HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 06 276 (2)09
Agenda Item: 9
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by: Darin Seegmiller
DATE: March 24, 2009
SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 06-276, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
06-013, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 07-002 AND
RETROACTIVE OAK TREE PERMIT 06-047 TO ALLOW FOR
CORRECTIVE GRADING ON PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN
JOSEL DRIVE AND WARMSPRINGS DRIVE (APN
2848-003-023) WITHIN THE SAND CANYON COMMUNITY IN
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council conduct the public hearing and adopt a resolution approving Master Case 06-276,
subject to the conditions of approval, and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
BACKGROUND
In July 2002, the City of Santa Clarita received a complaint regarding illegal grading taking place
on the project site. Following the complaint, the City issued a stop work order for the grading and
informed the property owner that such activities require a grading permit. Over the course of the
next five years, the City received three additional complaints from neighboring residents
regarding illegal grading on the property. The City continued to issue stop work orders in
response to the complaints and informed the property owner that due to the topography of the
site, its proximity to a City -designated Significant Ridgeline and the presence of oak trees on the
property, additional permits and entitlements from the Planning Division were required prior to
the issuance of a grading permit.
The City filed a lawsuit against the property owner on February 14, 2006, regarding the illegal
grading on the property. On November 16, 2006, Mr. Dominguez, the property owner, submitted
an application to the Planning Division requesting approval of a Hillside Review Permit,
AdooteO.,- L=,..
—v� �
Ridgeline Alteration Permit, and Oak Tree Permit. On August 13, 2007, the courts granted a
Permanent Injunction requiring Mr. Dominguez to obtain a Hillside Review Permit, Ridgeline
Alteration Permit, Oak Tree Permit and Grading Permit. A detailed timeline of events up to the
date of the Planning Commission hearing is included as an attachment to this document.
Planning Commission Hearing
On November 18, 2008, City staff presented the proposed project to the Planning Commission.
The project that was presented to the Planning Commission included a graded pad, a gazebo, and
walking paths on the upper portions of the graded area. The Planning Commission, in a 3-2 vote,
recommended that the City Council approve Master Case 06-276, subject to the removal of the
graded pad, gazebo, and walking paths. The applicant has revised the grading plan and
landscaping plan to conform with the Planning Commission's request.
Project Description
The project site is approximately 12.5 acres of vacant land with an average cross -slope of
approximately 42 percent within the Ridgeline Preservation overlay. Topographically, the
property is located on the north- and west -facing flank of a sloping hillside and contains an
east -west hill roughly in the center portion of the property. These two features create a bowl -like
area on the northern portion of the site that has been previously illegally graded and cleared of
most vegetation. The northern portion of the site's ground surface gently descends from the
owner's adjacent parcel to the "bowl" area before rising again in a southerly direction to the
aforementioned hill. To the south of the hill area, the property slopes down to the toe of slope of
a significant ridgeline partially located in the Angeles National Forest. Elevations on the site
range from 1,600- 2,200 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The proposed project site previously
adjoined a parcel containing a single family residence located at 26505 Josel Drive that is also
owned by the applicant. Since the project proposed a new detached garage on a property that did
not have a primary residence, the City required the applicant to record a lot line adjustment to
combine the applicant's two adjacent parcels into one parcel. The lot line adjustment was
recorded with Los Angeles County on January 2, 2008. Utility service such as water, gas and
electrical lines are provided to the project site from the applicant's residence on Josel Drive.
The applicant performed approximately 11,000 cubic yards of unpermitted grading on the project
site which exposed adverse bedding planes in the on-site bedrock and thus created an
unstable/unsafe condition. In order to stabilize the slope, the geotechnical engineer of record
recommends a buttress fill be graded to mitigate the adverse condition. Once the corrective
grading has been completed, the slope will be stabilized. The corrective grading will require
13,637 cubic yards of cut and fill material which will be balanced on-site and consists of
approximately 4.6 acres on the 12.5 -acre property. In addition to the grading required for slope
stabilization, the applicant is also proposing landscaping and the construction of a garage.
Therefore, the project will require the following discretionary actions of the City of Santa Clarita:
• Hillside Development Review — to allow corrective grading and an accessory structure on a
2
parcel with an average cross slope greater than 10 percent;
• Ridgeline Alteration Permit — to allow corrective grading within 1,000 feet of a Significant
Ridgeline and in the upper 2/3 of a slope;
• Retroactive Oak Tree Permit — due to unpermitted grading that occurred within the protected
zone of four (4) oak trees. No oak tree removals have occurred and none are requested with
this permit.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING
The General Plan and zoning designation for the project site is RE (Residential Estate). The RE
zone is intended to ensure that the rural character of certain portions of the City of Santa Clarita
are maintained. Residential development is expected to consist of large custom single-family
homes on uniquely configured lots which are designed to be sensitive to topographic and
environmental considerations. The minimum lot size is two (2) gross acres. The keeping of
horses and related animals as an accessory use is generally found in this zone.
General Plan Zoning Land Use
PROJECT
RE
RE
Single Family Residential
North
RE
RE
Single Family Residential
South
RVL
RVL
Vacant -Angeles National Forest
West
RE
RE
Single Family Residential
East
RE
RE
Single Family Residential
The proposed corrective grading and accessory structure is consistent with the General Plan land
use designation and zoning for the site with approval of the associated entitlements and permits.
ANALYSIS
Hillside Review Permit
A Hillside Permit is required for the proposed development on slopes with an average cross slope
of greater than 10%. The intent of the Hillside Ordinance is to "regulate the development and
alteration of hillside areas and ridgelines, to minimize adverse effects of hillside development
and to provide for the safety and welfare of the City of Santa Clarita while allowing for the
reasonable development of hillside areas." (UDC Section 17.80.010)
The project site is approximately 12.5 acres of vacant land with an average cross -slope of
approximately 42 percent within the Ridgeline Preservation overlay. The property owner
performed approximately 11,000 cubic yards of unpermitted grading which exposed adverse
bedding planes in the on-site bedrock and thus created an unstable/unsafe condition. In order to
stabilize the slope, the geotechnical engineer of record recommends a buttress fill be graded to
mitigate the adverse condition. Once complete, the slope will be stabilized. The corrective
3
grading will require 13,637 cubic yards of cut and fill material which will be balanced on-site.
The natural topographic features and appearances are being conserved by means of landform
grading to blend the manufactured slope and drainage benches into the natural topography.
Ridgeline Alteration Permit
In an effort to achieve the City's objective of preserving the unique visual characteristics and
resources that significant ridgelines within the City limits provide, the Ridgeline Preservation
(RP) Zoning Overlay classification was established. Any development including but not limited
to grading permits, building permits and land use entitlements, located within 1,000 feet of the
ridgeline and within the upper two-thirds (2/3) of the overall height of the ridgeline from its base
is subject to a Ridgeline Alteration Permit.
The Significant Ridgeline near the proposed project runs generally east to west and is located
approximately 100 feet south of the subject property and reaches an elevation of approximately
2,200 feet above mean sea level. The base of the slope is at an elevation of approximately 1,840
feet. As such, the upper two-thirds of the slope begins at an elevation of 1,960 feet. This project
requires a Ridgeline Alteration Permit because approximately nine percent of the corrective
grading extends into the upper two-thirds of the slope to an elevation of 1,995 feet. However, as
shown in the cross section provided by the applicant, the corrective grading will not reach the top
of the Significant Ridgeline to the south and therefore will not affect this ridgeline's silhouette.
The corrective grading is approximately 600 feet away from the Significant Ridgeline and 205
feet lower in elevation than the Significant Ridgeline and therefore will not alter the adjacent
Significant Ridgeline.
Retroactive Oak Tree Permit
The applicant is required to obtain a Retroactive Oak Tree Permit to allow for grading activities
that encroached within the protected zone of four oaks. The applicant has not removed any oak
trees on the site. In addition, the corrective grading does not require encroachment into the
protected zone or removal of any oak trees. The preliminary landscape plan submitted by the
applicant identifies the installation of 35 Coast Live Oaks as part of the native landscape
materials to be planted on the slope to protect against slippage and soil erosion and to minimize
the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas.
