Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 06 157 HAPPY VALLEY APPEAL (2)Agenda Item: "/;L - CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: James Chow DATE: April 28, 2009 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 06-157 - CONSIDERATION OF A FOUR -LOT SUBDIVISION, AS REVISED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AT 23327 8TH STREET IN THE HAPPY VALLEY COMMUNITY DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council conduct a public hearing on the revised and reduced project and adopt a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case No. 06-157 (Tentative Tract Map 67310, Oak Tree Permit 06-026), a request to subdivide one residential parcel into four residential parcels at 23327 8th Street, subject to the attached conditions of approval. FIXT411COXIIISIVEND On July 3, 2006, an application was submitted to the City with a request to subdivide one parcel into five parcels on the subject property located at 23327 8th Street. On April 15, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and in a 5-0 vote, directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the proposed five -lot subdivision. On June 3, 2008, the Planning Commission denied, without prejudice, the original request for a five -lot subdivision. Subsequently, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, who conducted a public hearing on the appeal on October 28, 2008 and directed the applicant to reduce the original project to include four single-family lots. The City Council continued the public hearing to a future date to consider a reduced project consisting of four lots with enhanced architecture and landscaping. PROJECT DESCRIPTION As revised, Master Case No. 06-157 consists of a request for a tentative tract map and oak tree permit to create four parcels on the subject property located at 23327 8th Street. The subject property consists of a single-family residence and detached garage, is approximately 43,807 square feet in area (1 acre), and is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The proposed subdivision would create one (1) standard key lot (lot fronting on a street) and three (3) flag lots (lots located behind key lots that utilize a flag strip for access). Proposed Parcel No. 1 is a standard key lot with a net lot size of 8,480 square feet. Proposed Parcels No. 2-4 are flag lots that would range from 6,657 square feet to 8,600 square feet in net lot area. Each of the proposed flag lots would share a common driveway and would have a required 10 -foot wide access strip connecting to 8th Street. The proposed parcels are contiguous to one another, and are bound by single-family residences to the north, east, and west, and 8th Street and single-family residences to the south. ANALYSIS Compliance with Development Standards The revised four -lot subdivision complies with the RS development standards related to maximum allowable density, minimum net lot area, lot widths, building height and property line setbacks. The future development and construction of single-family residences shall comply with the RS zone standards. The maximum allowable density for the subject property in the RS zone is five (5) dwelling units per gross acre. The applicant has reduced the size of the project from five lots to four, which is within the maximum units allowed. The net lot sizes of each lot has been increased and ranges from 6,657 to 8,600 square feet, which exceeds the minimum 5,000 square lot size requirement. As revised, setbacks of the proposed flag lots have been increased from the minimum of 10 feet to 13 feet and up to 26 feet. Proposed building heights would be two stories and 27'-10", which is less than the permitted height of 35 feet. Architecture and Landscaping In response to City Council direction and comments from the public, the applicant has revised the original architecture of the residences from a Mediterranean to a rustic architecture. The revised architecture of the residences consists of wood siding, rectangular shapes, and colors to complement the architecture of the surrounding Happy Valley neighborhood. In addition, the applicant has enhanced the landscaping and proposes a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees through the project site. As conditioned, the applicant would be required to plant trees along property lines to soften views from adjacent properties. Oak Tree Ordinance Pursuant to Section 17.17.090 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), the applicant requests an oak tree permit to encroach upon and prune four oaks. No oak trees are proposed to be removed with this subdivision. Per the direction of the City, the applicant has made revisions to the original site plan which include relocating the proposed driveway further away from the trunk of an oak as well as proposing permeable pavers over the root systems for two oak trees. The construction of the private driveway, drainage improvements, and grading would encroach into the protected zone and require pruning of four oak trees located on and adjacent to the subject property. Adherence to conditions of approval would ensure that impacts to these oaks would be minor. 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 06-157. In addition, the public notice was placed in a local newspaper and a sign was posted at the site. Environmental Review Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an initial study was prepared and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be completed for the proposed project. The Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were posted for public review at Santa Clarita City Hall and Los Angeles County Public Library, Valencia Branch. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT No negative fiscal impact is anticipated. Any cost associated with development of the proposed project would be paid in full by the applicant/appellant. ATTACHMENTS Resolution - Entitlement Resolution Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Tentative Tract Map, Site Plan/Landscape Plan, Elevation/Floor Plan, Oak Tree Plan City Council Agenda Report (October 28, 2008) available in the City Clerk's Reading File Planning Commission Staff Reports and Resolution available in the City Clerk's Reading File 3 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: 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, 1" Floor, Santa Clarita, California, on April 28, 2009, at or after 6:00 p.m. to consider a four -lot subdivision (Master Case No. 06-157), as revised by the City Council on October 28, 2008. The applicant, Norris Whitmore, is requesting approval of a proposal to subdivide one developed residential parcel, located at 23327 8th Street, into four residential parcels. As part of the reduced project, the applicant also requests an Oak Tree Permit (OTP) to allow the encroachment and/or pruning of four (4) oak trees. The project site is approximately 43,807 square feet (1 acre) in area and is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The applicant's original proposal to subdivide the subject lot into five residential parcels was denied by the Planning Commission on June 3, 2008. The applicant appealed,this decision to the City Council who considered the request on October 28, 2008 and directed the applicant to reduce the original project to include four single-family lots and enhance the architecture and landscaping to be consistent with that of the community. 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, James Chow, Associate Planner. Dated: March 26, 2009 Sharon L. Dawson, MMC City Clerk Publish Date: April 6, 2009 '34 RESOLUTION NO. 09- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING MASTER CASE NO. 06-157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 67310, OAK TREE PERMIT 06-026 AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE RESIDENTIAL PARCEL INTO FOUR RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23327 8TH STREET (APN: 2830-037-004) ZONED RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN), 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 July 3, 2006, an entitlement application was filed by Norris and Tori Whitmore (the "Applicant") with the Planning Division, which included the following requests: Tentative Tract Map 67310 to subdivide the subject property for future residential uses; and Oak Tree Permit (OTP06-026) to allow encroachment into the protected zone of two (2) off property oak trees and two (2) oak trees located on the subject property; b. On September 21, 2007, the applicant filed with the County Recorder, a Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment No. 06-007 for APNs 2830-037-012 and 2830-037-004 (the subject property); C. The subject property is located on at 23327 81h Street, Assessor Parcel Number 2830-037-004 (hereafter the "subject property"). The subject property is approximately 43,807 square feet in area (1 acre) and located on the north side of 8th Street, five parcels east of Valley Street in the Happy Valley neighborhood of the Newhall community, City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles; d. The General Plan land use designation and zoning classification of the subject property is RS (Residential Suburban); e. The surrounding land uses consist of single-family residences to the north, east, south, and west with a General Plan land use and zoning designation of RS (Residential Suburban); f. The project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project, which determined that the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the impacts associated with the project to a less than significant impact to the environment; g. The project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for a subdivision and oak tree permit on March 25, 2008 and the Planning Commission held a duly noticed �f Master Case No. 06-157 Page 2 of 9 public hearing on this issue on April 15, 2008. This public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; h. At the April 15, 2008, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and, in a 5-0 vote, directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the proposed five -lot subdivision, and continued the public hearing to June 3, 2008; At the June 3, 2008, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission, in a 4-0 vote (with one Commissioner being absent), denied, without prejudice, Master Case No. 06-157, a request to subdivide one residential parcel at 23327 8`h Street into five parcels; On June 17, 2008, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council; k. On October 28, 2008, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the original five -lot subdivision. In a 5-0 vote, the City Council directed the applicant to reduce the original project to include four single-family lots. The City Council continued the public hearing to a future date to consider a reduced project consisting of four lots with enhanced architecture and landscaping; The revised project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for a subdivision and oak tree permit on April 6, 2009 and the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on April 28, 2009. This public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; and in. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed; and 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; b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on March 25, 2008, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from March 25, 2008, through April 15, 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; 5 Master Case No. 06-157 Page 3 of 9 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 No. 06-157 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. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings (Section 17.03.030 of the Unified Development Code) for Tentative Tract Map 67310, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan, this Code, and/or any specific plan. The subject property maintains a General Plan land use designation of RS (Residential Suburban) with an implementing zoning classification of RS (Residential Suburban). As defined by the City's Unified Development Code, the RS zone "corresponds to the single- family detached tract home at a density of up to five and no tenths (5.0) dwelling units per gross acre. Additional uses are permitted that are complementary to, and can exist in harmony with, a residential neighborhood (Section 17.11.020.E)." The proposed project implements the policies and goals of the City's General Plan, more specifically, Policy 6.2 of the Land Use Element, which states, "Continue to provide for the development of new housing while ensuring that the character, scald, and density of new residential development is sensitive, compatible, and complimentary to existing residential neighborhoods; " and, Policy 6.3 of the Land Use Element, which states, "Provide for the retention and maintenance of existing residential neighborhoods, which are primarily developed with single-family homes and ensure that new development is compatible with and complementary to existing development in terms of scale, architecture, and density. " The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the residential parcels created would support the development and construction of four single-family residences, which would be complimentary to, support, and ensure compatibility with the existing surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. The proposed parcels are consistent with the surrounding parcels regarding the General Plan land use designation, zone classification, lot areas, and land uses. The future development of the parcels would be residential uses consistent with the scale of development in the surrounding neighborhood and will comply with the development standards as set forth in the Unified Development Code. b. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The subject property is zoned RS and is physically suited for the subdivision of one residential parcel into four residential parcels. The proposed subdivision will comply with the Di Master Case No. 06-157 Page 4 of 9 RS development standard requirements regarding density, minimum gross lot area, and minimum net lot areas and widths. Future construction and development of single-family residences for the subject parcels shall comply with the Unified Development Code development standards pursuant to the RS zone at the time of building permit approval. Site preparation for TTM 67310 includes grading, drainage, and street improvements. There are no physical constraints on the site which would prohibit the creation of four parcels. The four parcels created by this map will range in net lot size from 6,657 square feet to 8,600 square feet. The minimum net lot size in the RS zone is 5,000 square feet. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. TTM 67310 proposes the subdivision of one residential parcel into four residential parcels and would comply with the City's development standards for residential development in the RS zone regarding maximum allowable density, minimum gross and net lot area, lot widths, property line setbacks, existing services, and improvements surrounding the site. The project site is located in the Happy Valley neighborhood of Newhall and is flat in topography and is not located on or near a hillside. The proposed subdivision consists of one (1) key lot and three (3) flag lots off of 81h Street, which is consistent with other flag lot subdivisions on adjacent 8th Street and Valley Street and throughout the Happy Valley neighborhood. d. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project and concluded the design of the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and/or wildlife species or their habitat. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies project mitigation measures regarding Biological Resources. All potential impacts related to biological resources are reduced to a level of less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the development surrounding the subject property and will not cause serious health problems with the proposed development. The proposed subdivision will not introduce hazardous material or other harmful substances on the subject property that will create health problems with the proposed project. All future improvements shall be required to meet all necessary development standards and building and safety codes at time of formal submittal. Future structures built on the proposed parcels would meet UDC standards, such as setbacks, height, etc. All potential impacts related to biological resources are reduced to a level of less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, the Master Case No. 06-157 Page 5 of 9 proposed tentative tract map will not cause serious health problems. f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The submitted tentative tract map proposes to subdivide one residential parcel into four residential parcels and will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Currently, there are two easements of record that traverse the subject property, more specifically proposed Parcel No. 4. These include an easement to Los Angeles County Flood Control District and an easement to Los Angeles County for sanitary sewer purposes. The proposed subdivision would not conflict with these easements as the proposed building pad location on Parcel No. 4 would not be located over or encroach onto these easements. In addition, prior to recordation of the final tract map, reciprocal ingress/egress, utility, landscape and common area easements within the proposed subdivision shall be granted to all property owners and maintained by the HOA. SECTION 4. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health, balance or structure. No oak trees are proposed to be removed with this subdivision. Pursuant to Section 17.17.090 of the Unified Development Code, the City of Santa Clarita requires the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees. The policy shall apply to the removal, pruning, cutting and/or encroachment into the protected zone of oak trees. There are two native oak trees (Coast Live Oak) on-site with two native oak trees located on adjacent properties to the west and to the north. Encroachment impacts into the protected zone and minor -pruning of these four oak trees located on or adjacent to the subject property are a result of proposed roadway and grading as identified in the Oak Tree Report for TTM 67310 prepared by Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC. Mitigation measures are identified in the Oak Tree Report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project and concluded the design of the subdivision and the roadway and drainage construction will not cause environmental damage to the oak trees and existing vegetation on the subject property. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies project mitigation measures regarding the oak trees located on the subject property. All potential impacts related to the oak trees are Master Case No. 06-157 Page 6 of 9 reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. The condition of the trees) with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing lots, pedestrian walkways or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project and concluded the design of the subdivision and the roadway construction will not cause environmental damage to the oak trees and existing vegetation on the subject property. At the time of project submittal, Oak Tree No. 73 was identified as an oak removal. As directed by the City, the applicant has revised the proposed driveway to be five feet further away from the trunk of Oak Tree No. 73, thereby eliminating any safety concerns and preserving the oak tree. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies project mitigation measures regarding the oak trees located on the subject property. All potential impacts related to the oak trees are reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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. No oak trees are proposed to be removed with this subdivision. Encroachment impacts into the protected zone of four oak trees located on or adjacent to the subject property are a result of proposed driveway, grading and drainage construction as identified in the Oak Tree Report for TTM 67310 prepared by Jan C. Scow, Consulting Arborists, LLC. Mitigation measures are identified in the Oak Tree Report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project and concluded the design of the subdivision and the roadway construction will not cause environmental damage to the oak trees and existing vegetation on the subject property. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies project mitigation measures regarding the oak trees located on the subject property. All potential impacts related to the oak trees are reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. d. 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. No oak trees are proposed to be removed with this subdivision. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project and concluded the design of the subdivision and the driveway construction will not cause environmental damage to the oak trees and existing vegetation on the subject property. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies project mitigation measures regarding the oak trees located on the subject property. Master Case No. 06-157 Page 7 of 9 All potential impacts related to the oak trees are reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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. e. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one or more of the above findings are made and the decision maker also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would prevent any reasonable development of the property and that no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property. It shall further be found that the removal of such heritage oak tree will not be unreasonably detrimental to the community and surrounding area. No oak trees are proposed to be removed with this subdivision. There are four native oak trees on-site or adjacent to the subject property. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project and concluded the design of the subdivision and the driveway construction will not cause environmental damage to the oak trees and existing vegetation on the subject property. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies project mitigation measures regarding the oak trees located on the subject property. All potential impacts related to the oak trees are reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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. SECTION 5. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan, including the land use designation for the project site of Residential Suburban (RS), subject to approval of the entitlements. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby approves Master Case 06-157 consisting of Tentative Tract Map 67310 and Oak Tree Permit 06-026 for the subdivision of one residential parcel into four parcels and adopts the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the conditions of approval as referenced herein as Exhibit A. SECTION 7. This resolution will take effect upon the adjournment of the City Council's April 28, 2009, City Council meeting. SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. /o Master Case No. 06-157 Page 8 of 9 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2009. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK SACMCURRENT\!2006\06-157 (TTM, OTP)\City Council\Approval - 4.28.09\06-157 CC.Resolution 09- - 4.28.09.doc Master Case No. 06-157 Page 9 of 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, MMC, 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 , 2009, by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK /a EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION 09-_ MASTER CASE 06-157 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 67310 OAK TREE PERMIT 06-026 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GCL The approval of this project shall expire if the Tract Map is not recorded within two (2) years from the date of conditional approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than sixty (60) days prior to expiration. GC3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Director of Community Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the status of the developer, within thirty (30) days of said change. GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other 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, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Project by the City, which action is provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or 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 of the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. GCS. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. GC6. The applicant and property owner shall comply with all inspection requirements as deemed necessary by the City of Santa Clarita. 13 Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 15 GC7. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval 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, Zoning Ordinance, Under grounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Ordinance and Fire Code. GCB. The applicant must sign and notarize the attached affidavit to confirm acceptance of the conditions of this grant. The notarized affidavit must then be returned to the Planning Division before approval is granted. GC9. The applicant is responsible for the underground placement of utilities for future development of the subject properties and repair of all damages to public improvements in the public right-of-way resulting from construction -related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or from the site. GC 10. 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 proceeding to revoke this approval. PLANNING DIVISION PL1. All Final Maps shall be in substantial conformance with the tentative tract map approved by the City Council on April 28, 2009. PL2. The applicant shall be in conformance with the conditions of approval and all mitigation measures as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Master Case No. 06-157, as approved by the City Council on April 28, 2009. PL3. This approval shall not supersede the approval of any other affected agencies requirements. PL4. The applicant and property owner shall' comply with all inspection requirements as deemed necessary by the City of Santa Clarita. PLS. All requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and of the implementing zone classification of RS (Residential Suburban) for the subject property must be complied with unless set forth in the permit and/or shown on the tentative map. PL6. The applicant shall provide a minimum net lot area of 5,000 square feet required for parcel subdivision within the RS (Residential Suburban) zone. PL7. The applicant shall provide a minimum lot width of ten (10) feet for the access strip of each proposed flag lot, where the strip is situated contiguous to other such access strips. The proposed common driveway shall be at least 26 feet in width, as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. ) q Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 15 PL8. The applicant shall provide a minimum lot width of fifty (50) feet for proposed Lot 1, pursuant to Section 17.15.010 of the UDC for the RS zone. PL9. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall record a reciprocal access and maintenance agreement and reciprocal access easement for all shared driveways and drive aisles within the project site. PL10. Pursuant to Section 17.15.020 of the Unified Development Code, the applicant shall adhere to the minimum building setback requirement for the proposed flag lots. PL11. The applicant shall be required to maintain a twenty (20) foot front yard setback, five (5) foot side yard setback, and fifteen (15) foot rear yard setback for the proposed key lot, Parcel 1. PL12. The applicant shall comply with all applicable regulations and fees of affected agencies at the building permit stage, including Los Angeles County Fire Department fees. PL13. No residential construction is approved with this application. Prior to issuance of building permits, the future development and construction of single-family residences shall comply with the subject property's implementing zone at the time of building permit approval. Individual site plans, floor plans, and elevation plans for each parcel to be developed with one single-family residence shall be submitted separately for review by the Planning Division. PL14. The maximum height of any future residential structures shall not exceed 35 feet or two stories. Structures exceeding 35 feet or two stories shall require approval of a conditional use permit. PL15. Power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV shall be installed underground pursuant to Section 17.15.020 of the UDC. PL16. The applicant is subject to pay the Library Fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance for the proposed project at the time of map recordation. PL17. All construction related work shall comply with Chapter 11.44 Noise Limits of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. Section 11.44.080 of the Municipal Code, which limits construction -building between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. No work shall be performed on the following public holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day and Labor Day. PL18. The applicant and their contractors shall comply with all recommendations and mitigation measures set forth in the Oak Tree Report and Addendum for TTM 67310 prepared by Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC dated May 25, 2006 and August 28, 2006 unless waived by the City Oak Tree Specialist. 15 Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 15 PL19. The subject property shall be developed in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, the Subdivision Code, City codes and other applicable ordinances at the time of approval. PL20. Upon approval of the tentative tract map, the property owner(s) shall develop the parcel(s) in accordance with the development standards identified in the City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code. Landscape Conditions PL21. Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), the applicant shall provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans for Planning Department/Landscape Review Consultant review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect who is familiar with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (USDA Zone 9a, Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 200 to 30° F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105° F to 110° F). PL22. The applicant shall be required to provide a minimum of fifty (50) trees per gross acre as part of the landscaping requirement. A minimum of thirty percent of the. trees shall be 24 -inch box size or larger and up to seventy percent may be 15 -gallon size or larger. PL23. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate plant material that is complementary to the natural landscape and environmental conditions of the Santa Clarita Valley. Minimizing the use of common and over planted landscape plants such as Agapanthus spp., Rhaphiolepis spp. , Photinia spp., Phormium tenax, and Dietes spp. will help promote a strong sense of place and identity for your project. This is in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita's Landscape Development Guidelines stating that "planting design shall develop a landscape character that supports and strengthens the landscape image of the City of Santa Clarita as a unique identifiable place as well as the individual development project". PL24. Required Landscape Plan Elements. Landscape plans shall contain all elements required by the Development Review checklist for preliminary landscape plans, shall be materially similar to those approved by the Director, Planning Commission and/or City Council, and shall conform to the following: i. Landscape plans shall show at least one minimum 15 -gallon or 24" box tree in the required front yard of each single-family residence (Municipal Code/Unified Development Code § § 17.15.020(A)(3);17.15.020 (D)(1-3)). ii. Landscape plans shall show front yard landscaping if front yards will be maintained by a homeowners' association. iii. Prior to the recordation of an applicable final tract/parcel map, a homeowner's association (HOA) shall be formed to have responsibility and authority for all maintenance, including but not limited to landscaping, irrigation, slopes and drainage devices. I� Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 15 iv. The plant palette shall not include any plants listed as invasive exotic pest plants by the California Invasive Plant Council (lists available at http://groups.ucanr.org/ceppc/), or other plants determined to' be invasive by a competent botanist or biologist. V. Trees visible from the property's public street frontage and/or in the property's street -facing common area for a residential project shall be a minimum 24" box size, and shall include a proportionate number of 36," 48," and 60" box -size specimens (Santa Clarita Architectural Design Guidelines, adopted December 2002). vi. Landscape plans shall show plant material to screen at maturity all trash enclosures, transformer boxes, vault boxes, backflow devices, and other exterior mechanical equipment. Screening material may include trees, shrubs (15 gallon minimum size), clinging vines, etc. Masonry block (concrete masonry unit) trash enclosures shall be screened with both shrubs and clinging vines (Municipal Code § § 17.15.040(B)(1-4). vii. The applicant shall design all irrigation systems for water conservation. viii. The applicant shall place water -conserving mulching material on all exposed soil in planting areas not covered by turfgrass. Mulching material may include, and is not limited to, shredded bark, river rock, crushed rock, pea gravel, etc., and must be at least three (3) inches deep. ix. Trees planted within fourteen (14) feet of the paved road section along Eighth Street shall conform to Municipal Code § 13.76.110 et seq (Parkway Tree Influence Area) and City Ordinance 92-38 (Parkway Influence Area). The property owner/manager/homeowners' association shall irrigate and maintain these trees according to City standards. X. Trees planted within City right-of-way shall conform to Municipal Code § 13.76 et seq (Parkway Trees). xi. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install all proposed irrigation . and landscaping, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Community Development. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection. xii. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development a letter from the project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation have been installed and function according to the approved landscape plans. ENGINEERING GENERAL REQUIREMENTS — MAPPING EN 1. 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. I7 Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 15 EN2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file with the County Recorder a map prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in the State of California. The map must be reviewed and approved the City Engineer. The applicant shall note all offers of dedication by certificate on the face of the map. The applicant shall pay a deposit as required to review documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 16.26.060 of the Unified Development Code. EN3. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall record a covenant of easement for reciprocal access on the shared driveway, as directed by the City Engineer. EN4. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall label driveways as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the map, as directed by the City Engineer. ENS. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall remove existing structures. EN6. At map check submittal, the applicant shall provide a preliminary subdivision map guarantee. A final subdivision map guarantee is required prior to final map approval. ENT Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall establish a Home Owners' Association (HOA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices not transferable to the County Flood Control District. EN8. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and the City Attorney for Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this development. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the City Attorney's review and approval fee. The CC&Rs ' shall include a disclosure to comply with the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report for restrictions on watering, irrigation, and planting, and recommend types of plants. EN9. Prior to final map approval, the applicant is tentatively required to grant easements on the final map. The easements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. EN10. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall provide a Will Serve Letter stating that Community Antenna Television service (CATV) will be provided to this project. EN 11. 'Prior to occupancy, the applicant is required to install distribution lines and individual service lines for Community Antenna Television service (CATV) for all new development. GRADING, DRAINAGE & GEOLOGY REQUIREMENTS EN12. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent with the approved tentative map, oak tree report (if applicable) 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. Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 15 EN13. The site plan indicates an import of 392 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. EN14. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements for the dirt hauling operation: a) Obtain an encroachment permit for the work. b) The hours of operation shall be between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm. e) 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. d) Provide traffic control and flagging personnel along the haul route to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN15. 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. EN 16. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission -for grading over all easements. EN17. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading outside of the property lines/tract boundary from the adjacent property owner(s). EN18. The site plan shows connection of the on-site storm drain system to a public storm drain system. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant shall obtain approval from Los Angeles County Flood Control District for the connection. EN19. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall indicate by note on the map, that lot owners are prohibited from interfering with the established drainage and from erecting concrete block walls or similar solid constructions, except as approved by the City Engineer. STREET IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS EN20. All streets shall be designed in accordance with the City's Unified Development Code and street design criteria; construction shall be completed prior to occupancy. EN21. 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 tentative map, oak tree report and conditions of approval and obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Division. l9 Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 15 EN22. 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. EN23. Prior to the final map being filed with the County Recorder, the applicant shall not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements; unless subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative map approval, subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final map. EN24. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall construct the following street improvements along the frontage of the project site, as directed by the City Engineer: Street Inverted Base & Street Street Sidewal Landscape Name Shoulde paving Lights Trees (5'min) Median 8` Street X X X EN25. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install mailboxes and posts in accordance with U.S. Postal Service standards and secure approval from the Postal Service prior to installation. EN26. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall refurbish the half section of pavement on 81h Street along the frontage of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. SEWER IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS EN27. The on-site sewer shall be a publicly maintained sewer. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate all necessary sewer easements. The sewer plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the City Engineer. EN28. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall send a print of the land division map to the County Sanitation District with the request for annexation in writing. EN29. Prior to sewer plan approval, the applicant shall provide a sewer area study in accordance with City policies for review and approval by the City Engineer. EN30. Prior to first occupancy, the applicant shall construct all sewer upgrades per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct main -line sewers with separate laterals to serve each lot/parcel. Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 15 BONDS, FEES AND MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS EN32. Prior to issuance of encroachment permits for public improvements (Street, Sewer, Storm Drain, Water), the applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer, shall guarantee installation of the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. Occupancy shall be withheld if the improvements are not completed. EN33. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the highway element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. This project is located in the Via Princessa B&T District. The current rate for this District is $17,430. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. The B&T Fee shall be calculated as follows: Single family = the number of units (4), times the district rate ($17,430); which is equal to $69,720.00 until June 30, 2009. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TE 1. Adequate sight visibility is required at all intersections (street -street intersections or street -driveway intersections) and shall follow the latest Caltrans manual for applicable requirements. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE2. Access shall intersect with 8`" Street at 90 degrees or as close to 90 degrees as topography permits (no less than 80 degrees). This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE3. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall post "No Parking— Fire Lane" signs along all private roads/driveways with a curb -to -curb width of less than 34 feet. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE4. Minimum width of all interior two-way driveways shall be 26 feet and shall be shown on all applicable, plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TES. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the L.A. County Fire Department for the private road/driveway sections. TE6. The location, width and depth of all project access roads/driveways shall conform to the approved site plan. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. No additional access roads/driveways shall be permitted. ai Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 15 BUILDING AND SAFETY GENERAL COMMENTS 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. 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 submitted plans shall include architectural and structural plans, structural and energy calculations, soil/geology report, truss drawings and calcs, etc. BS3. A complete soils and geology report will be required for the project. The report shall be formally submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. BS4. Prior to issuance of building permits: rough grading and/or recompaction shall be completed; a final compaction report and rough grading or pad certification shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division. BSS. The building(s) requires connection to a public sewer. BS6. DWV and on-site sewer lines and laterals shall have a minimum 2% slope per CPC. Set your pads accordingly. BST All utilities for a lot shall remain within their easement when connected to the street utilities. BSB. Prior to issuance of building permits, additional clearances from agencies shall be required from: a. William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district, b. Castaic Lake Water Agency, c. L. A. County Sanitation District, An agency referral list is available at the Building and Safety public counter. BS9. Prior to submitting plans to Building and Safety, the applicant shall contact Deanna Hamrick, (661) 255-4935, for addresses. An application, site plan and floor plan will be required. BS 10. The Building and Safety Division is scanning plans for permanent storage. The applicant shall incorporate the following information into the plans: as Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 15 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. e. The Recommendation Section of the Soils Report. BS 11. A thorough review of plans shall be performed and specific comments will be generated when the final plans are submitted to Building and Safety. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FDI. Access shall comply with Section 902 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving. FD2. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. FD3. Where driveways extend further than 150 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over 150 feet in length. FD4 Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Firelane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted prior to construction. FDS. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted prior to construction. FD6. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers. FD7. As noted on the tentative tract map, the applicant shall provide a minimum unobstructed driveway width of 26 feet, clear -to -sky, to be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane". The turnaround is required to be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane". FD8. The applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on map which shall be recorded. I� Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 15 FD9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 1500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above the maximum daily domestic demand. Two hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. FD 10. The applicant shall comply with the fire hydrant requirements as follows: ❑ Upgrade/verify 1 existing public fire hydrant. FD 11. All hydrants shall measure 6"x 4"x 2 ''/z" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All on-site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two hour rated firewall. ❑ Location: As per map on file with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department FD 12. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to final map approval. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. FD 13. Upgrade is not necessary if existing hydrants meet fire flow requirements. FD14. The applicant shall provide an additional three (3) copies of the tract map for fire hydrant locations to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit. The applicant shall submit the original copy of the fire flow availability for (Form 195) to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for review. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ESI. All single family residential dwellings shall be designed with space provided for three 90 -gallon trash bins. ES2. All demolition and renovation projects valuated greater than $100,000 must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. ES3. If the project is valuated above $100,000 the applicant shall: a) Divert a minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 50% of the remaining C&D materials. b) Have a Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining permits. c) 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. ES4. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's 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. 0� Y Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 15 PARKS AND RECREATION PR 1. Prior to the recordation of an applicable final tract/parcel map, the applicant shall pay the required Park Dedication Fee equal to the value of the amount of land established per the City's General Plan, "Parks and Recreation Element." The applicant shall be required to provide a certified MAI real estate appraisal to establish the fair market value (FMV) of an acre of land within this project. TRANSIT TRI. The Transit Impact Fee does apply. Currently the fee is $200 per residential unit. The applicant is advised that the fee is currently under revision. The fee in place at the time of issuance of building permits shall be paid. URBAN FORESTRY UF1. The applicant and their contractors are permitted to encroach into the protected zone of (3) three Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees to allow for the installation of a new driveway necessary to provide access to four new single family residences. UF2. The applicant and their contractors shall be in compliance with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times throughout the said project. Failure to comply shall result in the immediate issuance of a Stop All Work Notice until all non compliant issues have been corrected. UF3. The applicant and their contractors shall adhere to all recommendations set forth in the applicant's oak tree report prepared by Jan Scow dated May 25, 2006, the addendum to the original report dated August 28, 2006 and any/all recommendations issued on site during construction monitoring by the project arborist or a qualified associate. Failure to comply shall result in the immediate issuance of a Stop All Work Notice until all recommendations have been properly addressed. UF4. The applicant shall be required to install temporary chain link protective fencing around the protected zone of oak tree numbers 73, 74 and OP -3 during demolition of existing structures and grading. The protective fencing shall remain in the upright position at all times until the applicant is ready to begin the fine grading and installation of the proposed driveway. At this time the applicant shall contact the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist for permission to relocate the fence to allow for the installation of the driveway. UFS. The protective fencing shall include one protective fencing sign installed near the center which reads "THIS FENCE IS FOR THE PRESERVTION AND PROTECTION OF THESE TREES AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT". � 5 Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 15 UF6. Prior to the start of construction,' the applicant shall contact the City Oak Tree Specialist for a preconstruction meeting with the contractor(s) and project arborist to review the Conditions of Approval. At this time the protective fencing may be inspected for approval. UFT The applicant shall be required to install permeable landscape pavers throughout the protected zone of oak tree numbers 73, 74 and OP -3 as detailed in the applicant's site plan. Base material shall consist of approved sand and gravel without the use of any bonding agent such as mortar or concrete. Aeration tubes which allow for the natural exchange of gasses from the trees root system and air and water to reach the oak trees root system shall be installed throughout the pavers and spaced at a minimum distance of five (5') feet on center and not exceeding seven (7') feet on center. Drain pipes shall be a minimum 3" diameter perforated drain pipe back-filled with 3/4 inch gravel and wrapped with a permeable landscape fabric. Grates shall be approved for heavy vehicles. UF8. The proposed driveway shall be installed at a minimum of 10' feet from the outer edge of the trunk on oak tree numbers 74 and OP -3 and a minimum of 5' feet from the edge of number 73 as indicated in the applicant's oak tree report. UF9. No landscaping shall be permitted below the canopy of oak tree number 73, 74 and OP -3. Upon completion of the driveway, a 3" to 4" inch layer of natural woodchips (mulch) shall be applied below the canopy of the oak trees between the edge of the driveway and the property line. Landscaping may begin outside the edge of the drip line. UF 10. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan which addresses condition number #9 and all landscape recommendations issued by the applicant's project arborist. OF 11. All grading , excavation and construction which takes place within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be completed by hand and monitored by the applicant's project arborist at all times. The applicant shall be required to submit daily monitoring reports prepared by the project arborist at the end of each week to the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist. Monitoring reports shall include documentation and photos of all work which has taken place within the protected zone during the designated week. Reports may be submitted electronically through e-mail. UF12. All roots encountered that are 2" inches in diameter or larger shall be preserved at all times unless waived by the City Oak Tree Specialist. Any root approved for removal or cutting shall be performed by or monitored by the applicant's project arborist (AOR). Any root that is exposed during construction shall be immediately wrapped in moistened layers of burlap to preserve the root during construction. Only proper pruning devices shall be used to prune or cut any oak tree root. OF 13. At no time shall the use of heavy equipment be permitted to enter the protected zone of any oak tree. The applicant shall install % inch sheets of plywood or another approved Resolution — Exhibit A Master Case Number 06-157 Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 15 anti -compaction devise below the canopy of the oak trees until the installation of the required pavers has been completed. UF14. At no time shall the storage of any tools, equipment, and construction or employee vehicles be permitted within the protected zone of an oak tree. UF 15. The applicant shall be required to raise trim the oak tree as needed to obtain the required clearance as needed for the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Clearance pruning shall not exceed 14 vertical feet unless waived by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist. The applicant shall obtain and submit to the City Oak tree Specialist written authorization from the property owner to trim any off site oak tree prior to beginning work. UF16. All pruning shall be completed by an approved ISA Certified Tree Trimming Contractor. All pruning shall be in accordance with the ISA Pruning Standards and the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) A-300 Companion Publication Best Management Practices Tree Pruning. UF17. The applicant shall be required to have a designated concrete rinse -out station for all cleansing of tools and equipment. The concrete rinse out station shall be staged at a minimum distance of 50 feet and down hill from the any oak tree. At no time shall any rinsing or cleansing of any tools equipment or vehicles or any other form of liquid contaminate be permitted to enter the protected zone of an oak tree. UF 18. The applicant shall be required to install a minimum of one parkway tree within the public right of way pending the removal of the existing 11" inch and 24" trees shown on the applicant's site plan. UF19. All trees planted within the public right of way shall be planted according to the City of Santa Clarita Tree Planting and Staking Detail Sheet. UF20. All tree planted within the public right of way shall meet the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Specification Guidelines for Container -Grown Landscape Trees. UF21. The applicant and/or their contractors shall not deviate from the scope.of work submitted to the City of Santa Clarita at any time throughout the said project. The Conditions of Approval herein have been prepared for the applicant based upon the information submitted by the applicant at time of submittal. These conditions do not authorize any other form of impact to any on site or off site oak trees not outlined in the proposed project. S:\CD\CURRENT\!2006\06-157 (TTM, OTP)\CITY COUNCIL\APPROVAL - 4.28.09\06-157 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.000NCI L. DRAFT �7 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA N.aTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .V [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: MC No. 06-157 I PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Tentative Tract Map 67310, Oak Tree Permit 06-026, Initial Study 06-013 APPLICANT: Norris Whitmore PO Box 55786 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 23327 8"' Street APN: 2830-037-012 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: This is a request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide an existing and.developed one -acre residential lot into five (5) single-family residential lots. The applicant also proposes an Oak Tree Permit to encroach on four (4) coast live oak trees. The subject site is located at 23327 8th Street and is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). A single family residence and detached garage exist on the project site. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures in order to subdivide the parcel. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [ ] City Council [X] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development fmds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [ ] Are Not Required [X] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached LISA M. HARDY, AICP PLANNING MANAGEF Prepared by: James Chow, Associate Planner (S1 I,,re )(Name/Title) Approved by: Jeff Hogan, AICP, Senior Planner ( u ) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From March 25, 2008 To April 15, 2008 Public Notice Given On March 25, 2008 [X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: S:\CD\CURRENT\!2006\06-157 (TTM, LLA, OTP)Tnvironmenta1\06-157 MND.doc Initial Study City of Santa Clarita Project Title/Master Case Number: Master Case Number 06-157 Tentative Tract Map 67310 Oak Tree Permit 06-026 Lead Agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact person and phone number: James Chow, Associate Planner 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (661) 255-4330 Project location: The subject property is located in the community of Newhall in the City of Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County, CA) on the north side of 81h Street, five parcels east of Valley Street. The subject property is located at 23327 8`h Street and is identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 2830-037-004. The subject property currently consists of one single family residence and is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). (Attachment, Vicinity Map) Applicant's name and address: Norris Whitmore PO Box 55786 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 General Plan designation: RS (Residential Suburban) Zoning: RS (Residential Suburban) Description of project and setting: This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and Oak Tree Permit. The applicant proposes to subdivide a developed single family parcel into five (5) single family parcels. As part of the project proposal, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing single family residence on the project site in order to subdivide the property and subsequently construct new single family residences. Pursuant to Chapter 16.25 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, the subject property requires approval of a tentative tract map (TTM) to allow the subdivision of one developed residential parcel approximately 43,575 square feet in area (1 acre) into five (5) residential parcels as permitted in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone. The parcel is accessed via 8`h Street. (Attachment: Site Plan). Construction of a shared private driveway providing access to the future residential lots would be located on the western portion of the subject property. The proposed private drive would encroach upon four oaks trees on or adjacent to the project site. Requested entitlements include the following: Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Paee 2 of 37 Tentative Tract Map (TTM 67310) is requested to subdivide the subject property into five (5) parcels. Pursuant to Title 16 Subdivisions, provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and any other regulations provided by law, the subdivision of land within the City of Santa Clarita requires the preparation of a subdivision tract map for five parcels or more and presented for approval to the Planning Commission. Oak Tree Permit (OTP06-026) is requested to analyze the potential impacts related to oak trees. Pursuant to Section 17.17.090 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), the City of Santa Clarita requires the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees. The policy shall apply to the removal, pruning, cutting and/or encroachment into the protected zone of oak trees. The project proposes to encroach on four oak trees with the proposed grading and construction of the private driveway. The project also proposes minor canopy pruning in order to provide clearance above the proposed private driveway. Proposed Parcels A total of five (5) parcels will be created as a part of the proposed tentative tract map. Subsequent to the subdivision of the project site, each of the newly created parcels would be developed with a single family residence. A shared private driveway would be constructed to access each of the proposed flag lots. The proposed parcels that would be created by this subdivision are as follows: Parcel No. 1 is a key lot, approximately 6,840 square feet in area and is bounded to the north by proposed Parcel No. 2, to the east by an existing single family residence, to the south by Bch street, and to the west by the proposed shared private driveway. No oak trees exist on parcel no. 1. The approval of TTM 67310 would allow the future construction of a single-family residence without further entitlements. The proposed preliminary elevation plan for the future residence limits the maximum height to less than the permitted -by -right height of 35 feet. The future development and construction of a single-family residence shall comply with the subject property's implementing zone (Residential Suburban) at the time of building permit approval. Parcels No. 2 through 5 that would be created by proposed TTM 67310, are flag lots that would range from 5,803 square feet to 9,525 square feet. Each of these 4 lots would share a common driveway, to be located on the western portion of the site, via a reciprocal access agreement. The proposed parcels are contiguous to one another, and are bound by a single family residence to the north and east, 8`h Street and single family residences to the south, and single family residences to the west. The approval of TTM 67310 would allow the future construction of single-family residences on parcel no. 2 through parcel no. 5 without further entitlements. The proposed preliminary elevation plans for the future residences would limit the maximum height to less than the permitted -by -right height of 35 feet. The future development and construction of single-family residences shall 2 Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Paee 3 of 37 comply with the subject property's implementing zone (Residential Suburban) at the time of building permit approval. Site Preparation Minimal grading of the site would be necessary to prepare the pads for the future single family residences and for the proposed private driveway. Up to 388 cubic yards of earth would be imported to the project site in order to prepare the future residential pads. Upon final map recordation, the project applicant may develop and/or sell the newly created parcels for the future development of single-family residences. The subject property maintains a relatively flat area throughout the entire site and gradually descends seven feet from the southerly property line to the northerly property line. Demolition of the existing structures The subject property is currently developed with a 1,900 square - foot single family residence and a detached garage located toward the front of the property. As a part of this project, the applicant proposes to remove all existing structures prior to approval of the final map. The applicant proposes to remove remaining debris on the project site, prior to the minor grading necessary to prepare the future residential pads. Oak Trees The subject property consists of two on-site oak trees (Oak #73 and #74), which are located along the western portion of the project site, and two off property oak trees (Oak #OP3, #OP2) located on the property to the west and north of the project site, respectively. An oak tree report and addendum to the original oak tree report prepared for the project identify two on-site oak trees, located on proposed Parcel No. 5 and two off -property oak trees. The original project proposed to remove Oak #73, as identified in the attached oak tree report and project site plan. As directed by the City, the applicant has revised the location of the proposed driveway to curve around the trunk of Oak #73. As such, Oak #73 can be saved with moderate impacts to its root system and survive without added safety concerns. Per the direction of the City, the applicant has also revised site plan to provide permeable pavers at the proposed driveway entrance, and within the canopies of Oaks #74 and #OP3. As such, this would minimize coverage over the root systems and allow water to seep through the driveway to the oaks. Proposed encroachment of Oak #OP2, which is located along the northerly property line, would occur during grading of the site. As indicated in the oak tree report, the encroachment of Oak #OP2 would be minor and would result in no or very minor root loss. The project also proposes the minor pruning of Oaks #74 and OP3 in order to provide the necessary clearance over the future driveway. As identified in the oak tree report and mitigation monitoring program, the applicant shall follow all mitigation measures and conduct all grading and pruning under the supervision of the project arborist. 3 Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 4 of 37 3a Setting The General Plan land used designation and zone classification for the subject property is RS. The subject property is located in the Happy Valley area of the Newhall community in an area that is comprised of predominantly single-family residences with properties ranging from 5,000 square feet to one acre in lot area. The area is generally rural and suburban in nature with oak trees throughout the community. The project site is accessible via 8`h Street, a roadway without curbs and sidewalks. The project site is located in an area that consists of both typical key lots and various flag lots. Surrounding land uses: The subject property and the surrounding parcels maintain a General Plan land use designation and an implementing zoning classification of RS (Residential Suburban). The subject property is surrounded by the following zones and land uses: North RS zone with single-family residential homes. East RS zone with single-family residential homes. South RS zone with single family residential homes. West RS zone with single-family residential homes. Other public agencies whose Los Angeles County Fire Department approval is required: 3a Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 5 of 37 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 [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] Hydrology / Water Quality [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Public Services [ ] Utilities / Service Systems B. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: J [ ] Noise [ ] Recreation [ ] Air Quality [ ] Geology /Soils [ ] Land Use / Planning [ ] Population / Housing [ ] Transportation/Traffic [X] Mandatory Findings of Significance [ ] 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. J$ff lAogan, AIBP, Planner Planner 5 5 /--,?- -6/, Date Date Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 6 of 37 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but 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 [ ] [ ] [] [X] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] IN 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] IN their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? d) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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? 6 3�f Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 7 of 37 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation c) Result in 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 concentrations? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] people? f) Other [ ] [ ] [.] [X] 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, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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 Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA [ ] [ ] [ ] IN Delineation Map? h) Other _ [ ] [ ] [ ] IN ° 35 Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 8 of 37 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: r Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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 '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] formal cemeteries? e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 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 site? 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, ns defined in Table 18-1-B of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers .are not available for the disposal of wastewater? d 3� Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 9 of 37 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation f) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10 percent [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] natural grade? i) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] or physical feature? j) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the. environment [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile,of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 10 of 37 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? j) Other Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] [] [X] I VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge [ ] requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [ ] substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or [ ] area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, or [ ] area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the [ ] capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ] g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on [ ] a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which [ ] would impede or redirect flood flows? 10 I [X] I [X] Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 11 of 37 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 mudflow? [ ] [ ] [ ] [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, [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] velocity or volume of storm water runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] erosion 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (including a low-income or minority community)? Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 12 of 37 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or [ ] [] [] [X] regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation 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 ground [ ] borne vibration or ground borne 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? 0 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? [] [X] [] I [X] [] I [X] [] Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 13 of 37 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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] (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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 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? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] ii) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] iii) Schools? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] iv) Parks? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] XIV. RECREATION - Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 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)? 13 Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 14 of 37 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Exceed, either individually of cumulatively, a level of service [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] g) Conflict with adopted policies plans, or programs supporting [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or -expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? r. 14 �f� Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 15 of 37 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] [] [] [Xl a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] 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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 16 of 37 D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS: Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts I. AESTHETICS a.) No Impact: The project site is located in the Happy Valley neighborhood within the Newhall community with street frontage on 8`h Street. The subject property is zoned RS zone and is surrounded to the north, east, south, and west by single-family residences. There are no scenic vistas on or around the project site that would be impacted with this subdivision. Therefore, no impact to scenic vistas will occur as a result of this project. b.) No Impact: The project site is not within the view shed of a scenic highway that would be disturbed with this project. Therefore, no impact will occur as a result of this project. c.) Less Than Significant Impact: The application is to create residential parcels consistent in size with the surrounding neighborhood zoned RS. Properties within the Happy Valley neighborhood range between 5,000 square feet to 1 acre in lot size. Future development of the parcels would consist of detached single-family residences consistent with the existing use of the neighborhood. Typical of this neighborhood are single -story and two-story homes up to 35 feet in height. There are no distinguishing visual characteristics on the project site that would be impacted with this application. The proposal would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings as the proposal is to create five parcels consistent with the land use designation. Minor grading is necessary to create the pads for the future homes. The proposed finished floors of each of these pads would be consistent with the existing grades on the property. The future development and construction of single-family residences shall comply with the implementing zone at time of building permit approval. Therefore, the impacts are considered less than significant as a result of this project. d.) Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes to subdivide one developed residential parcel into five residential parcels consistent with the existing land use and zoning designation. Upon future construction of single- family residences, there will be residential lighting sources as a result of single- family residential uses due to the fact that there would be a net increase of four residences. However, the future construction of detached single-family residences would be consistent with the neighborhood, thus creating a less than significant new source of light that would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Lighting will comply with the similar neighboring residences. Therefore, the impacts are considered less than significant as a result of this project. e.) Other: The project would not cause any other impacts related to aesthetics. No further analysis is necessary. II. AGRICULTURE a, b, c.) No Impact: According to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and RESOURCES Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation, the project site does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance. In addition, no conflict to the Williamson Act contract will occur due to the fact that no portion of the site is within an agricultural zone. The project will not cause any changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use because the site is not located in or adjacent to any agricultural land. The project will have no impact on agricultural resources and no further environmental review is necessary. 16 Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 17 of 37 d.) Other: The project would not cause any other impacts related to agricultural resources. No further analysis is necessary. III. AIR QUALITY a.) No Impact: The creation of five parcels will not conflict with applicable air quality plans. The General Plan identifies this area as RS (Residential Suburban) and the proposed residential subdivision use is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Since the proposed project is consistent with the site's existing land use designations, the project is accommodated for in the Air Quality Management Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management District and would result in no related impacts. b.) Less than Significant Impact: The project will have a less than significant impact with regards to contributing to an existing air quality violation. The project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Santa Clarita within the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the boundaries of which consist of 6,600 square miles throughout Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Although, measures have been taken to improve the air quality within the region, this area is considered a non -attainment basin. The project will require minimal grading activity with the importation of 388 cubic yards of earthwork that may temporarily increase pollution within this air quality district. During the project's short-term grading and construction activities, the soils that underlie the subject area would be turned over and pushed around, exposing the soil to wind erosion and dust by on-site operating equipment. Emissions caused by fine grading activities are not likely to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) daily significance thresholds. The impacts, however, are temporary and short-term in nature and will cease upon completion of the project. In addition, required compliance with SCAQMD rules that govern construction activity would further reduce the generation of dispersal of air pollutants during construction. Therefore, the impacts.are considered less than significant. c.) Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is considered non -attainment under any applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards because the proposed land use was anticipated as part of the City's General Plan. Although grading and construction activities on the project area may slightly increase some pollution particles, they will be short-term and temporary, not resulting in any significant increases. Therefore, the impacts are considered less than significant. d.) Less than Significant Impact: The project is located within a fully developed residential neighborhood. The proposed subdivision will temporarily expose the adjacent uses to pollution due to project grading because some soils that underlie the subject area would be turned over and pushed around, exposing the soil to wind erosion and dust by on-site operating equipment thus creating a slight temporary increase in fugitive dust and other material. These impacts are short-term and temporary in nature and will cease upon completion of the project. Therefore, the impacts are considered less than significant. e.) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed residential subdivision is not likely to create additional odors as a part of project operation. However, during grading, road construction, and future residential construction activities, additional odors from the use of various gasoline or diesel powered equipment that will emit exhaust fumes may occur. These impacts are short-term and temporary and will Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 18 of 37 cease upon completion of the project. Therefore, the impacts are considered less than significant. f.) Other: The project would not cause any other impacts related to air quality. No further analysis is necessary. IV. BIOLOGICAL Angela Liu, I.S.A. Certified Arborist with Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC RESOURCES prepared an Oak Tree Report for the project. The report is included in Appendix A of this Initial Study. a.) Less Than Significant Impact: The subject property is currently developed with a single family residence on site. The project site consists of two on-site oak trees (Oak #73-74) located on proposed Parcel No. 5, and two off property oak trees (Oak # OP2-3) that would be impacted by the proposed project. The oak tree report for the subject property identifies four oak trees on or adjacent to the subject property, with three of them encroached upon from the construction of the private driveway, and the fourth oak tree encroach upon with the proposed grading. Mitigation measures identified in Section IV(e.) below would reduce any impacts to the on or off site oaks to a level that is less than significant. The project site is not located within an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) as identified on the ESA delineation map in the General Plan. With the mitigation measure identified in the oak tree report and in Section IV (e.) the proposed project would not have a significant effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on 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 (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). b.) No Impact: There is no riparian habitat identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the project would have no impact to riparian habitat or other designated sensitive natural community. c.).No Impact: There are no known wetlands occurring on site. The proposed - project shall not have substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Therefore, no impact shall occur as a result of this project. d.) No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially interfere with the, movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife specifies or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The project site is a developed single family residential property that is located within a fully developed residential community. The project site is not located within or near a wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery in which native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species exist. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of this project. e.) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance (Ordinance 88-34) is the only local policy or ordinance that protects biological resources. The subject property is currently developed with a single family residence on site with two on-site oak trees and two off property oak trees that will be encroached upon with the proposed project. The oak tree report Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 19 of 37 for the subject property identifies 4 oak trees, of which none are proposed to be removed. However, due to the location of three oak trees along the western portion of the property and the fourth oak tree along the northerly property line, the proposed driveway to be installed along the western portion of the property and the proposed grading would encroach on the oak trees. In accordance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance and mitigation measures identified in the oak tree report prepared by Angela Liu, I.S.A. Certified Arborist with Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC, Mitigation IV -1-3 outlines the requirements for the trees that may be impacted due to the construction of the proposed private driveway. With the incorporation of Mitigation IV -1-3, the project would not result in significant impacts due to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. An oak tree report completed for the project identified the following issues and recommendations: Tree No. 73. The proposed private driveway would be located at least 5 feet from the trunk of the tree and moderately encroach on Tree No. 73, causing moderate root loss. The proposed private driveway would arc around the trunk of the tree in order to reduce encroachment into the protected zone of the oak. Pruning of this oak would occur in order to provide vehicle clearance over the proposed driveway. Tree No.'s OP3 and 74. The proposed private driveway to the flag lots located toward the rear of the property encroaches slightly onto the protected zones of these trees. Construction shall be performed according to protocols listed in the General Recommendations section of the oak tree report. Permeable pavement in the form 'of interlocking pavers will be used to minimize coverage over the root zone. The trees will remain in place with minor to moderate overall impact. Tree No. OP2. This off property oak tree will have minor overall impact as a result of the project. As this tree is located on the property to the north with its canopy hanging over the project site, the canopy would be encroached upon during grading of the site, causing little to no root loss. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure IV -1-3 will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure IV -1: Driveway excavation and root pruning (Oak 73) 1. Manually excavate soil five feet from the trunk, saving all roots greater than 1.5 inches. 2. The Arborist of Record (AOR) will then re-evaluate the quantity, location, and sizes of roots found. Roots will be pruned manually (using a sharp saw or other similar hand tools) as directed by the AOR. 3. To prevent splitting and other damage extending toward the trunk, roots will be pruned clearly before excavating the driveway foundation. 4. Additional driveway modifications may be recommended to reduce root loss as needed. Driveway excavation and root pruning (Oak OP3) 1. Driveway excavation within the protected zone shall be restricted to a depth'of one foot or less below original grade to the extent possible. As Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 20 of 37 with oak 73, roots will be exposed at the edge of the driveway and manually pruned before the start of excavation. Oak tree canopy pruning (Oak 74 and OP3) I. Pruning shall be completed by an approved ISA Certified Tree Trimming contractor. 2. All pruning shall be in accordance with the ISA Pruning Standards and the ANSI A-300 Companion Publication Best Management Practices Tree Pruning. 3. Clearance pruning shall not exceed 14 feet unless waived by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist. Mitigation Measure IV -2: Protective fencing 1. , Fencing around oaks 73, OP3, and 74 shall be placed as far as possible from the oaks to protect the maximum root area while still allowing construction access. Fencing will be moved as directed by the AOR before driveway construction begins. 2. Oak 73 — protective fencing shall be fifteen feet or more from the trunk, and should completely enclose the protected zone. 3. Oaks OP3 and 74 — protective fencing shall enclose as much of the two oaks' protected zone as feasible. Mitigation Measure IV -3: Construction and post construction monitoring 1. The applicant shall install mulch and temporary irrigation inside the protected zones as recommended by the AOR during construction. 2. Since there is no mitigation planting, post construction monitoring shall be for existing protected oaks only. f) No Impact: The proposed project is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, 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: According to the Significant Ecological Areas Map (Exhibit OS -2) in the General Plan, the project site is not within a Significant Ecological Area. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to Significant Ecological Areas or Significant Natural Areas. h.) Other: The project would not cause any other impacts related to biological resources. All potential impacts related to biology are reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures. Therefore, no further analysis is required. V. CULTURAL a, b, c, d.) No Impact: The project site is not listed in any register of historical RESOURCES resources nor does the site contain any structures with distinctive characteristics of a region, period, or construction method. The project site consists of an existing single family residence. The site does not meet any criteria set forth in the CEQA to identify the site as a historical resource. Therefore, no impact is anticipated to result from the proposal. In addition, the project site does not have any known archaeological significance as defined by the CEQA. Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 21 of 37 The site is not known to contain any unique paleontological resources. No disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries is. anticipated. However, should any remains be encountered during site preparation and construction, all work will be ceased and an assessment of the findings will be made in accordance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. No impacts will occur as a result of this project. e.) Other: The project would not cause any other impacts related to cultural resources. No further analysis is necessary. VI. GEOLOGY AND ai, aii, aiii., aiv.) Less Than Significant Impact: Southern California has SOILS numerous active and potentially active faults, which could affect the project site. There is potential risk to residences and businesses in Santa Clarita due to earthquakes, as earthquakes are unavoidable natural phenomena. However, the proposed project will be built to development standards as required by the UDC. As stated in the City's General Plan, this area is susceptible to geologic hazards in the event of a major earthquake (magnitude 8.3) along the San Gabriel Fault. This could result in ground failure and liquefaction. However, the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study zone and has no significant topographic features. The project site lies within approximately 30 miles of the closest, accurately mapped main trace of the San Andreas Fault. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures could affect the project. However, the risks of earthquake damage to future development of the single-family residences can be minimized through adequate engineering, design, and construction. The future construction will be required to be built according to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and other applicable codes and are subject to inspection during construction. Structures for human habitation must be designed to meet or exceed California UBC standards for Seismic Zone 4. The potential for distress to develop in the structure area due to three secondary effects of earthquakes (liquefaction, ground settlement, and flooding) is thought to be remote. There are no upslope reservoirs that could fail and flood the site. Conforming to required UBC and UDC development standards will ensure the proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking. Liquefaction is a phenomenon by which seismic activity causes the ground to act as a fluid. Loosely packed, fine grained soils are susceptible to liquefaction in areas of high groundwater. The potential of soils to liquefy is influenced by such factors as soil type, relative density, particle size and gradation, depth to the water table, confining pressure, and intensity and duration of shaking. The highest potential for liquefaction occurs in saturated, loosely consolidated sands and silts below the water table when the water table is within 50 feet of the surface. The project site is neither located in a liquefaction hazard nor in a landslide hazard zone, although within 250 feet of a liquefaction hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides and would have no associated significant impacts. b.) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project involves minimal grading with the importation of approximately 388 cubic yards of earthwork. Although the project would not result in the direct loss of topsoil, construction of the project could temporarily increase the potential for wind and water erosion by exposing loose soils. Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 22 of 37 Wind erosion during construction will be substantially reduced due to required compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Similarly, water erosion during construction will be substantially reduced by complying with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). NPDES requires the construction involved in the project to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and prevent eroded soils from washing off-site. The potential to increase erosion during construction would be effectively mitigated through the required compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and NPDES. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and would have no associated significant impacts. c, d.) No Impact: The project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse nor is the project site located on expansive soil that could create substantial risks to life or property. The subject property is located within a flat and fully developed residential community, and is developed with a single family residence. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides and would have no associated impacts. e.) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita requires parcels to connect to a public sewer line when one is located within 600 feet of a site. The project would connect to a sewer line located on 8`h Street. Septic tanks are not proposed and would not be necessary for the project. Therefore, the project would have no impact to soils that may be incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks. f, g, h, i.) Less Than Significant Impact: The project site maintains a relatively flat area throughout the project site which gradually decreases in grade towards the north and back of the property. The project proposes minimal grading of the site and the importation of approximately 388 cubic yards of earth that would be leveled in order to prepare the site for construction. The site is located within a developed and flat residential valley and does not contain any ridgelines or .other regionally notable topographic features. The project's grading would create at -grade building pads for the future development of single-family residences. No structures would. be placed or cantilevered or otherwise elevated above the graded building pads. The proposed driveway would be at grade with a minimal 2% slope toward the back of the property. There proposed topographic changes are minimal and impacts to earth movement would be considered less than significant. j.) Other: The project would not cause any other impacts related to geology and soils. No further analysis is necessary. VII. HAZARDS AND a.) No Impact: The proposed project would not involve the storage, transport, use HAZARDOUS of disposal of hazardous materials. The future development of single-family MATERIALS residences on the site are not anticipated to store, use, or generate substantial amounts of hazardous materials, and are not anticipated to utilize any acutely hazardous materials. The only hazardous materials expect to be utilized on-site are residential amounts of typical household cleansers and solvents, pesticides, and fertilizers. Residential -use type chemicals are used for regular maintenance of homes and are not typically of sufficient amount or concentration to pose hazards to the public. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 22, Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 23 of 37 b.) No Impact: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The future construction of individual single-family residences would occur under a separate building permit application and the future residential use would not include the use of hazardous materials. Use of the proposed structures would be typical of the surrounding and adjacent developed areas designated with the zoning classification of RS. The only hazardous materials expected to be utilized on-site are residential amounts of typical household cleansers and solvents, pesticides, and fertilizers. Residential -use type chemicals are used for regular maintenance of homes and are not typically of sufficient amount or concentration to pose hazards to the public. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of this project. c.) No Impact: Grading for the construction of private driveway and to provide level building pad areas for future development of single-family residences is proposed with this application. The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No hazardous materials or waste would be handled as part of this application. There are no public schools within '/a mile from the project site and no schools would be impacted with the proposed project. No impact would occur as a result of this project because no hazardous waste or materials will be released into the environment. d.) No Impact: The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment and no impact would occur as a result of this project. e, £) No Impact: The project will have no impact with regards to airports because the project site is not located within two miles of any public airport, within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would not result in a safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of this project. g.) No Impact: The proposed project is consistent with the RS zone and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project does not involve closures of any roadways. and would not affect evacuation routes. The construction or operation of the proposed project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public streets. The site plan will require review and approval by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The applicant is proposing a turnaround at the end of the private driveway connecting the proposed flag lots that is conforming to the standards of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. No impact to emergency response planning will occur as a'result of this project. . h.) Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is designated a potential wild land fire hazard area (General Plan Safety Element, Exhibit S-4). The project site is within 1000 feet of a brush area. However, since the adoption of the General Plan, the areas surrounding the project site have been developed in consistency with the RS land use designation. The development of such residences has reduced the potential for wildfire in the project area due to the fact that property owners are responsible for the clearing of the areas surrounding their property. The future development of single-family residences will reduce the wildfire fuel on-site by eliminating weeds and other annual grasses that cover a portion of the site. The project's landscape plan is subject to review and approval by the City's Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 24 of 37 Community Development Department and Los Angeles County Fuel Modification Unit. The review ensures the proposed plant palette is compatible with the landscape conditions of the subject property. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wild land fires and would have a less than significant impact as a result of the project. The project is subject to the review and approval the Planning Division and Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Unit to ensure the project meets all required development standards. i.) No Impact: The prop6sed project would not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards because there are no known hazards on the project site. There are no electrical transmission lines, gas lines, or oil pipelines on the project site. Construction activities may result in limited, short-term exposure to various hazardous and toxic materials. For example, diesel fuel would be used to operate the construction equipment. However, this is not considered to be a significant introduction of hazardous material or explosives that would increase risks to the surrounding area. Such impacts are anticipated to be of a limited nature and occurrence, which would cease after the construction phase.. Compliance with applicable laws and guidelines, including existing Building and Safety Division and Los Angeles County Fire Department codes, would result in no significant impact and no significant risk to human health. Therefore, no impacts.will occur as a result of this project. j.) Other: The project would not cause any other impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. No impacts will result to hazards and hazardous materials from the project and, therefore, no further analysis is necessary. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND a.) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not violate any water WATER QUALITY quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to reduce pollutants in construction runoff and protect stormwater runoff quality from pollutants that may be generated by operation of the proposed use shall be . incorporated into the project. b.) Less Than Significant Impact: 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 proposed project would add impermeable surfaces to the currently developed site, which could reduce the groundwater recharge potential. However, the amount of impermeable surface the proposed project would install is negligible in comparison to the total size of the Santa Clara River recharge areas. 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, d.) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including the alteration of the course of a stream or river. There is no stream or river located on the subject property. Topographic alterations to the proposed site would be minimal and, therefore, the direction of runoff water would remain constant. The proposed project would not affect any local aquifer or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The drainage of surface waters from the future construction of single- family residences would be controlled by building regulations and accommodated by the City's existing flood control channels, storm drains and catch basins. 24 5a- Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 25 of 37 All grading for the proposed project will be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and will ensure the project would not significantly impact existing drainage patterns or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The topography of the site to be developed is flat with an overall elevation change of six to seven feet from the. front to the back of the property. The proposed project would alter the sites drainage by installing impermeable surfaces (the private drive and future residences). However, the proposed subdivision includes an engineered drainage system to manage stormwater flows. The drainage system will accommodate runoff from the proposed impermeable surfaces on site. As required by the City of Santa Clarita, the final design of the development's drainage system 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. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase erosion or siltation on or off-site. e.) Less Than Significant Impact: Topographic alterations to the proposed site would be minimal and, therefore, the direction of runoff water would remain constant. The proposed project would not affect any local aquifer, create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The drainage of surface waters from the future construction of single-family residences would be controlled by building regulations and accommodated by the City's existing flood control storm drains and catch basins. Stormwater runoff is regulated pursuant to the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit agreement, which is implemented by City ordinance. The City requires Best Management Practices for the development of the subdivision to ensure compliance. Compliance with NPDES requirements will be a condition of approval for the project. Compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance would ensure that post -development peak storm water runoff rates do not exceed pre -development peak storm water runoff rates. Therefore, the proposed on-site drainage network that supports the project site will be adequate to handle the project's post development runoff. f.) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed development will not be a point - source generator of water pollutants. The only long-term water pollutants expected to be generated on-site are typical urban stormwater pollutants. Projects with a construction site of one acre or greater, such as the proposed project, 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 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 25 Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 26 of 37 handling/disposal requirements, and providing non -storm water management procedures. Compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance willensure ensure these stormwater pollutants would not substantially degrade water quality. The Environmental Services Division will ensure compliance with the NPDES and monitor water quality. g, h, i.) No Impact: The proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The project will not endanger residences to any flood hazards and is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area that would impede flood flows or water runoff. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area and future construction of five (5) single family residences would not place structures within a flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows. 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 as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and the project would have no related impacts. j.) No Impact: The City is located approximately 35 miles from the ocean and is not at risk from seiche or tsunami. There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the project site that are capable of producing seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. k.) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed .project would not result in changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters because water on the project site does not directly drain into marine or fresh waters. The project will not modify any wash, creek or river because none exist on-site and those resources within the vicinity will not be impacted because all project activities will occur entirely on-site. There is no potential to expose persons or property to water -related hazards. The drainage of surface waters from the future construction of single-family residences would be controlled by building regulations and accommodated by the City's existing flood control channels, storm drains and catch basins. 1.) No Impact: The project would not cause any other impacts due to the modifications of a wash, channel creek or river. m.) Less Than Significant Impact: Grading for the construction of the private driveway and to provide level building pad areas for future development of single- family residences is proposed with this application. The project is required to comply with the City's SUSMP ordinance, the Countywide MS4 permit, the State's NPDES General Construction Permit, and to implement a SUSMP compliance plan and SWPPP. Compiling with these requirements of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES will ensure the proposed project would not significantly impact stormwater management. The proposed subdivision and future construction of single-family residences will not impact stormwater management by resulting in potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 27 of 37 27 6,5 storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas. The subject property is located within a residential zone which only allows residential use type classifications. The project site is one acre in size. Therefore, future construction will require a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the State's NPDES General Construction Permit. This SWPPP will ensure construction activities do not impact water quality. Standard engineering practices and required NPDES standards will be implemented resulting in no harmful increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas. The project would not result in stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits. The project would not cause harm , to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies because no residential construction is proposed. The future development of single-family residences would have provision for the separation, recycling and use of materials during construction, which are standard City requirements that will be applied to future development. No impacts will result to hydrology and water quality from the project and, therefore, no further analysis is necessary. IX. LAND USE AND a.) No Impact: The proposed project will not disrupt or physically divide an PLANNING established community, including a low-income or minority community. The subject property is located in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone in the Happy Valley area, a sub -community of Newhall, comprised of predominantly medium density single-family residential uses. The proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding uses. The area is rural and suburban in nature with extensive areas of oaks and characterized by single-family residences and parcels. b.) No Impact: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and UDC zoning classification of RS including density and lot size. The RS land use designation allows for residential parcel subdivision and future development of detached single-family residential uses. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, as there are no plans or policies other than the implementing zone classification and General Plan land use designation for the site. Therefore, no impact will occur as a result of this project. c.) No Impact: The proposed project is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact will occur as a result of this project. No impacts will result to land use and planning from the project and, therefore, no further analysis is necessary. X. MINERAL AND a.) No Impact: There are no known minerals on the project site. The proposed ENERGY RESOURCES. subdivision would not 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. No impact will occur as a result of this project. b.) No Impact: The project site is not identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the City's General Plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No impact will occur as a result of this project. 27 6,5 Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 28 of 37 c.) No Impact: Grading for the construction of the private driveway and to provide level building pad areas for future development of single-family residences is proposed with this application. These grading activities would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. No impact will occur as a result of this project. No impacts will result to mineral and energy resources from the project and, therefore, no further analysis is necessary. XI. NOISE a, b, c, d.) Less Than Significant Impact: There will be a short-term increase in noise levels during general site preparation for the subdivision and construction of private driveway; which shall serve as the primary ingress/egress access to the residential flag lots and will take access via 8` Street. The project applicant will be required to comply with the Chapter 11.44 Noise Limits . of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. Section 11.44.080 of the Municipal Code limits construction - building between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Furthermore, no work shall be performed on the following public holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day and Labor Day. The restrictions on construction related noise would reduce noise - related impacts to less than significant levels during construction. Noise levels are not anticipated to adversely affect the neighboring residences. The project requires on-site grading activities, which may involve the generation of limited groundbourne vibration and noise from construction equipment. However, these impacts are temporary and short-term and will cease of completion of the project. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. The increase in ambient noise will neither exceed the noise standards for the City, nor create a significant increase above the existing noise levels on the project site and surrounding the project site. The proposed use is expected to . minimally increase existing noise levels and will be well below the allowable noise levels for the area. The project site is surrounded by similar residential uses. The noise levels generated from temporary construction will be temporary and short-term and will cease upon completion of the grading and construction activities. Through compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, no long-term impacts related to operations -related noise are anticipated as a result of this development. Therefore, noise impacts are considered less than significant. e, £) No Impact: There is no airport or private airstrip in the vicinity of the subject property. Therefore, no impact will occur as a result of this project. No impacts will result to noise from the project and, therefore, no further analysis is necessary. XII. POPULATION AND a.) Less Than Significant Impact: The creation of residential parcels would not HOUSING induce substantial population growth. However, there would be direct growth in population upon future demolition of the existing residence and subsequent construction of the proposed five single-family residences, a net increase of four residences. The average household size in the City of Santa Clarita is three (3) people per housing unit (California Department of Finance, 2004.) Based on this average, build out and occupancy of the project would increase the City's population by an estimated 12 residents. Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 29 of 37 The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide to provide direction to local governments in addressing regional issues such as population growth for the six -county southern California region. According to SCAG, Santa Clarita's population is forecasted to reach 187,795 in 2010 (htt;://www.scag.ca.gov). The current population is estimated at 177,158. The additional estimated increase of residents with the future construction of single-family residences as a result of TTM 67310 will be within SCAG's 2010 population projection for the City. Therefore, the population growth associated with the proposed project is not expected to cause an encroachment to the population forecasts for the City and is considered a less than significant impact as a result of this project. b, c.) Less Than Significant Impact: The existing condition of the subject property is developed residential property with oak trees, pine trees, and grasses throughout. Grading for the construction of the private driveway and to provide level building 'pad areas for future development of single-family residences is proposed with this application. The project would first demolish an existing single family residence and in the future would construct five new single family residences. The project would displace one existing residence, but would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of this project. No significant impacts will result to noise from the project and, therefore, no further analysis is necessary. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ai.) Less Than Significant Impact: As part of the Consolidated Fire Protection District, the City of Santa Clarita and the planning area receive fire protection and emergency medical service from the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The project site is within an area that is already served by existing fire stations. As such, response times would be acceptable and the incremental increase in demand associated with project implementation is not expected to adversely affect service or create the need for new facilities. In addition, the proposed development is not as significant in size and number to merit additional new construction of public services. aii.) Less Than Significant Impact: Police protection is presently provided to the area by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department under contract to the City of Santa Clarita. The Department currently maintains a staff of approximately 172 deputies and has established and maintains a level -of -service standard of one officer per 1,000 residents. Currently, there are approximately 1.042 deputies per 1,000 residents. The proposed project is expected to increase the resident population to approximately 12 residents, which would incrementally reduce the deputy/resident ratio but would still maintain the ratio above the Sheriff Department's standard. The proposed residential parcel subdivision will not require new or altered police protection services. aiii.) Less Than Significant Impact: The subdivision of one residential parcel into five residential parcels would not significantly impact the existing elementary, middle and high schools, or park facilities. A maximum of five single-family residences (4 net) will be constructed in the future for the subject subdivision with no more than approximately 12 residents will reside as a result of the construction. The number of youth from the subdivision is too small to have a significant impact to schools or park facilities. The scope of the project would not result in any need for additional government facilities nor would it cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain performance objectives for any of the public services. Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 30 of 37 Therefore, less than significant impacts will occur as a result of this project. aiv.) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in citywide demand for parkland but will not result in a substantial decrease in the City's parkland to population ratio. These districts have adequate facilities to serve the project site upon future development of single- family residences. No additional services will be needed as a result of the project. No significant impacts will result to public services from the project and, therefore, no further analysis is necessary. XIV. RECREATION a.) Less Than Significant Impact: The subdivision of one residential parcel into five residential parcels will minimally increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be, accelerated. Upon future development of single-family residences, these districts would have adequate facilities to serve the project site. Therefore, less than significant impacts will occur as a result of this project. b.). Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities because the project proposes the subdivision of one residential parcel into five residential parcels. The applicant will be required to pay the applicable Parks and Recreation mitigation impact fee to offset any impacts to the existing park facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur as a result of this project. No impacts will result to recreation from the project and, therefore, no further analysis is necessary. XV. TRANSPORTATION/ a.) Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not cause an increase in traffic TRAFFIC in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the existing street system. The future construction of single-family residences for the proposed parcels would cause a minimal increase in traffic, though this is not considered to be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. 