the trunk of the oak tree. The protected zone of the tree shall remain as natural as possible with very minimal impacts to both natural drainage and landscape. Due to the location of the heritage oak on Parcel 1 and the topographical constraints of the property, the project, as proposed, preserves this oak tree in place while allowing the property owner reasonable use of the site. Oak trees #91 and #92 will not be encroached upon and will remain in their natural state. Resolution P08-07 Master Case 07-225 Page 3 of 6 2. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The purpose of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance is to "protect and preserve oak trees in the City and to provide regulatory measures designed to accomplish this purpose" (UDC § 17.17.090(B)). As proposed, the oak tree preservation measures that are included with this project meet the purpose, spirit, and intent of the Oak Tree Ordinance. All oak trees will be preserved in place and permeable pavers will be used for the driveway and parking area under the oak tree canopy of the heritage oak, and special construction methods will be used to ensure that the tree is not injured in the development of the property. The remaining two oak trees will not be encroached upon. The City's Oak Tree Specialist supports the applicant's request. Upon completion, the property's oak inventory will remain intact. SECTION 4. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings (Section 17.80.030 of the Unified Development Code), the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of landform grading so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. The subject site is currently vacant. The proposed project requires 10,476 cubic yards of grading, with 117 cubic yards of export to create a driveway and a buildable residential pad for a single family home and detached garage on 3.33 acres. The site has an average cross slope of 19.55%, therefore requiring hillside development review. Minor landform changes are proposed as part of this application and finished grading design will blend in with the natural topography existing on the subject property. Portions of the natural vegetation will be maintained including the three oak trees: Therefore, the natural topographic features and character will be preserved on site. b. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent possible. ' There are no significant topographic features on the project site as identified in the City's General Plan. Minor landform changes are proposed and finished grading design will blend in with the natural topography existing on the subject property. Therefore, the topographic features will be retained to the maximum extent possible. c. That clustered sites and buildings are utilized where such techniques can be demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservations of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmarkfeatures and are compatible with existing neighborhoods. No clustering is proposed with the project, and there are no prominent landmark features on the project site. The Director of Community Development has reviewed plans for the Resolution P08-07 Master Case 07-225 Page 4 of 6 residential structure, garage, and driveway for consistency with setbacks and height requirements. There are three existing oak trees located on the project site. The applicant submitted an Oak Tree Report, and the report concluded that one heritage oak tree is proposed to be encroached upon for the intent of constructing the driveway for future access to the subject property. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the oak tree encroachment with pavers and special construction methods under a certified arborist's direction. In addition, unaffected trees are required to have protective fencing around trees to prevent any impact during grading activities and construction of any structures. d. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized. The construction proposed and building pad location are consistent with the Hillside Ordinance, the surrounding properties, and the Sand Canyon Community. In addition, all proposed structures meet UDC standards for the RVL zone, such as setbacks and height, as well as meet building material and architectural design requirements as outlined in the Santa Clarita Architectural Guidelines. „e. That plant materials are conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation of prominent trees and, to the extent possible, reduce the maintenance cost to public and private property owners. The proposed grading is limited to areas on the project site that are needed for the driveway and for the building pad. All grading is proposed to be completed in a manner that will allow for the grading activities to blend into the natural topography. The applicant is proposing to keep most of the project site in a natural state and leave the vegetation undisturbed. In areas where grading is necessary and slopes are created, the applicant is proposing to plant and provide irrigation for native/drought resistant vegetation. There are three existing oak trees on site. All oak trees will remain and one will be encroached upon. The proposed oak tree encroachment is to allow for the grading of the driveway. Therefore, the project will preserve plant materials on site and will minimize visual effects of grading and construction. f. That curvilinear street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized. This project does not propose the construction of any public or private streets, only private driveways. The driveways are proposed in locations that allow for minimal disturbance to the site, and for the most direct access to the proposed residence. Resolution P08-07 Master Case 07-225 Page 5 of 6 g. That grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent properties utilized. All proposed grading will be contained on site. The proposed grading impacts will be limited to match