Noticing
The project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for the proposed
Hillside Review Permit, Ridgeline Alteration Permit and Retroactive Oak Tree Permit on March
3, 2009. The City Council public hearing was advertised in The Signal newspaper 21 days prior
to the hearing date, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by mail to property
owners within 1,000 feet of the project area. To date, staff has recieved one letter of opposition
from Michael A. Theule, a neighboring resident. The letter states concerns regarding the illegal
grading that occurred on the subject property. Since the receipt of the letter dated November 5,
2009, staff has spoken with Mr. Theule regarding the legal process that the City has undertaken
v
to ensure Mr. Dominguez's compliance with City codes related to grading, landscaping and oak
tree preservation.
Environmental Review
Willdan, the City's environmental consulting firm, prepared the CEQA-required Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The Initial Study evaluated the environmental
impacts created by the proposed project. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) was prepared for the proposed project. The environmental documents were
posted for public review from October 28, 2008 to November 18, 2008.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact to the City's General Fund exists as a part of this project.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
Grading Plan
Vicinity Map
Ridgeline Exhibit
Cross Section Exhibit
Preliminary Landscape Plan
Photo Simulations
1995 Aerial Photograph available in the City Clerk's Reading File
2000 Aerial Photograph available in the City Clerk's Reading File
2004 Aerial Photograph available in the City Clerk's Reading File
2006 Aerial Photograph available in the City Clerk's Reading File
5
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, 1St Floor, Santa Clarita, California, on the 24th day of
March, 2009, at or after 6:00 p.m. to consider the approval of Master Case 06-276, Hillside Review
06-013, Oak Tree Permit 06-047, and Ridgeline Alteration Permit 07-002. The Hillside Review is
required to allow for corrective grading and landscaping on property with an average cross slope of 42
percent. A retroactive Oak Tree Permit is required to allow for un -permitted grading that occurred
within the protected zone of four oak trees. Portions of the project site are located within the Ridgeline
Preservation Zone and corrective grading is proposed within the upper two-thirds of the slope,
therefore the applicant is required to obtain approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit. The project site
consists of a 12.5 -acre parcel located between Josel Drive and Warmsprings Drive in the Sand Canyon
community within the RE (Residential Estate) zone. The project site is identified as Assessor's Parcel
Number (APN) 2848-003-023.
A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this proposed project and the public
review period was from October 28, 2008 to November 17, 2008. A copy of the Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration and all supporting documents are available at the Planning Division public
counter located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA
91355. A copy of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (without all supporting documents) is
available at the Los Angeles County Library, Valencia Branch.
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 hearing described in this notice, or written
correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the City of Santa Clarita, Department
of Community Development, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; Telephone:
(661) 255-4330, Darin Seegmiller, Assistant Planner II.
Dated: February 23, 2009
Sharon L. Dawson, MMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: March 3, 2009
RESOLUTION NO. 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
APPROVING MASTER CASE 06-276, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-013,
RIDGELIKE ALTERATION PERMIT 07-002 AND RETROACTIVE OAK TREE PERMIT
06-047 AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW FOR
CORRECTIVE GRADING ON PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN JOSEL DRIVE AND
WARMSPRINGS DRIVE (APN 2848-003-023) IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
a. On November 16, 2006, an entitlement application was filed by Erasmo Dominguez (the
"applicant") with the Planning Division which included the following requests: a Hillside
Development Review for corrective grading on a property with an average slope greater
than 10 percent, a Ridgeline Alteration Permit to allow for development activities in the
Ridgeline Preservation Zone in the upper two-thirds of the slope and a Retroactive Oak
Tree Permit to allow for grading activities within the protected zone of four oak trees and
an Initial Study to determine the environmental effects of the proposed project;
b. On January 23, 2007, a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held during
which staff provided direction to the applicant regarding the proposed development;
C. The application was deemed complete on April 16, 2007;
d. The project site is located approximately 240 feet east of the terminus of Warm Springs
Drive in the Canyon Country community of the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles
County, California (Assessor Parcel Number 2848-005-028);
The General Plan and zoning designation for the project site is RE (Residential Estate).
The RE zone is intended to ensure that the rural character of certain portions of the City
of Santa Clarita are maintained. Residential development is expected to consist of large
custom single-family homes on uniquely configured lots which are designed to be
sensitive to topographic and environmental considerations. The minimum lot size is two
(2) gross acres. The keeping of horses and related animals as an accessory use is generally
found in this zone;
f. The surrounding land uses consist of single-family residences to the north, east and west
of the subject property and the undeveloped, Angeles National Forest to the south;
g. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
N
Master Case 06-276
Page 2 of 9
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;
h. The project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for a Hillside
Development Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit and Retroactive Oak Tree Permit on
October 28, 2008;
i. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue commencing
on November 18, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita;
j. At the November 18, 2008, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission
considered the staff presentation, the staff report, the applicant presentation, public
testimony on the proposal, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the
project. The Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the project
subject to the removal of a proposed gazebo and walkways leading up to the proposed
structure;
k. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the project on March 24, 2009, at
City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. At this meeting the City
Council received a presentation on the project from staff and the applicant, and received
public testimony regarding the project; and
The documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the decision of the City Council is based, are located in the Master Case 06-276
project file within the Community Development Department and are in the custody of the
Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based
upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental
agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on October 28, 2008, in
accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from October 28, 2008
through November 18, 2008;
C. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
2 9
Master Case 06-276
Page 3 of 9
environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of
the City of Santa Clarita;
d. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is the Master Case 06-276
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. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS. Based upon the
foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of land
form grading so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into,
the natural topography;
b. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent
possible; and
C. That clustered sites and buildings are utilized where such techniques can be
demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute
to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features
and are compatible with existing neighborhoods.
The property owner performed approximately 11,000 cubic yards of unpermitted grading
which exposed adverse bedding planes in the on-site bedrock and thus created an
unstable/unsafe condition. In order to stabilize the slope, the geotechnical engineer of
record recommends a buttress fill be graded to mitigate the adverse condition. Once
complete the slope will be stabilized. The corrective grading will require 13,637 cubic
yards of cut and fill material which will be balanced on-site. The natural topographic
features and appearances of the hillside are being conserved by means of landform
grading to blend the manufactured slope and drainage benches into the natural
topography. The proposed project consists of corrective grading, a detached garage and a
landscaping area. The project will be used for ancillary residential uses and will be in
conformance with the visual character of the surrounding area. The project does not
request the approval of additional residential units. The project site will only be used for
ancillary residential uses and will be in conformance with the visual character of the
surrounding area.
d. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms
Master Case 06-276
Page 4 of 9
that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized.
The project requests the approval of one accessory structure. The accessory structure is
required to meet minimum setback requirements and will not be able to exceed the
maximum height for an accessory structure in the RE (Residential Estate) zone without
approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
e. That plant materials are conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage
and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside
areas, including the consideration of the preservation of prominent trees and, to the
extent possible, reduce the maintenance cost to public and private property owners
The preliminary landscape plan submitted by the applicant makes use of native
landscaping material intended to minimize the visual effect of the corrective grading on
the hillside. The project does not require the removal of any of the four oak trees on the
site. In addition, the installation of 35 additional Coast Live Oaks will be required on the
property as identified in the preliminary landscape plans and Conditions of Approval.
f. That curvilinear street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading
alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized.
The project calls for corrective grading intended to mitigate instability on the slope due to
unpermitted grading and does not require any street improvements.
g. That site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and
scenic vistas from and around any proposed development are utilized.
Although the project proposes no dwelling units, it will be used for ancillary residential
uses including a landscaped area and a detached garage, thus keeping with the existing
aesthetic quality of the area. The natural topographic features and appearances are being
conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slope or drainage
benches into the natural topography and will not damage any scenic resources.
SECTION 3. RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the
foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. The proposed use is in conformance with the various goals and policies of the General
Plan;
b The use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the
neighborhood or community, nor will it endanger the public health, safety or general
welfare;
11
Master Case 06-276
Page 5 of 9
C. The appearance of the use or development will not be different than the appearance of
adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the
vicinity;
d. The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property, nor encourage
inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area;
e. It has been demonstrated that the proposed use or development will not violate the visual
integrity of the ridgeline area through precise illustration and depiction as required in
Section 17.80.030;
f. The use or development should minimize the effects of grading to the extent practicable to
ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved;
g. The proposed use or development maintains the appearance of natural ridgelines with
uses and development consistent with density requirements established in Section
17.80.035;
h. The proposed use or development utilizes or creates minimally invasive grading
techniques, imaginative project site design and spacing of development that significantly
exceeds the minimum standards identified in the City of Santa Clarita Hillside
Development Guidelines;
i. The proposed use or development is designed to mimic the existing topography to the
greatest extent possible through the use of landform contour grading;
j The proposed use or development demonstrates creative and imaginative site design
resulting in a project that will complement the community character and provide a direct
benefit to current and future community residents of not only the proposed use or
development, but the residents of the City of Santa Clarita as a whole;
k. The proposed use or development does not alter natural landmarks and prominent
natural features of the ridgelines; and
1. ,The provisions and implementation of this section does not create an undue economic
hardship or deny the minimal use of the land.