8th Street is a public road that is maintained by the City and proposed private driveway to be maintained by a homeowners association for the subject subdivision, which ensures that the private driveway would be maintained in good condition. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur as a result of this project. b.) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. The subject property is located in an area already improved with respect to circulation and therefore can accommodate the proposed use. No improvements to adjacent roadways are proposed or required with this project with the exception of the proposed private driveway. Access to the site would be from 81h Street and a private driveway on the project site. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur as a result of this project. c.) No Impact: There are no airports in the vicinity of the proposed project. The subdivision and future construction of single-family residences will not impact a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Structures that exceed 150 feet in height are considered to have possible impacts on air traffic. Upon future development of single-family residences, maximum allowable height cannot exceed,35 feet without approval of a conditional use permit. No impact will occur Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 31 of 37 as a result of this project. d.) Less Than Significant Impact: Minimal improvements to 8`h Street such as repairing the base and paving and construction of a new private driveway would occur as part of this project. Access to the individual flag parcels would be from the private driveway which would be located on the western portion of the project site. The project has been evaluated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Engineering and Traffic Divisions. The circulation design has identified no hazardous circulation or emergency access conditions. No residential construction is proposed with this application. Grading and. road improvements are proposed with this development but would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The proposed project is subject to the review and approval of the Traffic and Engineering Divisions and Los Angeles County Fire Department to ensure the project meets all required development standards. The proposed project requires approval of TTM 67310 to ensure the project will comply with the City's UDC and all applicable development standards. e.) No Impact: Access to the project site is required to comply with Los Angeles County Fire Department emergency access requirements. The project has been evaluated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Engineering and Traffic Divisions. The proposed project is subject to the review and approval of the Traffic and Engineering Divisions and Los Angeles County Fire Department to ensure the project is in compliance with all required development standards and that emergency access is adequately provided. Therefore, no impact will occur as a result of this project. f) No Impact: Grading for the construction of the private driveway and to provide level building pad areas for future development of single-family residences is proposed with this application. Future development of the residential parcels would require compliance with on-site single-family residential parking requirements pursuant to the UDC. The proposed project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. Therefore, no impact will occur as a result of this project. g.) No Impact: The proposed subdivision project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The project will be required to pay the appropriate bridge and thoroughfare fees. There will be no safety hazards. from design features, insufficient parking capacity, inadequate emergency access, conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation, or disjointed patterns of roadway improvements thus having no impact on transportation as a result of this project. h.) No Impact: The subdivision tract map process ensures the project shall maintain compliance with ADA standards, the City's UDC and all applicable development standards. Therefore, the proposed project Will not provide hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists as a result of this project. No impacts will result to transportation/traffic from the project and, therefore, no further analysis is necessary. XVI. UTILITIES AND a.) No Impact: The proposed project will be required to meet all wastewater SERVICE SYSTEMS treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board in addition to the City's development standards as established by the Municipal Code. The future construction of individual single-family residences would be permitted under a separate Building and Safety permit application. Each parcel will be served by private sewage disposal systems. Therefore, no impact will occur as a result from this project. 31 jy Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 32 of 37 b.) No Impact: The proposed project will not require water or wastewater treatment facilities to be expanded or newly constructed, and will not cause significant environmental effects. The proposed project will be required to meet all wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and will be developed in accordance with the City's General Plan, which anticipated proposals such as this one in this area of the City. Therefore, no impact will occur as a result from this project. c.) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not require new off- site storm water or drainage facilities to be expanded. Future development of the individual parcels would be under a separate application. An on-site storm drain would be placed on the northern portion of the property and would accept stormwater via a catch basin and connect to a public storm drain system. These improvements would be limited to the northern portion of the site with a storm drain not to exceed 120 feet in length along the northerly property line. Therefore, no off-site drainage improvements are required and less than significant impact would occur as a result of this project. d.) Less Than Significant Impact: There are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. No new or expanded entitlements related to water are necessary for the creation of the five parcels. The scope of the project will not require such new and expanded entitlements. Therefore, a less than significant impact to water supplies will occur as a result of this project. e.) No Impact: Future development of the project site would necessitate the installation of private sewer. The City of Santa Clarita requires parcels to connect to a sewer line when one is located within 600 feet of a site. The nearest sewer line is located on 8th Street, adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would install an on site sewer that would connect to the LA County sewer line. The proposal would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the subdivision's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. No impact will occur as a result of this project. f.) No Impact: The proposed project will be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. The City maintains a residential recycling program in conjunction with Waste Management/Blue Barrel Disposal whom will provide capacity for disposal of solid waste generated by the future construction of single-family residences. g.) No Impact: The project would be served by the Chiquita Canyon landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the future development of single- family residence's solid waste disposal needs. The contract is designed to comply with all necessary federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impact will occur as a result of this project. No impacts will result to utilities and service systems from the project and, therefore, no further analysis is necessary. XVII. MANDATORY a.) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project may have a less FINDINGS OF than significant impact with mitigation that may have the potential to degrade the SIGNIFICANCE 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 Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 33 of 37 range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The subject property is currently developed with a single family residence on the site with two on and two off site oak trees. The oak tree report for the subject property identifies four oak trees which will be impacted due to the construction of the private driveway and grading necessary for the pads of the future single-family residences. As identified in the oak tree report, Oaks No. 73, 74, and OP3 will have minor to moderate encroachments with minor to moderate root loss. Oak No. OP2 is located on the property to the north and hangs over the subject property. The proposed grading would require a minor encroachment upon Oak No. OP2. The project proposes no removal of oak trees. The alignment of proposed driveway has been configured to accommodate the on-site oak trees. The driveway is designed around three oak trees, which will remain in their current locations. The site plan as well as the oak tree report has been revised from its original proposal to locate the proposed driveway further away from the trunks of Oaks No. 73, 74 and OP3.. In addition, the revised site plan identifies permeable pavers to be located over the root systems of Oak No. 74 and OP3, thereby allowing water to seep through to, their root systems. The subdivision and associated infrastructure is in compliance with Traffic and Engineering Divisions and Los Angeles County Fire Department regulations to ensure the project meets all required development standards and that emergency access is adequate. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure IV -1-3 would ensure the proposed access would not significantly impact the oak trees located on the subject property. The proposed project and consideration of future single-family residential development will not 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, or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. Therefore, less than significant impact with mitigation will occur as a result of this project b.) Less Than Significant Impact: With the incorporation of mitigation measures, 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, water quality, noise, population, housing, public services, recreation, traffic, and utility impacts. However, due to the mitigation measures contained in this document, none of these cumulative impacts are substantial, and the project would not cause any cumulative impacts to become substantial. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project will have less than significant mandatory finding of significance due to cumulative impacts as a result of this project. c.) Less Than Signiflcant Impact: As discussed in Sections VIII and XV of this document, the proposed project would not expose persons to flooding or transportation hazards. Section VI of this document explains that residents of the future development of single-family residences upon approval of the proposed project could be exposed to strong seismic earth shaking due to the potential for earthquakes in southern California. In addition, the site is within 250 feet of a liquefaction hazard area and has a low potential for liquefaction. However, the risks of earthquake damage to future development of the single- family residences can be minimized through adequate engineering, design, and construction. The future construction will be required to be built according to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and other applicable codes and are subject to inspection during construction. Structures for human habitation must be designed Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 34 of 37 to meet or exceed California UBC standards for Seismic Zone 4. The project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse nor is the project site located on expansive soils creating substantial risks to life or property. Compliance with applicable development standards, laws, and guidelines would ensure that the geologic and seismic conditions of the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on humans. The grading of the project site would create at -grade building pads for the future development of single-family residences. No structures would be placed or cantilevered or otherwise elevated above grade building pads. Compliance with applicable laws and guidelines, including existing Building and Safety Division and Los Angeles County 'Fire Department codes, would result in less than significant impact and less than significant risk to human health. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities I. AESTHETICS 1-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 2-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: III. AIR QUALITY 3-1 Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4-1. Mitigation: Driveway excavation and root pruning (Oak 73) 1. Manually excavate soil five feet from the trunk, saving all roots greater than 1.5 inches. 2. The Arborist of Record (AOR) will then re-evaluate the quantity, location, and sizes of roots found. Roots will be pruned manually (using a sharp saw or other similar hand tools) as directed by the AOR. 3. To prevent splitting and other damage extending toward the trunk, roots will be pruned clearly before excavating the driveway foundation. 4. Additional driveway modifications may be recommended to reduce root loss as needed. Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 35 of 37 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities Driveway excavation and root pruning (Oak OP3) 5. Driveway excavation within the protected zone shall be restricted to a depth of one foot or less below original grade to the extent possible. As with oak 73, roots will be exposed at the edge of the driveway and manually pruned before the start of excavation. Oak tree canopy pruning (Oak 74 and OP3) 1. Pruning shall be completed by an approved ISA Certified Tree Trimming contractor. 2. All pruning shall be in accordance with the ISA Pruning Standards and the ANSI A-300 Companion Publication Best Management Practices Tree Pruning. 3. Clearance pruning shall not exceed 14 feet unless waived by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist. Party Responsible for Mitigation: The applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Throughout grading and construction activities Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Planning Division, Community Development Department 4-2. Mitigation: Protective fencing 1. Fencing around oaks 73, OP3, and 74 shall be placed as far as possible from the oaks to protect the maximum root area while still allowing construction access. Fencing will be moved as directed by the AOR before driveway construction begins. 2. Oak 73 — protective fencing shall be fifteen feet or more from the trunk, and should completely enclose the protected zone. 3. Oaks OP3 and 74 — protective fencing shall enclose as much of the two oaks' protected zone as feasible. Party Responsible for Mitigation: The applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to grading or construction Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Planning Division, Community Development Department 4-3. Mitigation: Construction and post construction monitoring 1. The applicant shall install mulch and temporary irrigation inside the protected zones as recommended by the AOR during construction. 2. Since there is no mitigation planting, post construction monitoring shall be for existing protected oaks only. Party Responsible for Mitigation: The applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Throughout grading and construction activities Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Angela Liu, I.S.A. Certified Arborist with Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC, City Oak Tree Specialist and Planning Division, Community Development Department. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES 5-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 6-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: 35 Initial Study Master Case 06-157 Page 36 of 37 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 7-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 8-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING 9-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES 10-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XI. NOISE I1-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING 12-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 13-1: Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Initial Study Master Case 06-157 . Page 37 of 37 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities XIV. RECREATION 14-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 15-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS 16-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: S:\CD\CURRENT\!2006\06-157 (TTM, LLA, OTP)\Environmental\06-157 Initial Study.doc U) 0 , A D 0mr Cm x x _ zF I � NORTH R W II� m � fv / O 0 v I - 0 O ©O®00 00 000 O �^: �+ `"Z x M = D v mo J M f 5 m z0KM FM�Mux-ia-i 0 DOA H- D C MO il � � OO1N 0 N O O 0000 ON � DT. Ul m co C m 0 z Z MM o F1 M '�� V W Z <m F Z O� GI N -4��� �•• D OD O O En W o mMO 0 O A D t4 N m D r W N r fm*1 O 6 .Zl `L .ZI p Z� z > m m r z m Om z z I G r�0 I FF m FA D > OZ m N m J M A m m m y z 0-n v v m D �'" ;U -0 I N D D Z ? a D W N0 D m O O m O Z C O 0 = Frm II oo o m .0014 D o K v cn O cM M M IAm D FF R 0 f N N N t 0 0 .'0 C m r 0 0 0 I"I"I 2 0 Z U) N jl'I O m :'. 0 V to 0 o w f�* r D ?7 O N Z D J C D III O D N M— j - UO Op O O y 0 -U Z 2> O O D b O -0Z. Mz _ LP 00 ^�_^ V D0 11 z d d -P - V N O m p O DA O O Dmy4 Ir l! mp III 0_0 O z o ,, GmG z C S C Z -9 �« fm .'r .'� Y .0 z O D z N D m m N D O X N OCG I m SND z O A D 0 m 2 Z (MA z m Dcn-m 1 m �D r r �Z� m m ;'o D o N c A in z a �cn o �D m Iv m Iq m o D w rwn w w r.°n m O ti/ z C) ? y m p o to D 0> O: N I-r� - IF% O F£iCn DD_ 3OO m o A 0 M c Ul M 4' O m J p �no z m m fm'1- A D O U) '� O O D I DQ� ma m w m� I I M v MN p w D 'I r� w V o F+fTI z m I v D Z Vx-1 r N Cb Omi Omi A i z p D fmA Vl 10 D n Z Z t0 A r W -4 0 0 0 m m 0 0 fm*1 it E N D Z m y ::� ':r L!I Z v m < O D O V 0 2 Z m N � ... D<x D N m0 .0.0.0.0 p D to D W r'�- OOm D a w .0 7C O N � 11 m M O.ZI m •.m« •.�+ •.m+ •.m+ fOA . D V z O j D D n r x 0 F4 D m m m m > M n s m o> n ii U (A Z .+ .+ .'..'r m N r N 0 wo 0 r r z D Z Z O m m a y M o Z M Zo3 D- m z op D o ;am p� n r Ax m <o a c- N m 0 o M m SOUTH R/W o CA C N f O*I y y \ O \ ' / p \ "t4 � N N OP \ Cn O ` ,om 00'9.0 7b•�• o� PROP VAR ♦♦ y HEIGHT RET WALL / / \ ♦7t ODI / Z y CL 00 y: /..._... o / o �•_ / � \0 m O / M / // � // �...-r'/� 111• � y N II X s III• \ d I ti 0 mob mo� r x"x' Ilb A I6 \��, 000' r 30S III. c � ;D $ � I IIIA 0)it \ � �j ^' III' N-.� O C) MIA \ �� 0�I`'. III W a / _ ....o....''. 1 i Z o / / \ Z£.tiON -s•cLF 00'LZZ \ M Ll. .. 1 I ;v L % > gases. ro TCLF ;0-t MCI RO Ow A5 14 f0.0` �--+� • i� s 3Nyd \ i' 7now7onfm I 8 �Iv 01 Om • I — ...G� .(\? wj \ g---ir-?-_'-- I � / / _ r--- .� - ♦ � o _ ... �— ' — �-777 3N17 107 0350dOMd r- -- ♦ i. .. x � IY r I •�l�Ill► 1 ..� . 5.�•,.�� \-. t •1 v zrri 1C000 rn 0 0O tw ps 0 Ir�O . IQ .r 3f..•. .� './. mtA O 57�.. ZZ ¢ II r yrp O� �� w ' o z o VA d0ad 0 M No PMR LINE, ` : .., J \ \ '' l Z£ N WSJ w & o 'aoc� r`Rp \ \ KIM: 00 ZO£ \ I I s ;. A \ 0 I m I G \ �� Lnv)-voomc) �mm TITIm00000 C)mmmD r O O �m NO I K0 r -U) CO On> mCnco DOZp r zO-vr2Wm (AZr2m*Orrrm*rOO D 30m M I3NO �N�� = Nc>x'I n <o�Am 7c G7 Mm �3m Z 0r, M-n�Dm s \ M _ �Zz fOT13mo N D uuunllunuononnunuunnuuuu Z Wcz mmoNz 0zITI o�< O�Dam- r p -PL -0 0OA�m _0 Ooh mm`r AOV)�o 5 #(/� 010m0< D D.Z02mr- � ZOO r02DO WCN OtOAw ooOOw zO rO00 O• Z-nNmUOOTI v Yay fNs'tn ZA Ay�WDON�O`Lm�—Z NOr D�1 �r2 00 CAK Mmm �om�3 <0 -0 ZAZ �O� V1ZO(A 0 r a $� Ovmm>xmoom Z= mo D m�A�= KNz r, �mz `cmoN1 M O 1®O or_r O=z DDS >r. C zm c� Q0 z n o Z �_ r t0 �® �£ DO�0 m� �� 7cD0 \ DOS M(n0� Az (n Dz� Omp��O O 8 y ZmD z D� -nV1-n 0 roO Voz0 � i0) (A Z o000Dm r m T dC r Ul :0 �Op mZ`2 Z �mr mmr z� OCA DO Z -nT.-n 0 z �Ni >,a�^ D r m D 0 o D 0 0 U) m�Zm Pin Z 0� cZil�� ��JOym A,F tW z= O m m F m �mD .4;00> <il, O M°I �N m=1>; Z 1 37ddV =O m 00Z DmO _ Z az ro C�-n O -UTID O m ti ro NKM vZ<M mo ^'D (n zz mmo mC);U" 1� O�tlN0�0 z z D0 ca A Cn Z z- CA N A U) D Z = y Z C7 z 1S A3T1VA 021 z v- (A O m Doo N M ; u Z KID r Z W v MM °0 0 00 � N� o v D v .. D C M �__, O ■ V� zmn OD S�'3 ij Zz-0O� I , �<K---1 OO ZZmr m <D �O;0 y • N (n O ZmO Dm r� m O L---1 OU) j�00 f�* O mr < W Z II ...II II II II II II II II II II II II UIZ N�000 �m <N 0 X 000 wMM DD�7 D2 -UC- O 0 `2 `L `LC�ND D Cz� D.ZI �OOO Z Ci D D DD.ZI� `E �< mOAm0 01 O Z �DM --Imm MM zwo <M MZ T� T• mmOr mKZ -Z (A4M -nmz NK 3Z O M M OZO D3O Mr- Dm AWC)�N-UD uD Nm mcn wo �x = x A z c� � U) (A v ntlFW3N w Ncno 5�o z D� m mnm� o < PA z oy RD > tl _ <r<�— r m \ 0 ZKO A00 o Ulz - O IT1MO O m OZ m O 0O DZ� D� O z 0 0�(O 0) Z (")�0 2`� m ON � A r� ONVN2l3j NV m;mm O rD�m mm A �x � Z 0 0 s o O MDC�W M �N m O c D 1�p0 DmA <� W CACi((A N m m GoOO 10 3 Om m tn0 O A IW Z M CRC Enterprises 27600 Bouquet Canyon Road Suite 200 Santa Clarita Ca. 91350 Telephone (661) 297-2336 FAX (661) 297-2331 PREPARED FOR: MR. N , O, BO WHITMORE P.O. BOX 5576 SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA 91385 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP '°Y C N0. 67310 SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET CRC 2220 23321 8TH STREET LOT 1 - 8,480 SQ.FT. 292 SQ.FT. DRIVEWAY EASEMENT LOT 2 - 8,600 SQ.FT. 2,020 SQ.FT. DRIVEWAY EASEMENT LOT 3 - 8,600 SQ.FT. 4,020 SQ.FT. DRIVEWAY EASEMENT ,4PN: 2830-031-004 1.01 LOT 4 - 6,65 SQ.FT. 3,020 SQ.FT. DRIVEWAY EASEMENT i 2,118 SQ.FT. SEWER t DRAINAGE EASEMENT i A _ . 