the natural topography of the site and the Sand Canyon community. Therefore, no grading disruption will occur to adjacent properties. h. That site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around and proposed development are utilized. The proposed project would not damage any visual resources as identified in the City's General Plan or on the City's planning maps. The future home and accessory structure will be constructed on the newly created pad and will be subject to the City's standards. The aesthetic details, including the site's architectural and landscape plans are subject to the City's review. Additionally, the project site is in an area planned for residential development. Residential developments are located on all sides of the project site. The project would not damage or impact any view corridors and scenic vistas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, California: Adopt Resolution P08-07, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and approving Master Case No. 07-225, Hillside Review 07-011 and Oak Tree Permit 08-004, for the grading of a buildable pad for the construction of a single family home and detached garage subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). Resolution P08-07 Master Case 07-225 Page 6 of 6 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. CHAIRPERSON BERGER PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: LISA M. HARDY, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Lisa M. Hardy, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1st day of April, 2008, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY S \CD\CURREN N12007\07-225(HR07-011)\Plannmg CommissionWC07-225 Resolution doe JOSEPH M. COBERT A Profesunnal Carporanan 16027 Ventura Boulevard Suite 610 Encino, California 91436 (818)986-4200 Fax (818) 986-5584 March 24, 2008 VIA MESSENGER City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Master Case 07-225, Project Located at 26864 Sand Canyon Road APN 2841-002-085 and APN 2841-019-052 (the "Subject Property'); Project Applicants Rocky and Paige Herman (the "Hermans",) Dear Sirs and Madames: This office represents DAVID BAL• LARD ("DAVID") and MARISOL BALLARD ("MARISOL"), j ointly the `BALLARDS." MARISOL is the fee owner of the property at 26862 Sand Canyon Road in Santa Clarita (the "Ballard Property"). DAVID, her husband, resides with her there (along with their children). There is presently a private driveway which extends from Sand Canyon Road to and past the Ballard Property, serving the Subject Property as well as 26866 Sand Canyon Road (the "Ferling Property," owned by Lars and Janie Ferling, j ointly the "Ferlings"). A landslide occurring in January, 2008 and added sliding plus ongoing creep has caused that private driveway to become impassable. Certain photos depicting the situation are included herewith. The private driveway actually is situated partly on the Subject Property, partly on the Ballard Property and partly on the Ferling Property. Per recorded easement, the owners and occupants of (and invitees to) those three properties have reciprocal rights for access. The BALLARDS contend that the landslide was caused by unproper grading and other wrongful development activity on the land on the opposite side of the private driveway from the Ballard Property. That land is owned of record by William C. Cloyd and Jeanette M. Cloyd' and/or a limited liability company they formed known as T1 -ie Preserve in Sand Canyon, LLC. (collectively the "Cloyd Parties"). That land is part of a subdivision development known as Mandalay which the Cloyd Parties appear to be pursuing. Despite efforts to obtain cooperation from the others mentioned in this correspondence to remediate the dangerous condition the landslide and creep have produced, the BALLARDS have met with indifference and received no cooperation. The recommended solutions, both temporary and permanent, cannot be effected without going on the others' properties A -preliminary report from the BALLARDS' geologist, enclosed with this correspondence, so reveals. 'I am informed that Jeannette C. Cloyd actually may have passed away in the last few years. C•\ACTTVE\Ballard\r.etters\SantaClarttaPlammng 032408 wpd a' City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 2 Absent cooperation from those parties, the BALLARDS' only available recourse was and is litigation -- to obtain court-ordered assistance. A lawsuit was recently filed for that purpose. The Hermans were served with the Complaint and related papers in such lawsuit this past weekend, as were the Cloyd Parties. Copies have been out for service on the Ferlings. I heard today from counsel retained by the Ferlings, who may accept service for them. Another copy of the BALLARDS' Complaint is included herewith; and, as it indicates, there is already serious damage to the house and other nnprovements on the Ballard Property as well as to the private driveway. What bearing do this lawsuit and its issues have upon your evaluation of the Hermans' application? It is the BALLARDS' belief that, if the private driveway is not promptly repaired and if the Hermans are allowed to build on the Subject Property, the following risks (among others) will be created or heightened: even with primary access to the Subject Property coining from Mandalay Road, the presently impassable nature of the private driveway may prevent fire trucks from reaching or exiting the Subject Property should a conflagration occur near .the Mandalay Road access point; 2. with the private driveway impassable, there is a greater risk to the Ferling Properly as well as the Ballard Property should a fire start on the Subject Property; and if the private driveway is not fully repaired and the Subject Property is further graded or biult upon, that development activity could weaken even more (a) the compromised slope area adjacent to. the private driveway and/or (b) the private driveway itself. The BALLARDS do not wish to