The property owner performed approximately 11,000 cubic yards of unpermitted grading
which exposed adverse bedding planes in the on-site bedrock and thus created an
unstable/unsafe condition. In order to stabilize the slope, the geotechnical engineer of
Master Case 06-276
Page 6 of 9
record recommends a buttress fill be graded to mitigate the adverse condition. Once
complete the slope will be stabilized. The corrective grading will require 13,637 cubic
yards of cut and fill material which will be balanced on-site.
The Significant Ridgeline near the proposed project runs generally east to west and is
located approximately 100 feet south of the subject property. The Significant Ridgeline
reaches an elevation of approximately 2,200 feet above mean sea level and the base of the
slope is at an elevation of approximately 1,840 feet. As such, the upper two-thirds of the
slope begins at an elevation of approximately 1,960 feet. The required corrective grading
extends into the upper two-thirds of the slope to an elevation of 1,995 feet. However, as
shown in the cross section provided by the applicant, the proposed grading would not
reach the top of the Significant Ridgeline and will not affect this ridgeline's silhouette. As
shown in the cross-section provided by the property owner's engineer, the corrective
grading is approximately 600 feet away from the Significant Ridgeline and 205 feet lower
in elevation than the Significant Ridgeline.
In addition, the natural topographic features and appearances are being conserved by
means of landform grading to blend the manufactured slope and drainage benches into the
natural topography. Once complete, the repaired slope will be landscaped with native
plant materials intended to blend with the surrounding slopes and stabilize the soil. The
project does not require the construction of any infrastructure that would encourage
development or innapropriate encroachment to the ridgeline area.
The project site currently designated as Residential Estate (RE) within the City of Santa
Clarita's General Plan. Although the project proposes no dwelling units, it will be used
for ancillary residential uses including a landscaped area and a garage, thus keeping with
the existing aesthetic quality of the area in addition to the goals and policies of the
General Plan. The project does not request the approval of additional residential units.
The project site will only be used for ancillary residential uses and will be in conformance
with the visual character of the surrounding area.
SECTION 4. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and
findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an
oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by
the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the
unique physical development constraints of the property:
This applicant is required to obtain a retroactive Oak Tree Permit due to unpermitted
grading on the subject property. The four on-site oak trees were not negatively impacted
as a result of the unpermitted grading which has taken place. In addition, the corrective
6 ll
Master Case 06-276
Page 7 of 9
grading and the construction of a garage will not require the encroachment into the
protected zone of an oak tree and will be required to adhere to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
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 Estate (RE), subject to
approval of the entitlements.
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby approves Master Case 06-276 consisting of
Hillside Review 06-013, Oak Tree Permit 06-047, and Ridgeline Alteration Permit 07-002, to
allow for corrective grading, landscaping, and a detached garage and adopts the associated
Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the conditions of approval.
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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 52009.
7
Master Case 06-276
Page 8 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 Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
13
Master Case 06-276
Page 9 of 9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Resolution 09- adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, California on , 2009, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
,•2009.
Sharon L. Dawson, MMC
City Clerk
By
Susan Caputo, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
0j
Iq
Resolution Exhibit A
MASTER CASE 06-276
HILLSIDE REVIEW PERMIT 06-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 06-047,
AND RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 07-002
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
GCI. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced 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. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously
approved for the property, the prior approval shall be terminated along with any
associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation,
or is still within the initial pre -commencement approval period. Once commenced, any
discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of one
hundred eighty (180) calendar days or more shall terminate the approval of this use along
with any associated vested rights to such use. The pre-existing legal use shall not be re-
established or resumed after the one hundred eight (180) day period. Discontinuation
shall include cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume.
GC3. The applicant may file for an extension of the approved project prior to the date of
expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior
to expiration.
GC4. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community
Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or
change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change.
GC5. 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 attorney's fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith.
The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement
is approved by the applicant.
/5
Master Case 06-276
HR 06-013, OTP 06-047, RAP 07-002
November 18, 2007
Page 2 of 6
GC6. 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.
GC7. The applicant shall sign and have notarized the attached "Acceptance Form". This form
shall be returned to the City's Planning Division.
GC8. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is
violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the City may commence
proceedings to revoke this approval.
PLANNING DIVISION
PL1. The applicant is granted approval to perform corrective grading on property with an
average cross -slope of 42 percent within the Ridgeline Preservation Overlay and shall be
developed in substantial conformance with the approved site plan on file with the
Planning Division. Any changes shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Director of Community Development.
PL2. The applicant shall preserve the natural character of the adjacent Significant Ridgeline by
grading the slope in conformance with the approved plans on file with the Community
Development Department. As shown on the approved plans, the applicant shall ensure
that the natural topographic features and appearances of the hillside are conserved by
means of landform grading so as to blend the manufactured slopes and required drainage
benches into the natural topography.
Landscaping Requirements
PL3. The applicant shall install plant materials that will protect slopes from slippage and soil
erosion and minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas in
accordance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plans on file with the Community
Development Department
PL4. The project shall be developed in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita Unified
Development Code (UDC).
PL5. The applicant shall review, if needed, "Fuel Modification Guidelines," County of Los
Angeles Fire Department (available online), pertaining to any vegetation existing or
proposed at the site perimeter.
PL6. Coniferous Evergreen' selection must produce limited dead and fine material, be resistant
to drought, have low levels of volatile oils and resins.
PL7. The landscape plan shall conform to all current Municipal Code /Unified Development
Code requirements for landscaping (available at http://www.santa-
clarita.com/cityhall/admin/codeo. Applicable code sections include but are not limited to
Master Case 06-276
HR 06-013, OTP 06-047, RAP 07-002
November 18, 2007
Page 3 of 6
a. § 17.28 (drainage and terracing/erosion control);
PL8. Standard Landscape Requirements and Conditions
b. All projects
i. 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.
ii. The applicant shall apply jute netting to all graded slopes five feet (5') and
higher in vertical elevation and elsewhere where needed for erosion
control, and shall landscape graded slopes (Municipal Code §
17 28.020(B)).
iii. Slope planting shall consist of at minimum one (1) tree per 150 square feet
of slope area and one (1) shrub per 100 square feet of slope area
(Municipal Code § 17.80 040(K)(3)). Should this requirement become
impossible or impracticable because of fuel modification requirements, the
applicant may substitute a proportionate number of appropriate larger
specimen trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and
Economic Development.
iv. 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.
V. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install all proposed irrigation and
landscaping, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to
the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Economic Development.
The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape
installation inspection.
vi. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Planning
and Economic 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 DIVISION
General Requirements - Mapping
ENI. At issuance of permits or other grants of approval, the applicant agrees to develop the
property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the
Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance,
/
7
Master Case 06-276
HR 06-013, OTP 06-047, RAP 07-002
November 18, 2007
Page 4 of 6
Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance,
Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code.
EN2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall file with the County Recorder, a
Certificate of Compliance to determine if the parcel(s) comply with the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. Prior to being filed with the County
Recorder, the Certificate of Compliance shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer.
Grading, Drainage & Geology Requirements
EN3. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent
with the approved site plan, oak tree report and conditions of approval. The grading plan
shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the
geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations.
EN4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall acquire permits from the Army
Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and the Regional Water
Control Board. For any work within any natural drainage course.
EN5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall eliminate all geologic hazards
associated with this proposed development, or delineate restricted use areas on the
grading plan as approved by the consultant geologist, as directed by the City Engineer.
EN6. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall dedicate to the City the right to
prohibit the erection of buildings and other structures within all restricted use areas by
separate document.
ENT All construction plans and activities must be in compliance with the provisions of the
storm water permit and associated Standard Urban Storm water Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
including all applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs), both permanent and
construction -related. The permanent BMPs shall be in place prior to acceptance of the
associated improvements. Construction -related BMPs shall be on the SUSMP plan and
shall be in place during all phases of the construction.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
BSI. All structures shall comply with the detailed requirements of the 2007 California
Building, Mechanical, Plumbing Codes, and Electrical Code, 2007 California Energy
Code, and the 2008 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 the
city's website.