43,801 SQ.FT. = A -------- TREE LEGEND: AUSTRALIAN WILLOW (GEIJERA PARVIFIORA) (4) - 24$1 BOX, (4) - 36" BOX CAMPHOR TREE (CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA) (4) - 24ItBOX, (3) - 36" BOX AFRICAN SUMAC (RHUS LANCER) (I1) - 15 GAL. MIN. ARISTOCRAT PEAR (PYRUS ARISTOCRAT) (18) - 15 GAL. MIN. TOTAL = 50 TREES 23321 8TH STREET K; REVISIONS 8-31-06 DRC REV. 3-31-08 PLANNING REVISIONS 10-6-08 CITY MTG COMMENTS 2-20-09 CITY MTG COMMENTS DESIGN # DRAFTING SERVICES P.O. BOX 800172 VALENCIA, CA 91380 P: 441.444.0377 meldrLimetmdco.com www.tmdco.com THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. ALL DESIGNS AND OTHER INFORMATION IN THE DRAWINGS ARE FOR USE ON THE SPECIFIED PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION OF TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. Ln 0D z m =oD 3 r— o py Ln Ln z� LU t- XO �LQQ� Lid cn p U o Q OC W Q W W z z o Q N DATE: 8-22-06 SCALE: I/16'=1'-0" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 PERMIT: BLDO6- SHEET: A 1 OF 23327 8TH STREET AEN: 2830-031-004 SECOND 8-31-06 DRC REV. 3-31-08 FLOOR 10-6-08 PLAN 2-20-09 CITY MTG COMMENTS U1 FLOOR AREA = 1,884 SQ.FT. FIRST VALENCIA, CA 91360 FLOOR P: 661.644.0377 PLAN 00 meldrHm@tmdco.com www.tmdco.com FLOOR AREA = 1,801 SQ.FT. z TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS GARAGE AREA = 794 5Q.FT. RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION PLA FINS PLA SLAI FRONT ELEVATION ALL COLORS TO BE SELECTED BY OWNER AND TO BLEND IN WITH EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD COLORS. REAR ELEVATION REVISIONS 8-31-06 DRC REV. 3-31-08 PLANNING REVISIONS 10-6-08 CITY MTG COMMENTS 2-20-09 CITY MTG COMMENTS DATE: 8-22-04 IV DESIGN 4 DRAFTING 1/8"=1'-O" PROJECT: SERVICES CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DCS P.O. BOX 600172 U1 SHEET: A=2 VALENCIA, CA 91360 P: 661.644.0377 00 meldrHm@tmdco.com www.tmdco.com DATE: 8-22-04 THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE 1/8"=1'-O" PROJECT: INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND ARE THE CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DCS PROPERTY OF TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. ALL U1 SHEET: A=2 DESIGNS AND OTHER INFORMATION IN THE DRAWINGS ARE FOR USE ON THE SPECIFIED 00 PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION OF z TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS O SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE a- — OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. DATE: 8-22-04 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-O" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DCS O U1 SHEET: A=2 OP OL 00 z cn I I O LLIJ a- — F F W W 4 2 N � r U� U-- Q Y W 0 O J U fo W w cn p U .. o Q Q � W a ~~ zO W z z o Q w W DATE: 8-22-04 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-O" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DCS O BLD06- SHEET: A=2 OP OL O �I I I LLIJ F F W W 2 N DATE: 8-22-04 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-O" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DCS PERMIT: BLD06- SHEET: A=2 OP 23321 8TH STREET ,APN: 2830-031-0004 F-1 II II ' II II II II II II I I I I SECOND 8-31-09 DESIGN 4 DRAFTING 1/8"=1'-0" DRC REV. FLOOR CAD FILE: PLAN PLANNING REVISIONS 10-6-08 SHEET: A=3 FLOOR AREA = 1,554 SQ.FT. FIRST 2-20-09 P: 661.644.0377 FLOOR meldrum@tmdco.com www.tmdco.com PLAN THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION OF FLOOR AREA = 1,498 SQ.FT. WITH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS O SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE 6- GARAGE AREA = 600 SQ.FT. LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION _ PLATE FIN.FLR PLATE SLAB OVERALL HT PLATE FINFLF PLATE SLAB FRONT ELEVATION ALL COLORS TO BE SELECTED BY OWNER AND TO BLEND IN WITH EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD COLORS. REAR ELEVATION 1 REVISIONS 8-31-09 DESIGN 4 DRAFTING 1/8"=1'-0" DRC REV. 3-31-08 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 PLANNING REVISIONS 10-6-08 SHEET: A=3 VALENCIA, CA 91360 CITY MTG COMMENTS 2-20-09 P: 661.644.0377 CITY MTG COMMENTS DATE: 8-22-06 DESIGN 4 DRAFTING 1/8"=1'-0" PROJECT: SERVICES CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 P.O. BOX 600172 Ln SHEET: A=3 VALENCIA, CA 91360 P: 661.644.0377 03 meldrum@tmdco.com www.tmdco.com DATE: 8-22-06 THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE 1/8"=1'-0" PROJECT: INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND ARE THE CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 PROPERTY OF TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. ALL Ln SHEET: A=3 DESIGNS AND OTHER INFORMATION IN THE DRAWINGS ARE FOR USE ON THE SPECIFIED 03 PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED WTHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION OF z TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS O SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE 6- - OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. DATE: 8-22-06 �7 1/8"=1'-0" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 O Ln SHEET: A=3 N - OL 03 O z cel O 6- - WO J F- F 4 F W W 2 N � U� O� QC Lam() Q Cn X W � J UcQQ� W w Lo U .. o (L < -A W Q /—�� 416 ~ ~ z � W z z o Q w W cl DATE: 8-22-06 �7 1/8"=1'-0" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 O BLDOL- SHEET: A=3 N - OL O O WO J F- F F W W 2 N DATE: 8-22-06 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 PERMIT: BLDOL- SHEET: A=3 OF 23321 8TH STREET AEN: 2830-031-004 UUI - !LUL - I I I I II I I II II SECOND 8-31-06 IV DESIGN 4 DRAFTING 1/8"=1'-0" FLOOR 3-31-08 PLAN 8THSTREET.DCS PLANNING REVISIONS 10-6-08 FLOOR AREA = 1.884 SQ.FT. FIRST VALENCIA, CA 91350 CITY MTG COMMENTS 2-20-09 FLOOR PLAN meldrHmetmdco.com www.tmdco.com FLOOR AREA = 1,801 SQ.FT. TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS GARAGE AREA = 194 SQ.FT. RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SLAT FRONT ELEVATION ALL COLORS TO BE SELECTED BY OWNER AND TO BLEND IN WITH EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD COLORS. REAR ELEVATION REVISIONS 8-31-06 IV DESIGN 4 DRAFTING 1/8"=1'-0" DRC REV. 3-31-08 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DCS PLANNING REVISIONS 10-6-08 SHEET: A=4 VALENCIA, CA 91350 CITY MTG COMMENTS 2-20-09 P: 441.444.0377 CITY MTG COMMENTS DATE: 8-22-06 IV DESIGN 4 DRAFTING 1/8"=1'-0" PROJECT: SERVICES CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DCS P.O. BOX 800172 Ln SHEET: A=4 VALENCIA, CA 91350 P: 441.444.0377 OD meldrHmetmdco.com www.tmdco.com DATE: 8-22-06 THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE 1/8"=1'-0" PROJECT: INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND ARE THE CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DCS PROPERTY OF TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. ALL Ln SHEET: A=4 DESIGNS AND OTHER INFORMATION IN THE DRAWINGS ARE FOR USE ON THE SPECIFIED OD PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION OF z TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE — OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. DATE: 8-22-06 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DCS O Ln SHEET: A=4 �yyy O OD O z m O — w J F- F L I 4 F - w w T N OD ULL Ln� Y w cn X m U[QQ� w w cn p U .. o — �QW � a ASC F- I --- F O w z z Q Q w DATE: 8-22-06 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DCS O BLDO6- SHEET: A=4 �yyy O O O O w J F- F L I F - w w T N DATE: 8-22-06 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DCS PERMIT: BLDO6- SHEET: A=4 of: 1 23321 8TH STREET SECOND FIRST 7D DESIGN 4 DRAFTING 1/80=1'-0" FLOOR FLOOR PLAN PLAN PLANNING REVISIONS 10-6-08 FLOOR AREA = 1.346 SQ.FT. P: 661.644.0377 CITY MTG COMMENTS GARAGE AREA = 618 DECK AREA = 201 SQ.FT. TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. VISUAL CONTACT AFN: 2830-031-00,4 I I LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 'LATE °IN.PLR. 'LATE BLAB FRONT ELEVATION ALL COLORS TO BE SELECTED BY OWNER AND TO BLEND IN WITH EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD COLORS. REAR ELEVATION LL HT. E .R. E. .I o- o - I I REVISIONS FIRST 7D DESIGN 4 DRAFTING 1/80=1'-0" DRC REV. FLOOR CAD FILE: PLAN PLANNING REVISIONS 10-6-08 SHEET: A=5 FLOOR AREA = 1.612 SQ.FT. P: 661.644.0377 CITY MTG COMMENTS GARAGE AREA = 618 SQ.FT. 'LATE °IN.PLR. 'LATE BLAB FRONT ELEVATION ALL COLORS TO BE SELECTED BY OWNER AND TO BLEND IN WITH EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD COLORS. REAR ELEVATION LL HT. E .R. E. .I o- o - I I REVISIONS 8-31-06 7D DESIGN 4 DRAFTING 1/80=1'-0" DRC REV. 3-31-08 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 PLANNING REVISIONS 10-6-08 SHEET: A=5 VALENCIA, CA 91360 CITY MTG COMMENTS 2-20-09 P: 661.644.0377 CITY MTG COMMENTS DATE: 8-22-06 7D DESIGN 4 DRAFTING 1/80=1'-0" PROJECT: SERVICES CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 P.O. BOX 600172 Ln SHEET: A=5 VALENCIA, CA 91360 P: 661.644.0377 00 meldr4m@tmdco.com www.tmdco.com DATE: 8-22-06 THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE 1/80=1'-0" PROJECT: INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND ARE THE CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 PROPERTY OF TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. ALL Ln SHEET: A=5 DESIGNS AND OTHER INFORMATION IN THE DRAWINGS ARE FOR USE ON THE SPECIFIED 00 PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION OF z TROY MELDRUM DESIGN. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS O SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE a - OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. DATE: 8-22-06 �7 1/80=1'-0" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 O Ln SHEET: A=5 �yyy O 00 z m O O tt, a - w J � H F LL H w Lu T t!) 02 =3� U� LL [Y L � 0 z c) x Lu IL z O QL w A , Lu cn p U .. o �-QW � Q QL w z Z o Q w w w DATE: 8-22-06 �7 1/80=1'-0" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 O BLD06- SHEET: A=5 �yyy O OLLI O tt, w J � H F LL H w Lu T t!) DATE: 8-22-06 SCALE: 1/80=1'-0" PROJECT: 2006-13 CAD FILE: 8THSTREET.DC5 PERMIT: BLD06- SHEET: A=5 OF TrIg=¢71� ey�g �g5p - 1760-704 (179) 131 S T� 58£16 v: b1161Y-1); VINVs 111dS 10-1 a N$9BL55 X09 'O,d a°°eggQ p� Nouz)naisNoo SIN80N l?1dNIW1Td�!ld $ z� ma • Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: James Chow DATE: October 28, 2008 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF MASTER CASE 06-157, A PROPOSED FIVE -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 23327 8TH STREET IN THE HAPPY VALLEY COMMUNITY DEPARTMENT: Community Development 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council conduct a public hearing and deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution, denying Master Case 06-157 (Tentative Tract Map 67310, Oak Tree Permit 06-026), a request to subdivide one residential parcel into five residential parcels at 23327 8th Street. BACKGROUND On July 3, 2006, an application was submitted to the City with a request to subdivide one parcel into five parcels on the subject property located at 23327 8th Street, five parcels east of Valley Street, identified as APN 2830-037-004. On April 15, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project and considered the staff presentation, the staff report, and public testimony on the proposal. The Planning Commission considered the project proposal and in a 5-0 vote, directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the proposed five -lot subdivision, and continued the public hearing to May 20, 2008. Alternatively, the Planning Commission, at the April 15th meeting, recommended that the applicant work with City staff on revising the proposal and return with a project consisting of a reduced density and number of lots. Following the April 15th Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested additional time and a continuance of the scheduled May 20th meeting to June 3, 2008, in order to revise plans for a three -lot subdivision. After further consideration of the Planning Commission's recommended project revision, the applicant decided not to revise the project to a three -lot subdivision for the Planning Commission's review. On June 3, 2008, the Planning Commission, in a 4-0 vote (with one Commissioner being absent), denied, without prejudice, Master Case No. 06-157, a request to subdivide one residential parcel at 23327 8th Street into five parcels. Subsequently, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by the applicant on June 17, 2008. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Master Case 06-157 consists of a request for a tentative tract map and oak tree permit to create five parcels on the subject property located at 23327 8th Street. The subject property consists of a single-family residence, is approximately 43,807 square feet in area (1 acre), and is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The subject property is in an L -shape configuration with an existing single-family residence located toward the front of the property, a detached garage in the middle of the property, and vacant areas located toward the rear of the property. The proposed subdivision would create one (1) standard key lot (lot fronting on a street) and four (4) flag lots (lots located behind key lots that utilize a flag strip for access). Proposed Parcel No. 1 is a standard key lot, located at the front of the subject site. Proposed Parcels No. 2-5 are flag lots that would range from 5,803 square feet to 7,950 square feet in net lot area. Each of the proposed flag lots would share a common driveway and each would have a required 10 -foot wide access strip connecting to 8th Street. The proposed parcels are contiguous to one another, and are bound by a single-family residence to the north and east, 8th Street and single-family residences to the south, and single-family residences to the west. ANALYSIS Inconsistency with Unified Development Code Findings At the April 15, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision and found the project to be incompatible with the character and pattern of development within the Happy Valley neighborhood. Pursuant to Section 16.13.060 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code, the Planning Commission or City Council may disapprove the platting of flag lots where the proposed design is not justified by the size and shape of the division of land or where the design is in conflict with the pattern of neighborhood development. The proposal consists of the creation of one (1) standard key lot at the front of the site and four (4) flag lots at the rear of the site. Compared to the pattern of development in the neighborhood, the proposed project is not consistent with the majority of the lots surrounding the site and within this neighborhood, which include standard key lots with lot sizes that range between 7,000 square feet to 21,000 square feet. The proposed lots would have net lots areas that range between 5,803 square feet and 7,950 square feet. These lots sizes would not be in keeping with the average lot sizes in the Happy Valley community and would be smaller than most lots in this area. The Planning Commission, in their review of the project, directed staff to work with the applicant on revising the proposal and return with a project consisting of a reduced number of lots. Such a revision and reduction in density would create lots averaging 14,500 square feet, which would be in keeping with the density of development in Happy Valley. Because a revised project proposing three (3) lots was not submitted, staff supports the Planning Commission's direction to deny the project as proposed, finding that the proposed five -lot subdivision does not meet the UDC's tentative tract map findings. 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 06- 157. In addition, the public notice was placed in a local newspaper and a sign was posted at the site. Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 21080b.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), proposed projects that result in denial are not subject to the CEQA review and evaluation process. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Approve the appeal and approve Master Case 06-157, a request to subdivide one residential parcel into five residential parcels at the project site. 2. Direct staff to work with the applicant on a revision to the project that would consist of a subdivision of reduced density (either a three -lot or a four -lot alternative); continue the item to a future meeting to consider the revised project. It should be noted that any such revision would require additional environmental review and analysis and would be brought back before the City Council for a public hearing and review. 3. Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT No negative fiscal impact is anticipated. Any cost associated with development of the proposed project would be paid in full by the applicant/appellant. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Site Plan/Elevations Exhibit C - Aerial Map Exhibit D - Zoning Map Exhibit E - Letter of Appeal Exhibit F - Letters from residents Planning Commission Resolution P08-08 available in the City Clerk's Reading File Planning Commission Staff Report available in the City Clerk's Reading File CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 06-157 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 67310 OAK TREE PERMIT 06-026 DATE: April 15, 2008 TO: Chairperson Berger and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lisa M. Hardy, AICP, Planning Manager CASE PLANNER: James Chow, Associate Planner APPLICANT: Norris and Tori Whitmore LOCATION: 233278 th Street Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 2830-037-004 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map (TTM 673 10) to allow the subdivision of one developed residential parcel into five residential parcels. Entitlements include a TTM to subdivide the subject property into five parcels for future residential uses and an Oak Tree Permit (OTP) to allow the encroachment and/or pruning of four (4) oak trees located on or adjacent to the subject property. The project site is approximately 43,807 square feet in area (1 acre) and is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The project site is located at 23327 81h Street in the Community of Newhall, City of Santa Clarita. BACKGROUND On July 3, 2006, an application was submitted to the City with a request to subdivide one parcel into five parcels on the subject property located on the north side of 8th Street, five parcels east of Valley Street, identified as APN 2830-037-004. The subject property is developed with an existing single-family residence and maintains a General Plan land use designation of RS (Residential Suburban) with a zoning classification of RS (Residential Suburban), which requires a minimum net lot area of 5,000 square feet. The property is located in the Happy Valley neighborhood of the Newhall community. The project site is surrounded to the north, east, south, and west by existing single-family residential uses. On September 21, 2007, the applicant filed with the County Recorder, a Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment No. 06-007 for the project site and an adjoining property located at 24528 Valley Street. The recorded lot line adjustment shifted the rear property line of the property at 24528 Master Case No. 06-157 April 15, 2008 Page 2 of 7 Valley Street westward 117 feet, thereby granting the project site an additional 8,775 square feet of lot area. The project requires the approval of the following entitlements: a Tentative Tract Map to allow for the subdivision of the subject property into five (5) residential parcels and an Oak Tree Report to analyze the potential impact of the project regarding oak trees located on the subject property. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to determine the environmental impacts associated with the development pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was prepared for this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant is requesting to create five parcels on the subject property located at 23327 8`h Street. The subject property consists of a single-family residence, is approximately 43,807 square feet in area (1 acre), and is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). No residential construction and no oak tree removals are proposed with this application. The subdivision will allow the future construction of single-family residences. After approval of the tentative tract map, the project applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence and construct five (5) custom residences, each of which will be subject to review and approval by the City. Property Description The subject property is in an L -shape configuration with an existing single-family residence located toward the front of the property, a detached garage in the middle of the property, and vacant areas located toward the rear of the property. The subject property is relatively flat, with an overall change in elevation of approximately seven feet from the street to the rear property line. The subject property consists of two oak trees (identified in the oak tree report as Oak #73 and #74) along the western property line. A third oak tree (Oak #OP -3) is located off-site on the adjacent property to the west and a fourth oak tree (Oak #OP -2) is located off-site,on the adjacent property to the north. The proposed subdivision would create one (1) standard key lot and four (4) flag lots. Proposed Parcel No. 1 is a key lot, approximately 6,992 square feet in net lot area and is bounded to the north by proposed Parcel No. 2, to the east by an existing single family residence, to the south by 8`h Street, and to the west by the proposed shared private driveway. Proposed Parcels No. 2-5 are flag lots that would range from 5,803 square feet to 7,950 square feet in net lot area. Each of these four flag lots would share a common driveway and each would have a required 10 -foot wide access strip connecting to 8`h Street. The proposed parcels are contiguous to one another, and are bound by a single family residence to the north and east, 8`h Street and single family residences to the south, and single family residences to the west. Oak Trees No oak trees are proposed to be removed with this subdivision. There are two native, non -heritage oak trees (Coast Live Oak) on-site and two off -property oak trees located to the west and north of the project site. Two other oak trees located on an adjacent property at 24528 Valley Street would not be impacted by the proposed project. Driveway and drainage construction and grading would impact Master Case No. 06-157 April 15, 2008 Page 3 of 7 and encroach into the protected zone of four of the oak trees, two of which are located on the subject property, and two are located off-site on the properties to the west and north of the project site as identified in the Oak Tree Report prepared by Jan C. Scow, Consulting Arborists, LLC. Mitigation measures are identified in the Oak Tree Report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Access and Circulation Primary access to the subject property is via 8th Street. The subject property maintains frontage on the south side of 81h Street, which will serve as the point of entry to the.proposed subdivision. A new private driveway will be constructed perpendicular to 81h Street and will serve as ingress/egress access to the proposed flag lots, Parcels No. 2-5. The front of the private driveway would be constructed with permeable, interlocking pavers and would be located away from the trunks of the oak trees so as to reduce impacts to the oaks. The proposed private driveway would terminate with a Fire Department required turn -around. A standard 20 -foot driveway is proposed for Parcel No. 1, a typical key lot. The applicant proposes no removal of oak trees with this subdivision. The configuration of private driveway was designed around the location of existing oak trees on the subject property to minimize impacts to affected oak trees. Property Easements Currently, there are two easements of record that traverse the subject property, specifically proposed Parcel No. 5. These include an easement to Los Angeles County Flood Control District and an easement to Los Angeles County for sanitary sewer purposes. The proposed subdivision would not conflict with these easements as the proposed building pad location on Parcel No. 5 would not be located over or encroach onto either of these easements. In addition, prior to recordation of the final tract map, reciprocal ingress/egress, utility, landscape and common area easements within the proposed subdivision shall be granted to all property owners and maintained by an HOA. Site Preparation Site preparation for the project includes minor grading, the import of 388 cubic yards of dirt, pad development, driveway construction, drainage, and utility installation for the future construction of single-family residences. Site Drainage Improvements An existing storm drain is located on the project site and traverses proposed Parcel No. 5. The applicant proposes to install a catch basin and storm drain at the northern portion of the project site, which would accept the surface waters that would flow northward from the future residences on Parcels No. 2-5. `Drainage for Parcel No. 1 would run in a southerly direction to 81h Street. The drainage of surface waters from the future construction of single-family residences would be controlled by Building and Safety Division regulations and accommodated by the City's existing flood control channels, storm drains and catch basins. Sewer Improvements The City of Santa Clarita requires parcels to connect to a public sewer line when one is located within 600 feet of site. The nearest sewer line is located on-site and along 81h Street. The applicant proposes an on-site sewer to connect to the existing on-site sewer line, with house laterals for Parcels No. 2-5. Parcel No. 1 would connect to the existing sewer in 8th Street. Master Case No. 06-157 April 15, 2008 Page 4 of 7 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, ZONING, SURROUNDING LAND USES The City of Santa Clarita General Plan land use designation of the project site is RS (Residential Suburban) with an implementing zone classification of RS (Residential Suburban). As defined by the City's Unified Development Code, the RS zone "corresponds to the single-family detached tract home at a density of up to five and no tenths (5.0) dwelling units per gross acre. Additional uses are permitted that are complementary to, and can exist in harmony with, a residential neighborhood (Section 17.11.020.E)." The proposed