prevent the Hermans fiom quiet enjoyment of the Subject Property or from constructing a residence there as their "dream house." However, the BALLARDS do not want that development program to intensify the already precarious risks they face. The IIernans have thus far disregarded their statutory obligations to share in the cost of the repair of the private driveway, conduct for which they assuredly should not be rewarded by your allowing there to add to the risk exposures. Until the private driveway is properl + repaired and the slope areas stabilized the proiect you are considering should not be approved. Very truly yours, JOSEPI'�I4- BERT, prof s' o Co rati" Jqs ph Obert JMC:mlt Enclosures cc: David and Marisol Ballard CAACTIVE\Ball ard\Letters\SantaClarltaPl an nm; 032408 wpd COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT Land Development Unit - Fire Prevention Division 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, California 90040 IIFOPM' Phone (323) 890-0243, Fax (323) 890-4169 AT DATE: March 27. 2008 ATTENTION: PLANNING SECTION CITY: Santa Clarita SUBJECT: HR 07-011/ Master Case #07-225 LOCATION: Mandalay Road, east of Sand Canyon Road ❑ The Fire Department has no additional requirements for this permit. ❑ The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is _ gallons per minute at 20 psi for aduration of _ hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. _Hydrant(s) flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. ❑ Verity and/ or upgrade _ 6" X 4" X 2 1/2" public fire hydrants, conforming to AWWA Standard C503-75 or the approved equal. All installations must meet Fire Department specifications. The fire hydrant systems must be installed in accordance with the Utility Manual of Ordinance 7834 and all installations must be inspected and flow tested prior to final approval. ® Comments: Specific water system requirements will be set by the Santa Clarita Fire Prevention Office - Engineering Unit. ® Location: The fire hydrant location(s) will be set by the Santa Clarita Fire Prevention Office - Engineering Unit. ® Access: The Fire Department access is taken from where the home is addressed from. Provide a minimum unobstructive paved driveway width of 20 feet, clear -to -sky to be posted "No Parking - Fire Lane" to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of a building. An "approved" Fire Department turnaround is required. The maximum allowable grade shall not exceed 15 percent except where the topography makes impracticable to keep within such grade and then an absolute maximum of 20 percent will be allowed for up to 150 feet in distance. The average maximum allowed grade including topography difficulties shall be no more than 17 percent. Grade breaks shall not exceed 10 percent in 10 feet. ® Special This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Requirements: Zone" (formerly Fire Zone 4). A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted and approved prior to final map clearance. (Contact Fuel Modification Unit, Fire Station #32, 605 North Angeleno Avenue, Azusa, CA 91702- 2904. Phone (626) 969-5205, for details). Submit two complete set of architectural drawings to the Fire Prevention Engineerinq Section Building Plan Check Unit in Santa Clarita. Contact 661-286-8821 for additional information and submittal location. Provide the following information on the site plan: - Cross -hatch any on-site Fire Department vehicular access. - Show any existing fire hydrants within 300 feet of the lot frontage. - Show type of construction, occupancy classification, square footage of structure per floor and number of floors. - Indicate address of subject property. Submit the original copy of the fire flow availability form (Form 195) to the Fire Department's Santa Clarita Fire Prevention Office - Engineering Unit for review. Fire Protection facilities; including access, must be provided prior to and during construction. Should any questions arise regarding this matter, please feel free to call our office @ (323) 890-4243. Inspector: wally Collins cm CUP 9M 0hwest eotechnical. Inc. Consulting Engineers & Geologists 21704 West Golden Triangle Road Suite #425 Santa Clarita, California 91350 Tel: (661) 222-9544 Fax: (661) 222-9549 March 28, 2008 SGI #0609330-A1 Mr. Rocky Herman 15882 Condor Ridge Road Santa Clarita, California 91387 Subject: Existing Slope Failure, Private Access Road for 26862 Sand Canyon Road, APN 2841-019-051, City of Santa Clarita, California Dear Mr. Herman: Per your request, we visited the subject site on March 26, 2008 in order to observe a recent slope failure (slump) adjacent to and northerly of the existing driveway that extends easterly from Sand Canyon Road. The observed slope failure is up to approximately 50 feet in width (at its base), and is located on the north side of the current driveway entrance to the site (see the attached Site Plan for location). While the depth of this slope failure is currently unknown due to the presence of the overlying slumped debris still occupying the affected area, its head scarp and side scarps were observed to be approximately 6 feet to 7 -feet -high. While secondary access to the property where future grading is proposed would be hindered as the result of this slope failure, access to this area via the primary, route through Mandalay Road is unaffected. Although the main contributing factor associated with slope failures such as the one observed on the subject site is typically excessive amount of water locally saturating and weakening the substrate, the source of such water for this slope failure has not been determined at the time of our site visit, as the entire affected area was observed to be covered with plastic. It was, however, observed that the slope failure is in the immediate proximity to a landscaped area of the driveway entrance to the site (26862 Sand Canyon Road), where breakage in the irrigation system may be a possible source of water that resulted in the soil saturation. In any case, the observed slope failure appears to have occurred as the result of a localized condition associated with concentrated drainage of a large volume of water. SOUTHWEST GEOTECHNICAL. INC. * SIGN 0609330 A-1 * 03/28/08 The affected area is situated approximately 300 feet to the west of the nearest limits of proposed grading at 26864 Sand Canyon Road. Based on the significant distance between the affected area and the area of the proposed grading, it is our professional opinion that there is no factual basis to assert that anticipated amount of ground movement resulting from typical heavy-duty grading equipment will have an adverse impact on the affected slope or its vicinity. Please do not hesitate to contact us, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the findings presented herein. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHWEST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Johan Pae Engineering Geologist CEG #2302 JP/CC/MJS SS HERMAN 0609330 SLOPE FAILURE DOC Attachments: Site Plan 2 CHESTNUT BUILDING 24405 CHESTNUT STREET SUITE 207 NEWHALL, CALIFORNIA 91321-2852 City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES J. BRASH (661) 254-5100 (818) 704-7496 (626) 795-9272 FACSIMILE (661) 254-5771 May 12, 2008 CITY OF ',AWTA CLARITA 2000 MAY 12 P 4: 0 2 RECEIVED CITY CLERK&PfOQNCIE SADENA 30 NORTH RAYMOND SUITE 704 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103-3930 Re: Master Case 07-225; Project Located at 26864 Sand Canyon Road, APN 2841-002-085 and APN 2841-019-052 (the "Subject PropertZ Project Applicants Rocky and Paige Herman (the "Hermans") Dear Sirs and Madames: This office represents Rocky and Paige Herman (the "Hermans") in connection with a real property dispute involving the Hermans, who are trustees of the Rocky and Paige Herman 2001 Family Trust, the fee owner of the above referenced property (the "Herman property"). We have reviewed the March 24, 2008 and April 14, 2008 correspondence sent to you from Mr. Joseph M. Corbet who represents David and Marisol Ballard (the `Ballards"). Marisol Ballard is the fee owner of property which is located at 26862 Sand Canyon Road and which adjoins the Herman property. On April 1, 2008 the decision was made by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita approving the recommendation of the Planning Department and granting the Hermans' Project Application for the Herman property. The Ballards have submitted an appeal from this decision and are asking that you condition your approval of the Hermans' project application upon the' Hermans contributing to the repair of a private drive which serves the Ballard and Herman properties as well as the property located at 26866 Sand Canyon Road, which is owned by Lars and Janie Ferling (the "Ferling Property"). As you are aware, a lawsuit has been filed by the Ballards against the Hermans and others seeking recovery for damages to their property and contribution for repairs to the private drive. The Ballards contend that the private drive was damaged by a landslide which occurred in or about January 2008. They further contend that the landslide was cause by improper grading and other development activity on land which is located just across the private drive from the Ballard property and which is owned by William C. Cloyd and Jeanette M. Cloyd and/or The Preserve in Sand Canyon, LLC. (the "Cloyds"). Mr. and Mrs. Ballard allege that the Hermans bear some measure of responsibility to repair the damage allegedly caused by the slope failure. The Hermans adamantly deny responsibility for the claims which the Ballard have brought against them. Mr. and Mrs. Herman have filed a cross complaint against the Ballards and others within the pending litigation. Recently the Hermans' insurance company, Allstate Insurance Company, has agreed to defend their rights in the pending action. The Hermans' project, which will take place entirely upon their own property, will not affect the slope failure or the damaged portion of the private drive. To determine the potential impact of their proposed project upon these areas, the Hermans have retained the services of Southwest Geotechnical, Inc. Mr. John Pae, an engineering geologist with Southwest Geotechnical, Inc., has inspected the damaged area which is situated approximately 300 feet to the west of the nearest limits of proposed grading for the Hermans' project. Pursuant to his inspection, Mr. Pae has found that based on the significant distance between the affected area and the area of the proposed grading, there is no factual basis upon which to conclude that the anticipated amount of ground movement resulting from typical heavy-duty grading equipment will adversely impact the affected slope or its vicinity. The pending litigation does not bear upon the Hermans' right to proceed with their planned construction. It is undisputed that the Hermans did not cause the slope failure. The Ballards claims against the Hermans are directed toward whether the Hermans are responsible to contribute any monies for the resulting damage. This issue has yet to be litigated. It would be an unfair burden to require the Hermans to pay for any repairs until they have had an opportunity to fully litigate this matter. It would further be unfair to delay the Hermans' project application approval until the litigation has concluded. The Hermans have already incurred significant additional costs as a result of the delay caused by the Ballards' appeal. Based on the foregoing, the Hermans respectfully request that you affirm the decision made by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita on April 1, 2008 approving the recommendation of the Planning Department and granting the Hermans' project application for the subject property. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Please send all correspondence in this matter to our Newhall office. Very truly yours, CHARLES J. BRASH CJB:mss cc: Mr. and Mrs. Herman