0
Master Case 06-276
HR 06-013, OTP 06-047, RAP 07-002
November 18, 2007
Page 5 of 6
URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION
Retro -active Conditions:
UF1. A retro -active permit fee was required and has been paid in full to the City of Santa
Clarita.
UF2. The property owner shall remove all container -grown plant material which is located on
the uphill side of any on-site oak tree and/or within 20' feet of the trunk all existing oak
trees.
UF3. The property owner shall remove any/all unapproved irrigation which has been installed
around the base of any existing on-site oak trees.
UF4. The property owner shall remove all excess soil which has been added or placed around
the trunk of an oak tree or within the protected zone of an oak tree and restore this area
back to natural grade. This work shall be completed by hand.
UF5. The property owner shall install a 3-4 inch layer of natural wood chips below the canopy
of all oak trees on site.
UF6. The property owner shall redirect all supplemental irrigation from entering the protected
zone of an oak tree. Only natural rain water shall be permitted to enter the protected zone
of an oak tree.
UFT The final landscape plans shall identified the location of the 34 additional oak trees
required for hillside development and the required native vegetation to be planted on the
slope(s). The site plan also included a detailed description of the irrigation system which
is proposed to be installed on the slopes. The applicant shall not deviate from the
submitted site plans and all oak trees and irrigation shall be installed per the submitted
landscape development plan dated June 09, 2008.
UF8. The property owner shall install chain link protective fencing around the protected zone
of all existing oak trees on site. Protective fencing shall consist of five (5') foot high
chain link material supported by steel post driven directly into the ground and evenly
spaced 8" feet on center. Installed around the base of the protective fencing shall be 36"
inch silt material to keep all run off soil from entering the protected zone of the tree.
UF9. The natural flow of water shall be maintained and/or restored during all grading
activities. No cut or fill soil in excess of two (2') feet (twenty-four inches) deep shall be
permitted within 50 feet of any oak tree unless waived by the City Oak tree Specialist.
0
Master Case 06-276
HR 06-013, OTP 06-047, RAP 07-002
November 18, 2007
Page 6 of 6
Construction Conditions:
UF10. 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 proposed project.
UF 11. At no time shall any form of construction materials, equipment or vehicles be placed or
stored within the protected zone of an oak tree.
UF12. At no time shall any form of hazardous material including but limit too concrete, mortar,
stucco, salt, ammonium sulphate, herbicides, fuel, oil, paint, thinner or any other form of
liquid contaminate be placed, stored or allowed to leach into the protected zone of an oak
tree.
UF13. The Conditions of Approval contained in this document are for the retro -active grading
and the proposed garage as submitted. These Conditions of Approval do not authorize the
property owner permission to build, construct or install any other structures or utilities in
and around the protected oak trees that are not listed in the above.
UF14. Upon completion of the project and before final approval, the applicant shall be required
to submit a letter of compliance prepared by the Arborist of Record (AOR) for all work
which has taken place near the protected zone of the oak trees.
UF15. These conditions and the related documents shall be required to remain on site at all
times through the said project. For any questions related to the above conditions, please
contact the City Oak Tree Specialist at (661) 294-2548.
S \CD\CURRENT\!2006\06-276 (HR, RAP, OTP)\Plammng Commission\06-276 Condihons.doc
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the
Dominguez Property
Parcel 2, Parcel Map 3494
Master Case No. 06-276
Hillside Development Review 06-013
Ridgeline Alternation Permit 06-001
Oak Tree Permit 06-047
Prepared for:
The City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196
Prepared by:
W I LLQAN
Serving Public Agencies
13191 Crossroads Parkway North
Industry, California 91746-3497
October 2008
ai
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title/Master Case Number: Dominguez Property/ Master Case No. 06-276; HR 06-
013, RAP 06-001; OTP 06-047
Lead Agency name and address: City of Santa Clarrta
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 302
Santa Clarrta, CA 91355
Contact person and phone number: Darin Seegmiller
Assistant Planner
(661)255-4330
Project location: The project site is a roughly rectangular -shaped parcel
(APN# 2848-005-028) located approximately 240 feet
east of the tennmus of Warm Springs Drive
(approximately 2 5 miles south of CA -14 Freeway) in
the Canyon Country Community of the City of Santa
Clanta, Los Angeles County, California, (see Figure 1).
The site consists of 12 5 acres of vacant land just north
and west of the Angeles national Forest
The site is located on the Mint Canyon 7.5 -Minute
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Topographic
Quadrangle dated 1995 (Mint Canyon Quadrangle) and
Map Page 4552-E7 of the Los Angeles County Thomas
Guide (2008).
Applicant's name and address: Erasmo Dominguez
26505 Josel Drive
Santa Clarita, California 91387
Property Owner: Erasmo Dominguez
26505 Josel Drive
Santa Clarrta, California 91387
General Plan/Zoning designation: 12 5 Acres of RE (Residential Estate General Plan Land
Use Designation and Zoning)
a a
Description of project and setting:
Regional Setting
The project site is located in the Sand Canyon Community, which is a residential neighborhood in the Canyon
Country Community of the City of Santa Clarita. The project site is nestled among sparsely developed residential
lots that consist of mainly single family homes on parcels that are 2 acres or larger. The Sand Canyon Community is
accessed via Sand Canyon Road, which travels through the community on a north to south axis and connects the
Antelope Valley Freeway (S R 14) to the north with Placerita Canyon Road to the south. The City's Master Plan of.
Highways (Exhibit C -7a, City of Santa Clarita General Plan) designates Sand Canyon Road as a major highway, with
an ultimate roadway design section of at least four travel lanes.
The Sand Canyon Community is drained via Sand Canyon Creek and its tributaries Sand Canyon Creek is a natural
bottom and blue line stream that flows south to north and drains into the Santa Clara River. Stormwater from the
surrounding hillsides and mountains drain into the Sand Canyon Creek via a series of intermittent natural drainages
Proiect Setting
The project site is composed of one parcel comprising of 12.5 -acres, The site is located approximately 240 feet east
of the terminus of Warm Springs Drive and just west of Josel Drive. The site is located approximately 2,000 ft west
of and 1,200 ft north of the Angeles National Forest. The project parcel is adjacent to another parcel under the same
ownership which contains a single-family residence that is located at 26505 Josel Drive The project was a vacant lot
and covered with oak trees, scrub vegetation, annual non-native grasses and weeds. However, the northern portion of
the site has been illegally cleared and graded with narrow road cuts and several pad areas.
Topographically, the property is located on the north- and west -facing flank of a sloping hillside and contains an
east -west hill roughly in the center portion of the property These two features create a bowl -like area on the northern
portion of the site that has been previously illegally graded and cleared of most vegetation. The northern portion of
the site's ground surface gently descends from the owner's adjacent parcel to the "bowl" area before rising again in a
southerly direction to the aforementioned hill To the south of the hill area, the property slopes down to the toe of
slope of a significant ridgelme partially located in the Angeles National Forest. Elevations on the site range from
1,600- 2,200 ft above means sea level (amsl)
Back rg ound
In July, 2002, the City of Santa Clanta received a complaint regarding illegal grading taking place on the project site.
Following the complaint, the City issued a stop work order for the grading and informed the property owner that such
activities require a grading permit Over the course of the next five years, the City received three additional
complaints from neighboring residents regarding illegal grading on the property The City continued to issue stop
work orders in response to the complaints and informed the property owner that due to the topography of the site, its
proximity to a City designated Significant Ridgelme and the presence of oak trees on the property, additional permits
and entitlements from the Planning Division were required prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The City filed a
suit against the property owner on February 14, 2006. On August 13, 2007 the Courts grant a Permanent Injunction
requiring Dominguez to obtain Hillside Development Review Permit, Ridgelme Alteration Permit, Oak Tree Permit
and Grading Permit. (A detailed Timeline of Events related to the Code Enforcement actions by the City of Santa
Clarita is included in Appendix A of this document)
Project Description
The project site is approximately 12 5 acres of vacant land with an average cross -slope of approximately 42 percent
within the Ridgelme Preservation overlay The property owner performed approximately 11,000 cubic yards of un -
permitted grading which exposed adverse bedding planes in the on-site bedrock and thus created an unstable/unsafe
condition In order to stabilize the slope the geotechnical engineer of record recommends a buttress fill be graded to
mitigate the adverse condition. Once complete the slope will be stabilized The corrective grading will require
13,637 cubic yards of cut and fill material which will be balanced on-site and consists of approximately 4 6 acres on
the 12.5 acre property In addition, the applicant is requesting the approval of a gazebo and detached garage The
project site will be graded to provide walkways and small pad areas for the construction of a garage, a gazebo, and
landscaping areas.