project implements the policies and goals of the City's General Plan, more specifically, Policy 6.2 of the Land Use Element, which states, "Continue to provide for the development of new housing while ensuring that the character, scale, and density of new residential development is sensitive, compatible, and complimentary to existing residential neighborhoods; " and, Policy 6.3 of the Land Use Element, which states, "Provide for the retention and maintenance of existing residential neighborhoods, which are primarily developed with single-family homes and ensure that new development is compatible with and complementary to existing development in terms of scale, architecture, and density. " The application is consistent with the General Plan and RS zoning classification. The proposed parcels created through the TTM would support the development and construction of single-family residences, which would ensure compatibility with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. Table 1.1 illustrates the General Plan land use designation, zoning designation and current land uses of the subject property and surrounding properties. TABLE 1.1 DIRECTION GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ZONING DESIGNATION LAND USE tt.x&� sSUBJECT «JP PROPERTY �g{ aps : t k .W �^��� i �i. RSf(R sidential Suburban) a P 3iex W*"" �''�.lu'tf^�PU� �^ `�`'A �"� +r -. .a� (5 0%DICT peX gro�s¢�ys acre) ' �a"R�ti 4 5 '% ' „QRS aY` C : dXFin'1•x"'.;"� � -:{j. �n�7� (Residential Squtbui-bian)� tt� 7 0. �Detache "singlet ilyT> aiN"�r' � 7� "�a4 �, }-rRes„ldenttal :_ NORTH RS RS Detached single-family residential SOUTH RS RS Detached single-family residential EAST RS RS Detached single-family residential WEST RS RS Detached single-family residential ANALYSIS SUBDIVISION The proposed subdivision complies with the RS development standards regarding maximum allowable density, minimum net lot area, lot widths, and property line setbacks. The future development and construction of single-family residences shall comply with the RS zone at the time of building permit approval. Master Case No. 06-157 April 15, 2008 Page 5 of 7 The maximum allowable density for properties located in the RS zone is five (5) dwelling units per gross acre. The subject property is approximately 43,807 square feet in area (1 acre) and would support the creation of 5 parcels. The application proposes the creation of five residential parcels, which is within the maximum allowable. PARCEL CREATION There are no physical constraints on the property which would prohibit the subdivision of the parcel and for the future construction of single-family residences. The site is adequately served by 8`h Street, and the future construction of private driveway, and includes utilities and other services. . The site map identifies the proposed Parcels No. 2-5 would share access from a private driveway, which is accessed via 81h Street. Proposed Parcel No. 1 would be a key lot with access via a typical driveway to 8`h Street. The project has been evaluated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the City's Subdivision Engineering and Traffic Divisions. The project shall comply with the development standards of the Traffic and Engineering Divisions, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and all applicable agencies to ensure the subdivision meets all necessary requirements and that emergency access is adequate and sufficient. The five parcels created by the application"will range in size from 5,803 square feet to 7,950 square feet. The minimum net lot area in the RS zone is 5,000 square feet. The parcels will be maintained and/or developed as follows: Parcel No. 1 Parcel No. 1 is a standard key lot, approximately 6,992 square feet in net lot area. No oak trees exist on Parcel No. 1. The approval of TTM 67310 would allow the future construction of a single-family residence without further entitlements. The proposed preliminary elevation plan for the future residence limits the maximum height to less than the permitted -by -right height of 35 feet. The future development and construction of a single-family residence shall comply with the subject property's implementing zone (Residential Suburban) at the time of building permit approval. Parcels No. 2-5 Proposed Parcels No. 2-5 are flag lots that would range from 5,803 square feet to 7,950 square feet in net lot area. Each of these 4 lots would share a common driveway, to be located on the western portion of the site, via a reciprocal access agreement. The proposed parcels are contiguous to one another, with each consisting of a 10 -foot wide access strip to 8th Street. The approval of TTM 67310 would allow the future construction of single-family residences on Parcel No. 2 through Parcel No. 5 without further entitlements. The proposed preliminary elevation plans for the future residences would limit the maximum height to less than the permitted -by -right height of 35 feet. Pursuant Section 16.13.060 and 17.15.020 of the UDC, the access strips for flag lots shall be at least ten (10) feet in width, where the strips are contiguous and shall maintain a ten (10) foot front, side, and rear yard setback. The future development and construction of single-family residences shall comply with the subject property's implementing zone (Residential Suburban) at the time of building permit Master Case No. 06-157 April 15, 2008 Page 6 of 7 approval. Table 1.2 illustrates the proposed parcel sizes upon subdivision of the subject property: TABLE 1.2 PROPOSED PARCELS PARCEL NET AREA PARCEL NO. 1 6,992 Square Feet PARCEL NO. 2 5,803 Square Feet PARCEL NO.3 6,482 Square Feet PARCEL NO.4 7,950 Square Feet PARCEL NO.5 7,407 Square Feet APPLICATION ENTITLEMENTS Tentative Tract Map 67310 Pursuant to Title 16, provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and any other regulations provided by law, the subdivision of land within the City of Santa Clarita requires the preparation of a subdivision tract map for five parcels or more and presented for approval to the Planning Commission. Oak Tree Permit (OTP 06-026) Pursuant to Section 17.17.090 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), the City of Santa Clarita requires the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees. The policy shall apply to the removal, pruning, cutting and/or encroachment into the protected zone of oak trees. Due to driveway and drainage construction and grading of the subject property, encroachment into the protected zone and pruning of 4 oak trees located on the subject property or adjacent properties require the approval of an oak tree permit. GRADING The project site maintains a relatively flat area throughout the project site with a gentle change of elevation of seven feet from the front of the property at 8th Street to the rear property line. As a result, the project proposes grading 388 cubic yards of earthwork to level and prepare the site for construction. The project's grading would create at -grade building pads for the future development of single-family residences. No structures would be placed or cantilevered or otherwise elevated above the graded building pads. The proposed driveway will be relatively flat and not exceed a 2 percent grade. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an initial study was prepared and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be completed for the proposed project. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment with regards to biological resources (oak trees), mitigation measures have been implemented to reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. The Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted for public review on March 25, 2008, at Santa Clarita City Hall and Los Angeles County Public Library, Valencia Branch. Master Case No. 06-157 April 15, 2008 Page 7 of 7 Oak Trees No oak trees are proposed to be removed with this subdivision. The applicant originally proposed to remove Oak Tree No. 73, which is located on the project site's western property line, in order to construct the proposed private driveway. Per the direction of the City, the applicant has revised the site plan to locate the proposed driveway to be five feet further away from the trunk of Oak No. 73, thereby eliminating any safety concerns and preserving the oak tree. In addition, the applicant has revised the site plan to install permeable pavers over the root systems of Oaks No. 74 and OP -3 and locate the private driveway away from their trunks in such a way to avoid further impact to these oaks. Minor encroachment and root loss would occur with Oak No. OP -2 with drainage and utility installation. However, encroachments to Oak OP -2 would be reduced to minor impacts with the proposed pruning of and protective fencing around the oak. The construction of the private driveway, drainage improvements, and grading would encroach into the protected zone and require pruning of four oak trees located on and adjacent to the subject property. Mitigation measures are identified in the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring Program and ensure that impacts to the identified oak trees would be minor. PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMUNITY OUTREACH As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the subject property were notified of Master Case Number 06-157 by a legal notice advertising the public hearing. The notice was placed in a local newspaper and a sign was posted at the site. At the writing of this staff report, the Planning Division has received one letter in opposition to the project (see attached) and three telephone inquiries for general informati6n regarding the proposed project. RECOMMENDATION Based on the project's compliance with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and RS zone development standards pursuant to the Unified Development Code, staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Open the public hearing; 2. Receive testimony from the public; and 3. .Adopt Resolution P08-08, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case 06-157 including Tentative Tract Map 67310; and Oak Tree Permit 06-026 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A"). ATTACHMENTS Resolution P08-08 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) Vicinity Map Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Tentative Tract Map 67310 Preliminary Elevation Plan SACD\CURRENT\!2006\06-157 (TTM, OTP)\Planning Commission\06-157 Staff Report.doc CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 06-157 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 67310 OAK TREE PERMIT 06-026 DATE: June 3, 2008 TO: . Chairperson Berger and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lisa M. Webber, AICP, Planning Manager CASE PLANNER: James Chow, Associate Planner APPLICANT: Norris and Tori Whitmore LOCATION: 23327 81h Street . Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 2830-037-004 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map (TTM 673 10) to allow the subdivision of one developed residential parcel into five residential parcels. Entitlements include a TTM to subdivide the subject property into five parcels for future residential uses and an Oak Tree Permit (OTP) to allow the encroachment and/or pruning of four (4) oak trees located on or adjacent to the subject property. The project site is approximately 43,807 square feet in area (1 acre) and is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The project site is located at 23327 8`h Street in the Community of Newhall, City of Santa Clarita. BACKGROUND On July 3, 2006, an application was submitted to the City with a request to subdivide one parcel into five parcels on the subject property located on the north side of 81h Street, five parcels east of Valley Street, identified as APN 2830-037-004. On April 15, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project and considered the staff presentation, the staff report, and public testimony on the proposal. The Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing to May 20, 2008 and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision or work with the applicant on revising the proposal and return with a project consisting of a reduced number of lots. Following the April 15`h Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested additional time and a continuance of the scheduled May 201h meeting to June 3, 2008, in order to revise plans for a 3 -lot subdivision. After further consideration of the Planning Commission's recommended Master Case 06-157 June 3, 2008 Page 2 of 3 revision to the project, the applicant decided not to concur with a project of reduced density and chose not to resubmit revised plans for consideration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting a tentative tract map and oak tree permit to create five parcels on the subject property located at 23327 8`h Street. The subject property consists of a single-family residence, is approximately 43,807 square feet in area (1 acre), and is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The subject property is in an L -shape configuration with an existing single-family residence located toward the front of the property, a detached garage in the middle of the property, and vacant areas located toward the rear of the property. The proposed subdivision would create one (1) standard key lot and four (4) flag lots. Proposed Parcel No. 1 is a standard key lot, located at the front of the subject site. Proposed Parcels No. 2- 5 are flag lots that would range from 5,803 square feet to 7,950 square feet in net lot area. Each of the proposed flag lots would share a common driveway and each would have a required 10 - foot wide access strip connecting to 81h Street. The proposed parcels are contiguous to one another, and are bound by a single family residence to the north and east, 81h Street and single family residences to the south, and single family residences to the west. ANALYSIS Inconsistency with Unified Development Code Findings At the April 15, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision and found the project to be incompatible with the character and pattern of development within the Happy Valley neighborhood. Pursuant to Section 16.13.060 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code, the Planning Commission may disapprove the platting of flag lots where the proposed design is not justified by the size and shape of the division of land or where the design is in conflict with the pattern of neighborhood development. The proposal consists of the creation of one (1) standard key lot at the front of the site and four (4) flag lots at the rear of the site. Compared to the pattern of development in the neighborhood, the proposed project is not consistent with the majority of the lots surrounding the site and within this neighborhood, which include standard key lots with lot sizes that range between 7,000 square feet to 21,000 square feet. A revised subdivision with a reduced density of three (3) lots would create lots averaging 14,500 square feet, which is in keeping with the density of development in Happy Valley. The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant on revising the proposal and return with a project consisting of a reduced number of lots. Because a revised project proposing three (3) lots has not been submitted, staff is following through with the Planning Commission's Master Case 06-157 June 3, 2008 Page 3 of 3 direction to deny the project as proposed, finding that the proposed 5 -lot subdivision does not meet the UDC's tentative tract map findings. Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 21080b.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), proposed projects that result in disapproval are not subject to the CEQA review and evaluation process. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Adopt Resolution P08-08, denying, without prejudice, Master Case 06-157, Tentative Tract Map 67310, Oak Tree Permit 06-026. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. P08-08 Aerial/Zoning Map S:\CD\CURRENT\!2006\06-157 (TTM, OTP)\Planning Commission\06-157 PC. Staff Report. DENIAL,6.03.08.doc RESOLUTION NO P08-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MASTER CASE 06-157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 67310, OAK TREE PERMIT 06-026 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE RESIDENTIAL PARCEL INTO FIVE RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23327 8TH STREET (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 2830-037-004) ZONED RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN), 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 July 3, 2006, an entitlement application was filed by Norris and Tori Whitmore (the "Applicant") with the Planning Division, which included the following requests: Tentative Tract Map 67310 to subdivide the subject property for future residential uses; and Oak Tree Permit (OTP06-026) to allow encroachment into the protected zone of two (2) off property oak trees and two (2) oak trees located on the subject property; b. .On September 21, 2007, the applicant filed with the County Recorder, a Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment No. 06-007 for APNs 2830-037-012 and 2830-037- 004 (the subject property); c. The subject property is located on at 23327 81" Street, Assessor Parcel Number 2830-037- 004 (hereafter the "subject property"). The subject property is approximately 43,575 square feet in area (I acre) and located on the north side of 8` Street, five parcels east of Valley Street in the Happy Valley neighborhood of the Newhall community, City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles; d. The General Plan land use designation and zoning classification of the subject property is RS (Residential Suburban); e. The surrounding land uses consists of single-family residences to the north, east, south, and west with a General Plan land use and zoning designation of RS (Residential Suburban); f. , The project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project, which determined that the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the impacts associated with the project to a less than significant impact to the environment; g. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed; Resolution P08-08 Master Case 06-157 Page 2 of 4 h. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on April 15, 2008. This public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At the April 15, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission considered the staff presentation, the staff report, and public testimony on the proposal. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to May 20, 2008 and directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny the project without prejudice or work with the applicant on a revised proposal of reduced density for consideration; A continued public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on May 20, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. During this meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to June 3; 2008 and adopt a resolution of denial for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision; and J. A continued public hearing before the Planning. Commission was held on June 3, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. During this meeting the Planning Commission received the staff report and public testimony on the project. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts, the Commission further finds and determines as follows: a. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 21080 b.5 which states, "This division does not apply to any of the following activities [including] projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." SECTION 3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings (Section 17.03.030 of the Unified Development Code and Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act) for Tentative Tract Map 67310, a legislative body of the City of Santa Clarita shall deny approval of a tentative map, if it is inconsistent with any of the following findings. a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan, this Code, and/or any specific plan; b. The site is physically suitable for the type of development; C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; d. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat; e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems; and f The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will. not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution P08-08 Master Case 06-157 Page 3 of 4 The Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: The proposed subdivision is not consistent with all of the above findings as outlined in the City's Unified Development Code (Section 17.03.030) and the Subdivision Map Act (Section 67310). More specifically, the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement would not be consistent with the City's Unified Development Code. Pursuant to Section 16.13.060 of the Unified Development Code, the Planning Commission may disapprove the platting of flag lots where the proposed design is not justified by the size and shape of the division of land or where the design is in conflict with the pattern of neighborhood development. The site of the proposed subdivision would not be physically suitable for the type or density of development. The proposed four (4) flag lots and one (1) key lot would not be compatible in design, density, or pattern with the neighborhood development. The neighborhood in which the site is located consists largely of lots that are standard key lots and that exceed the sizes of lots proposed within this subdivision. The design of the proposed subdivision and the flag lots is not justified by the size and shape of the subject site or by the pattern of development within the neighborhood. SECTION 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: Adopt Resolution P08-08, denying, without prejudice, Master Case 06-157, consisting of Tentative Tract Map 67310, Oak Tree Permit 06-026. Resolution P08-08 Master Case 06-157 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June, 2008. MIKE BERGER, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: LISA M. WEBBER, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Lisa M. Webber, Secretary of the Planning Commission 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 3rd day of June 2008, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY SACD\CURRENT\!2006\06-157 (TTM, OTP)\Planning Commission\06-157 PC.Resolution.DENiAL - 6.03.08.doc the original site plan which include relocating the proposed driveway further away from the trunk of an .oak as well as proposing permeable pavers over the root systems for two oak trees. The construction of the private driveway, drainage improvements, and grading would encroach into the protected zone and require pruning of four oak trees located on and adjacent to the subject property. Adherence to conditions of approval would ensure that impacts to these oaks would be minor. 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 06-157. In addition, the public notice was placed in a local newspaper and a sign was posted at the site. Environmental Review Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an initial study was prepared and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be completed for the proposed project. The Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were posted for public review at Santa Clarita City Hall and Los Angeles County Public Library, Valencia Branch. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT No negative fiscal impact is anticipated. Any cost associated with development of the proposed project would be paid in full by the applicant/appellant. ATTACHMENTS Resolution - Entitlement Resolution Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Site Plan/Landscape Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Elevation/Floor Plan, Oak Tree Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study City Council Agenda Report (October 28, 2008) available in the City Clerk's Reading File Planning Commission Staff Reports and Resolution available in the City Clerk's Reading File