��3
The project site is located within the Residential Estate (RE) zoning classification and General Plan designation to be
used as a landscaped area that will contain a gazebo and a garage The site is adjacent to an adjoining residential lot
located to the northeast which is owned by the project applicant/owner The project does not propose the
construction of any new housing or any other use except as stated above. In summary, the project consists of
corrective grading to include 2:1 to 3.1 cut or fill slopes with walkways and small pad areas (See Figure 5).
The project will require the following discretionary actions of the City of Santa Clarrta.
❑ Hillside Development Review (HR) to allow for corrective grading to mitigate damage to the slope done by
illegal grading on a parcel with a 42% average cross slope In addition, the applicant is requesting a gazebo and
detached garage; and
❑ Ridgelme Alteration Permit (RAP) to allow corrective grading, site preparation activities and a gazebo on land
in the upper 2/3 of a slope and within 1000 feet of a Significant Ridgelme. The graded area in the upper 2/3 of
the slope consists of approximately nine percent of the required grading; and
❑ Retroactive Oak Tree Permit for the un -permitted grading activities that occurred within the protected zone of
four (4) oak trees.
Project Site Access and Infrastructure
The proposed project does not include roadway access. It adjoins a parcel that is also owned by the adjacent project
owner (APN# 2848-003-023) Since the project proposes no new residential structures on the site, the City will
require the applicant to record a lot line adjustment to combine the applicant's two adjacent parcels into one parcel.
Once recorded, the project site will have roadway access from Josel Drive.
Utility service such as water, gas and electrical lines are provided to the applicant's adjacent property on Josel Drive
The proposed use of the project site would not require utility services. Irrigation may be supplied from the owner's
adjacent property at 26505 Josel Drive.
Surrounding land uses:
North Single -Family Residential on a 2 -acre parcel East Single -Family Residential on a 2 -acre parcel
South Vacant Land (Angeles National Forest) West Single -Family Residential on a 2 -acre parcel
Other public agencies whose
approval is required: None
a�
FIGURE 1 - REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Aiigijiotj Nalionul Po-ub�
`,nntn ( Jawn
Los Arg las
10,
Burb.-ank—N Glenzlafe
FIGURE 2 - PROJECT LOCATION MAP
r
f r 1 r7 - r .• �` ."� � —:i __b„y'2'��'1"AI'x •I �u� _ 6.0 NLlb RC
^" t
� y �
® j7.
of g
-t 11.E ^. —"..w--.•' � `a
vo LI,
r '
j1
r n P
" y
m
.. r
Prcj
j.4 R�
Ll
4
n
^,.,,,�,�,,,yY, ,,,�+_""" 3,yv � ;. �� � •.K �Orr 3'`•n�„'
FIGURE 3 - PROPOSED GRADING PLAN (1)
.• - r - .. fir.. . - _�`� , I �., - _,,d.` -r r .f �"'�•'•� '•'�t ����}_�.�� - - � - ''•� t -' .
_ _' - _ _ t. -y .,',1 `'.F- rr+� '•K- •'S_ rr� _ _.—r' .� I �j
Irl • - N` •-...._-- y `t .. i' , 7., �r• r ;y:`. .{_�.. _ - '
i'.
--, - `; -.r+.. d,.' 'lnyi �rrtal I 5$il ._.X� •' i � .
5 _ - _ _` ti:'I,.ri:r ,-• yy/`-_-,1�.}•rr.' *trR :i,.' � �I• fl� � �•• - '
_ r .yam qtr. .. 191 'ri. ', t I �',t,` 1 .j;n:+;j 1 :rte{ I:: •:ct-. }.I•
'.S•�:=-'�=•t3'}I�r'•- :�=,;1)✓•- ,`�.,�,?• r•.�•��y�,'�,'p'. '' •f `"-�'ti,'';f1`r��'•.'+1',I.'j.w•:�',�y�.a�,♦• •'{
_ .� 'Ir;•,'.� - :•4,:.. - :� .r :•-.-r" `•`tti�-�{j •}•1�f• f .-:}`.r...•. :: �'" ��•' ,, "
,•• � _-J�ye• ��-d 4 f I J. ••a 'y�r :.1"t +r.,. s.. ,_ ..
'.I - - _� y.••�. •.`! ^.. r•^ } Y'j_I I S .�,±Is• J rt+: ri ,', .[r.'!i. •:..`.
On
_ ♦ 4 •1. r _- -:f•+•., %._1v -i 4.I •.. --,�, j4, f,',�•ti.�yl�rt•,�'• r�•, •, •• _
All
Ty-
` 11
• .{r4
'-�:_'��y'k.fy:lf _�t' �..+,•;' •' }t' . .
:;: % :r _•: '-i'" - •;� : ;r ,':t"�'`•i'•';'yS''•� .' :^��,�%,'cam �(
_ _' fir• '+••,;' •- i,'' . + •'�4vt•.- } :Y]"�: �`•'+` ��. ''- %ri' - � '�- �•' _ •
�r •`�r � ,'fj _'y�t._.:. -:.� ti ,�`+ ti- - ter... .c -_{I,' i' .�•+ r-; .1 1, __
`" �I�'• lr �r_��r'•Ct�-•max L-'�_ "'-�-- - 1 .•I, ,. _
"a•,•yti xT:+iµ"' i t.�"' �- ^,5, :{• 'ti%r r -_ '.\' • _
Y ; - ` - '•. . ',' 1� � '; -' - ',rte-' t I"�'` • "ro "
• . ti � '' - � ''• f 1 4}. • _' I��YY'-.'u�•� �tirildl:tWG.��`.S.__ � �. � ' • � I
Ton
S'4 •'' - • I1'• '`' 43 `µ,S ♦r���•:'. •'.1',. .1�- •�rr I'`• ;•:,.',`•� � - 4 M1
�•::.•• _ _ �: _ - _ - `'-•.�.: • � moo,' ' _ .—r;,, �.� - � � , .•'.-, ', `� � � I
_ _ _ ♦kk KT• ,ti
�'•C ;i_ �.. ~ .;`.\ice. ♦ yy •v{� •��r .•, ♦: 'Y.•'..
6 cR146'1.4J F.IiQ4lCar'EZ - -- W'7'
av
FIGURE 4 - PROPOSED GRADING (2)
L" t'e.c-" ML;, v "; "':51 R. , kyJ'v it to- P. N; Fe Llr. 2 ,A2p
YJO{rlr..L" -14. L% n. XN I
FIGURE 5 - PROJECT SITE PLAN
,, �, ��i ���, _ , � ��� . ,fir � ,
.� : p I .� - �q .� � �
�� ��� � �
,v�W� t � E f
" I� � sb a .� �. ..
K t
i. w
1
�. ���f �.. a�i11 sM1
�_� ,off ��e;�. .�a., ag
�., _ -
a
1 �
� � � ��
r �,.
�� .t
I
$ gat � { ; , �� � m7.e �.
a � `���' � � ry.�g°/
t V F +'%•, ,��
t y
� li
e+��v.
' Tf "xr,;
r�
w "' �' �
y ice.
j; Gk � a
. � » � 4�: �
-d xf... . na." Air � �: 4 � }
. .- '
r�� �.� �, ,,,�� � I
_ ';� �p
� � � �� �
�. . . ,W �_, � � ��
,. _.
��;
� ,,
at,'� � z� �'- � "a
4
� , �� .e
�� ,.�
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 "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Measures
incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages
❑ Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑ Air Quality
® Biological Resources
®
Cultural Resources
® Geology /Soils
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑
Hydrology / Water Quality
❑ Land Use / Planning
❑ Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑ Population / Housing
❑ Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑ Transportation / Traffic
❑ Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
B. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been address by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name For
Signature Date
Printed Name
For
311
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially Less Than Less Than
No
Significant Significant withSignificant Impact
Impact Impact p
Mitigation
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use9
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
❑
❑
❑
❑
to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and
Act contract9
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
❑
❑
❑
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
❑
❑
®
❑
site and its surroundings?
d) Other
❑
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
❑
❑
❑
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
❑
❑
❑
❑
e)
Other
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
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 use9
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
❑
❑
Act contract9
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to
❑
❑
❑
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use?
d) Other
❑
❑
❑
❑
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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ® ❑
existing or projected air quality violation?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant No
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
❑
® ❑ ❑
or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an
❑
El
®
❑
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
❑
❑ ® ❑
precursors)?
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service9
❑
❑
®
❑
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
❑
❑ ❑
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
❑
❑
❑
d)
people?
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
f)
Other
❑
❑
❑
❑
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
13 33
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
❑
® ❑ ❑
or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
❑
❑ ® ❑
policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service9
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
❑
❑ ❑
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means
d)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
❑
❑ ® ❑
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
❑
® ❑ ❑
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance9 Oak
trees9
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
❑
❑ ❑
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
g)
Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural
Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA
❑
❑ ❑
Delineation Map?
h)
Other
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
13 33
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to 15064 5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
e) Other
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
it) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil, either on or off site?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
14
Potentially Less Than Less Than
No
Significant
Significant withSignificant Impact
Impact Impact p
Mitigation
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ® ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
1:1
El
®
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the
environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962 5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f} For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards
(e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)?
ON
,❑ ❑
❑
❑
Potentially
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
No
❑
Significant
ith
Significant
Im act
p
❑
❑
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
g)
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more?
❑
❑
®
❑
h)
Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural
❑
❑
®
❑
grade9
i)
The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic
❑
❑
®
❑
or physical feature?
j)
Other
❑
❑
❑
❑
VII.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the
environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962 5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f} For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards
(e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)?
ON
,❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
J5
j) Other
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 to 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?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction
of surface water and/or groundwater?
1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river?
m) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the following ways
101
Potentially
Less Than
Signifi�ant
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant Im act
p
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
❑
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
3 6
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
3 6
Potentially
Less Than Less Than
Significant
No
Significant
with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
i) Potential impact of project construction and project post-
❑
1:1
®
0
construction activity on storm water runoff
ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or
equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
F-1
11
®
❑
washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage,
delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?
iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow
velocity or volume of storm water runoff
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of
❑
®
El
the project site or surrounding areas?
v) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair or
contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving
waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian
corridors, wetlands, etc.)
vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems,
®
❑
watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for the
❑
❑
❑
separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during
construction and after project occupancy?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a
low-income or minority community)?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
❑
❑
Ellimited
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
E]
❑
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
❑
El
1:1resource
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?
17
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels9
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 levels9
fj 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?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially
affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services -
i) Fire protection?
u) Police protection?
18
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant No
Impact
Impact Impact p
Mitigation
0
n
8
■ ■ F 1,
In
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
n
8
■ ■ F 1,
In
Potentially
Less Than
Signi
Less Than
No
Significant
fihant
Significant
Im act
p
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
❑
0
El
ni) Schools?
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
❑
❑
❑
iv) Parks?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
❑
XIV. RECREATION - Would the project:
standard established by the county congestion management agency
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or Elexpansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the envtronment9
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project:
a)
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i e , result in
❑
❑
a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
❑
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
El
1:1
1:1increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks9
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e g , sharp
1:1
E]
1:1curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access9
f)
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e g , bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
❑
E]
h)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
XVI.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable El ❑
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the 1:1 ❑ 0
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
19 �9
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant SigWrthant Significant No
Impact
Impact Impact p
Mitigation
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
❑
❑
®
❑
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
which could cause significant environmental effects?
mayor periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
1:1
El
®
❑
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)9
entitlements needed?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
❑ ❑ ® ❑
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity
❑
❑
❑
to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments9
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
❑
❑
❑
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑
related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
El ❑ ® ❑
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
mayor periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
❑ ❑ ® ❑
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)9
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
❑ ❑ ® ❑
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
11D
NO]
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS
I a. Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is approximately 12 5 acres of vacant land with an average cross -
slope of approximately 42 percent within the Ridgelme Preservation overlay The
property owner performed approximately 11,000 cubic yards of un -permitted grading
which exposed adverse bedding planes in the on-site bedrock and thus created an
unstable/unsafe condition. In order to stabilize the slope the geotechnical engineer of
record recommends a buttress fill be graded to mitigate the adverse condition Once
complete the slope will be stabilized The recommended buttress fill requires the
entire slope to be graded. The corrective grading will require 13,637 cubic yards of
cut and fill material which will be balanced on-site and consists of approximately 4.6
acres on the 12 5 acre property. In addition, the applicant is requesting the approval
of a gazebo and detached garage The project site will be graded to provide
walkways and small pad areas for the construction of a garage, a gazebo, and
landscaping areas.
The project would not damage any significant ridgelmes, historic structures or other
visual resources identified in the City's General Plan or on the City's planning maps.
The site is subject to a Hillside Development Review, which requires that the project
be designed to preserve the natural characteristics of the site in regards to such things
as topography, scenic features, vegetation and wildlife. The project is also subject to
the standards and conditions of a Ridgelme Alteration Permit due to the existence of
a Significant Ridgelme, located within 1000' to the south of the project site
Approximately nine percent of the project's grading encroaches into the upper 2/3 of
the Significant Ridgelme, which begins at 1960 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
The grading into the upper 2/3 of the Ridgelme consists of a cut in the southern
portion of the site that extends to a maximum height of 1995 ft AMSL, with the top
of ridgelme at an elevation of 2,200 ft AMSL. The standards and conditions set by
the Ridgeline Alteration Permit will ensure that the development will be designed
with high professional standards and will be consistent with the aesthetic character of
the City
Additionally, under the City of Santa Clarnta's General Plan, the project site currently
designated as Residential Estate (RE) within the City of Santa Clarrta's General Plan.
Although the project proposes no dwelling units, it will be used for ancillary
residential uses including a landscaped area, a gazebo, and a garage, thus keeping
with existing aesthetic quality of the area The extent of activity within the project
would not damage any scenic resources and the grading will be consistent with the
requirements issued by the City Thus, the proposed project would not significantly
impact any scenic vistas in the area Impacts are expected to be less than significant
I b. No Impact
The proposed project site is not located along an "Eligible State Scenic Highway "
According to the California Department of Transportation's State Scenic Highway
program for Los Angeles County, the nearest "Eligible State Scenic Highway" is
along Interstate 5 freeway, extending from the Interstate 210 interchange to the S R
126/Newhall Ranch Road The project site is located within the southeast portion of
the City of Santa Clarita and not located near Interstate 5 Therefore, the proposed
project would have no impact on scenic resources near a state scenic highway.
I c. Less Than Significant Impact
The subject site is currently undeveloped with a number of recent, illegally graded
roads and small graded area. The proposed project consists of corrective grading to
mitigate the unsafe slope in addition to walkways and small pad areas This
development will be used for future structural support of a gazebo, as well as
landscaping area. The project will be used for ancillary residential uses and will be in
conformance with the visual character of the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts are
expected to be less than significant.
I d. No Impact
The project site is currently undeveloped, and as a result, does not generate any day
or nighttime glare. The proposed project consists of grading 2.1 to 3 1 cut and fill
slopes with walkways and small pad areas which will be used for landscaping areas, a
gazebo, and a garage These proposed uses will introduce minimal amounts of light
from landscape and security lighting but will be consistent with the illumination in
the surrounding residential areas The proposed project will not create any daytime
glare nor any substantial nighttime lighting; and no day or nighttime views would be
affected. Therefore, no impacts are expected.
I e. N/A
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCE S
II a. No Impact
There are currently no agricultural operations in the proposed project site
Furthermore, the project site does not contain any,areas of Prime Farmlands,
Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local
Importance designated by the California Department of Conservation, Division of
Land Resource Protection, and the California Association of Resource Conservation
Districts (Farmland 3.1-4 Map 2002) Therefore, the proposed project would have no
impacts to areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide or Local Importance.
III. AIR QUALITY
II b. No Impact
The City of Santa Clarrta does not have any agricultural zoning designations, nor
does the City's General Plan identify any agricultural land use designations Further,
there is no Williamson Act contract land in the City. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contracts, and
would have no related impacts.
II c. No Impact
The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes. Additionally, the
development of the project site would not, in any way, hinder the operations of any
existing agricultural practices Therefore, the proposed project would not have an
impact that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use Therefore,
no impacts are expected
II d. N/A
III a. Less Than Significant Impact
The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB)
sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the SCAB into compliance with all
federal and state air quality standards. The AQMP control measures and related
emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future
development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment
characteristics defined in consultation with local governments Accordingly,
conformance with the AQMP for development projects is determined by
demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections
The current General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site is Residential
Estate (RE), requiring two -acre minimum lot size for each dwelling unit. The
proposed project does not include the construction of any new dwelling unit(s).
Rather, it proposes allowable accessory uses associated with the RE Zone Thus, the
22 ya
project conforms to the anticipated development densities set forth in the City's
General Plan, it is therefore consistent with the AQMP. Therefore, this project is
considered to be consistent with the land use information that was the basis for the
current AQMP and will not obstruct implementation of the plan Impacts are
expected to be less than significant
III b. Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin, which includes all of the non -
desert portions of Los Angeles County. Although air quality in the southern
California region continues to improve as additional pollution controls are
implemented, the air basin remains a non -attainment area for both the federal and
state standards for ozone, fine particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM10), and fine particulate matter less than 2 5 microns in diameter (PM2 5)
Ozone is a pollutant that is formed by a chemical reaction involving reactive organic
compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight.
In the long term (i e , operation), typical land use projects generate air pollutants
from generation of vehicle trips and an increase the consumption of electricity and
natural gas. The proposed project, which consists of grading a 12.5 -acre site and
building a gazebo and garage, would not generate any additional vehicle trips or
increase the consumption of electricity and natural gas Therefore, the project would
not generate a measurable amount of long-term pollutants, and long-term operational
impacts were not assessed However, the project would generate air pollutants during
the grading of the project site.
SCAQMD has set forth six criteria pollutant daily emission thresholds for both
construction and operational impacts which will be used in determining significance.
They include VOC (volatile organic compounds), CO (carbon monoxide), NO,
(oxides of nitrogen), PMio (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter),
PM2 5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter), and SO., (oxides of
sulfur). Of these pollutants, the SCAB is designated as a non -attainment area for
ozone, carbon monoxide, PMio, and PM2 5. A project's impact to regional air quality
is considered significant if construction activities associated with it would result in
emissions exceeding:
❑ 75 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds (ROC)
❑ 100 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
❑ 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide (CO)
❑ 150 pounds per day of fine particulate matter (PMio)
❑ 55 pounds per day of fine particulate matter 2 5 microns or less (PM2 5)
❑ 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides (SOx)
Construction -induced air pollutants include fugitive dust (PMio) from earth
movement and equipment exhaust, which includes NOx, ROCS, PM2 5, and CO.
Table 1 compares the project's construction emissions as estimated with the
URBEMIS 2002 model. The projected construction emissions for each of the criteria
pollutants are expressed in pounds per day and are shown in Table 1 below -
Table 1
Temporary Construction -Related
Air Pollutant Emissions
Maximum Daily
Pollutant
Emissions
Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
VOC
3 35
75
No
23 �3
NOx
2807
100
No
CO
1477
550
No
PM10
6301
150
No
PM 25
1446
55
No
SO2
000
150
No
Emissions calculated using URBEMIS2002 computer model, California Air Resources Board
As shown in Table 1, construction of the proposed project would be well within
SCAQMD's thresholds for all six criteria pollutants. Consequently, the project's
impact to regional air quality is not considered significant. Thus, impacts are
expected to be less than significant
III c. Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed above in III b the project would not result in considerable net increase
in criteria pollutants for which the region is a non -attainment area under the
applicable federal and state ambient air quality standard (including the release of
emissions that exceed the quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) for reasons
stated in that section.
The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is designated as a non -attainment area for ozone,
carbon monoxide, PMio, and PM25. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)
addresses evaluation of cumulative effects For an impact involving a resource that is
addressed by an approved plan or mitigation program, the Guidelines provide that a
lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution is not
cumulatively considerable, if the project complies with the adopted plan or program.
The proposed subject site is consistent with the underlying land use data (from the
City's General Plan) that were the basis for the current AQMP Therefore, impacts
are considered less than significant.
Greenhouse Gasses/Global Climate Change
"Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface
of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change,
commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an
increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short
wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength
heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor Collectively GHGs are measured as
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E)
Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off-
highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions,
accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally Industrial and
commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about
one-fourth of total emissions
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three
executive orders regarding greenhouse gases The Governor's Office of Planning
and Research is in the process of developing CEQA significance thresholds for GHG
emissions but thresholds have yet to be established. GHG statues and executive
orders (EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order
(EO) S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07.
AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one of the most
significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted Among
other things, it is designed to maintain California's reputation as a "national and
international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship." Most
notably AB 32 mandates that by 2020, California's GHG emissions be reduced to
1990 levels. For the purposes of this document, the lead agency analyzed whether the
project would conflict with the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in
California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32
With regard to new projects in California, GHG impacts are nearly always
exclusively cumulative impacts, there are no non -cumulative GHG emission impacts
from a climate change perspective. As with other individual relatively small projects
(i e , projects that are not cement plants, oil refineries, electric generating
facilities/providers, co -generation facilities, or hydrogen plants or other stationary
combustion sources that emit more than 25,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent/year [MMT COZE/yr]), the primary concern would be whether the project
would be in conflict with the state goals (AB 32) for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions
Three types of analyses are used to determining whether the project could be in
conflict with the state goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The analyses are
reviews of
A. The potential conflicts with the CARB 44 early action strategies for AB 32;
B The relative size of the project in comparison to the estimated greenhouse
reduction goal of 174 MMTCO2E by 2020 and in comparison to the size of
mayor facilities that are required to report greenhouse gas emissions (25,000
metric tons of COzE/yr) (CARE, 2007f); and
C The bask parameters of the project to determine whether its design is inherently
energy efficient.
With regard to Item A, the project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most
recent list of the CARB early action strategies, which apply nearly exclusively to the
fuel/energy, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, and forestry sectors
With regard to Item B, project operation is not expected to generate GHGs As such,
the project is not required to report GHG emissions (the minimum reporting limit of
25,000 MMT of COzE/yr) and would not affect the states reduction goal of 174
million metric tons per year.
With regard to Item C, given that project operation would not generate GHG's,
energy efficiency is not applicable in this case
The only GHG's generated by the project would be during construction Project
construction is expected to generate 52 2 tons of CO2 For comparison, California's
annual greenhouse gas emissions are 478 65 million tons (according to the 2004
inventory). Based on the project's greenhouse gas emissions estimates, it is not
anticipated that the project emissions alone will substantially add to the global
inventory of greenhouse gas emissions Recognizing that there is a great amount of
public concern regarding GHGs, the majority of the information given above is for
disclosure purposes as required by CEQA There is no agreement among air quality
experts, or guidance at the state level, regarding the level at which an individual
project's incremental GHG effect is cumulatively considerable Given the emerging
level of experience within the air quality industry with GHG analyses, coupled with
the fact that the policies implementing the state goal of reducing GHG emissions in
California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32,
have not been adequately defined, there is no way to state with reasonable scientific
certainty that the project will conflict with these policies
Finally, the project would not be directly impacted by any known or anticipated
effects Given the site's location, the project would clearly not be affected by sea
level rise
III d. Less Than Significant Impact
The project is within a rural residential community and the surrounding homes are
sensitive receptors However the proposed project would not generate an amount or
concentration of air pollutants that would significantly impact the nearby sensitive
receptors In addition, the project would not produce any long-term operational
emissions. While some emissions would occur during the grading of the site, they
would not cause concentrations of air pollutants to reach unhealthful levels (See
III(b), above). Therefore the project's impact on sensitive receptors would be less
than significant.
III e. No Impact
The proposed project consists of the creation of landscaped areas, a gazebo, and a
garage that would not be expected to generate any objectionable odors Therefore, no
impacts are expected.
iV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IV a. Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation
Source Biological Reconnaissance of the Dominguez Property Section 36 of
Township 4 North, Range 15 West USGS 7.5-mmule "Mint Canyon, California"
Quadrangle, City of Santa Clarita, Prepared by ECORP Consultants, prepared for
Sikan Engineering Associates, January 2008 This report is available for review as
part of the project file at Santa Clarita City Hall, Planning Counter, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 during normal business hours (7 30
a m to 5 30 p m Monday through Thursday 8 00 a m to 5 00 p m. Friday)
The 12.5 -acre project site is located at the eastern terminus of Warm Springs Drive
The topography of the site undulates in elevation from 1,600--2,200 feet above mean
sea level (amsl) The project overall would have a less than significant impact after
Mitigation on species identified as candidate, sensitive or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the CDFG or USWFS with the
incorporation of mitigation measures The discussions below describe the special
status species that occur, or could occur, on the project site and identify the project's
potential impacts on those species.
Raptors and Mi rg atory Birds
There is the potential to impact habitat for migratory species. The proposed project
site contains trees that may provide adequate nesting habitat for a number of bird
species The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful for anyone to
kill, capture, collect, posses, buy, sell, trade, ship, import or export any migratory
bird including feathers, parts, nests, or eggs CDFG code 3503 makes it illegal to
destroy any birds' nest or any birds' eggs that are protected under the MBTA Code
3503 5 further protects all birds of prey, such as hawks and owls, and their eggs and
nests from any form of take Project related disturbance of active nests, either direct
of indirect, if identified, will require concurrence with CDFG and a permit from the
MBTA division of USFWS
The potential impacts to raptors and migratory birds will be reduced to a less than
significant level with the incorporation of the Mitigation Measure listed below:
Mitigation Measure IV -1:
In order to reduce the potential impact to nesting birds through grading and
other construction related activities, ground and vegetation disturbing
activities shall take place outside of the recognized nesting season, if
practical The nesting season typically occurs between early February and
August, but can vary slightly from year to year. If ground disturbing and
vegetation disturbing activities must occur within the recognized nesting
season, then pre -construction nesting bird surveys, and weekly surveys
thereafter during the nesting season, shall be performed to identify any nests
that may be impacted by construction activities If any active nests are
located within the proposed disturbance area or within 100 feet of ground
disturbing activities, a 100 feet buffer area will be flagged around the nest
(500 feet from any active raptor nest) and no activity will be allowed to the
buffer area until nesting is completed as verified by the project biologist
Periodic monitoring by a biologist shall be performed to determine when
nesting is complete
Special Status Habitats
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was used to determine the
nearest known location of special status habitats. The CNDDB documented several
special status habitats to the vicinity of the project site However, the biological
assessment survey performed on the project site found that there were no special
status habitats occurring on site, nor were they likely to occur. Rather, ECORP
identified the habitats onsite to be northern mixed chaparral, oak woodland, non-
native grassland, disturbed coastal sage scrub, disturbed and developed areas,
ruderal areas, and ornamental landscaping None of these habitats are sensitive or
special status Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact special
status habitats.
Special Status Plants
Prior to conducting field surveys, a search of the CNDDB was conducted for special
status plants to and around the survey area which set the framework for a focused
survey of the plants identified in the database to determine if they occurred on site.
Twenty-two sensitive plant species (six of them listed) were identified to the database
search in the vicinity of the project site Six of the aforementioned had the potential
to occur on the site. They include
❑ Slender -horned spmeflower (Dodecahema leptoceres)• Presumed absent — no
potentially suitable habitat present and not observed onsite; Federally
Endangered (FE), State Endangered (SE) California Native Plant Society
(CNPS) List 1B 1
❑ Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevmu)• Possible to occur — potentially suitable
habitat present, but not observed onsite, CNPS List 1 B.2.
❑ San Fernando Valley spmeflower (Chorzzanthe parryi var fernadma). Presumed
absent — no potentially suitable habitat present; CNPS List 1B 2
❑ Santa Susana tarplant (Diendrada mmthormis): Low potential to occur —
potentially suitable habitat, but not observed onsite and no occurrences exists
within 10 miles of the site; CNPS List 1 B 2
❑ California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica)• Presumed absent — suitable vernal
pool habitat not present, FE, SE, CNPS List 1B.1.
❑ Spreading navarrieta (Navarretta fossalts)• Presumed absent — suitable vernal
pool habitat not present and not observed onsite; Federal Threatened (FT),
CNPS List 1B.1.
As determined to the biological reconnaissance report prepared for the project, all of
the plants listed above have a very low likelihood to occur on the site except Nevin's
barberry In regards to Nevin's barberry, ECORP notes that, "if this species was
present on site it would have been observed during the survey due to its large growth
1 ECORP describes the disturbed coastal sage scrub community onsite as a previous borrow site that was re -sprouted with mixed
chaparral and coastal sage scrub species ECORP further predicts that this community is in an early stage of succession and,
given the dominant species in the area, the community will likely transition into northern mixed chaparral
27
�17
habitat and identifiable characteristics throughout the year " As such, Nevin's
barberry is considered to not currently exist onsite. Therefore, impacts on special
status plants are considered less than significant and no mitigation or further study is
required
Special Status Animals
Prior to conducting field surveys, a search of the CNDDB was conducted for special
status animals in and around the survey area which set the framework for a focused
survey of the animals identified in the database to determine if they occurred on site
or their likelihood to occur on site. Nine (9) listed animals were identified and
twenty-two (22) California Species of Concern were identified for investigation. The
following species had the greatest potential to occur on the site per the biological
reconnaissance*
❑ Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)• This is a California Special Concern
Species and was not observed during the survey The likelihood of the
occurrence of this species is considered low due to the rolling topography and
dense vegetation of the site which is atypical habitat for the species.
❑ Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica)• This species is a
federally -listed threatened (FT) species and a California Special Concern
Species. The project site is located within a proposed and final critical habitat for
this species. However, the majority of the site is disturbed/recovering mixed
chaparral with some disturbed coastal sage scrub intermixed, and the adjacent
open space is impenetrable mixed chaparral and oak woodland, which is not
suitable for the gnatcatcher. Thus, the gnatcatcher is not likely to occur on the
site.
The potential impacts to the species listed above are considered less than significant
due to their low propensity to occur on the site No mitigation or further study is
required
iV b. Less Than Significant Impact
Source- Biological Reconnaissance of the Dominguez Property Section 36 of
Township 4 North, Range 15 West USGS 7.5 -minute "Mint Canyon, California"
Quadrangle, City of Santa Clarita, Prepared by ECORP Consultants, prepared for
Sikan Engineering Associates, January 2008. This report is available for review as
part of the project file at Santa Clarita City Hall, Planning Counter, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 during normal business hours (7.30
a m. to 5 30p m Monday through Thursday 8.00 a.m to 5 00p m Friday)
The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service The biological assessment of the project site identified no existence
of riparian or other sensitive habitat areas (See also IV -a, above ) Therefore,
impacts on hibiat are less than significant.
IV c. No Impact
Source Biological Reconnaissance of the Dominguez Property Section 36 of
Township 4 North, Range 15 West USGS 7.5 -minute "Mint Canyon, California"
Quadrangle, City of Santa Clarita, Prepared by ECORP Consultants, prepared for
Sikan Engineering Associates, January 2008 This report is available for review as
part of the project file at Santa Clarita City Hall, Planning Counter, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 during normal business hours (7 30
a m to 5.30 p m Monday through Thursday 8 00 a in to 5 00 p in Friday)
No federally protected wetlands, most specifically vernal pools which are known to
28
support unique life forms, were observed during the field surveys and none are
known to occur within the proposed project site. Therefore, no impacts to federally
protected wetlands or any sensitive species associated with federally protected
wetlands are anticipated with the implementation of the project
The area was surveyed by members of the ECORP Consulting Services, Inc
biological staff and the determination was made that the area did not support
wetlands because there was no evidence that the existing storm drains located in the
canyon bottom supported the three major elements necessary to accommodate a
wetland environment. There was no presence of wetland hydrology, there were no
wetland soils, and no hydrophytic vegetation existed. With the absence of these three
elements, it was determined that the wetland environment does not exist on the
project site.
IV d. Less Than Significant Impact
Source: Biological Reconnaissance of the Dominguez Property Section 36 of
Township 4 North, Range 15 West USGS 75-mmute "Mint Canyon, California"
Quadrangle, City of Santa Clarita, Prepared by ECORP Consultants, prepared Jor
Sikan Engineering Associates, January 2008 This report is available for review as
part of the project file at Santa Clarita City Hall, Planning Counter, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 during normal business hours (7 30
a in to 5.30 p. m. Monday through Thursday 8.00 a in to 5 00p m Friday).
The ability of wildlife to move from one tract of habitat to another increases the value
of the habitat. Habitats with wildlife movement opportunities allow for population
dispersal and seasonal migration, and increase the area for home range activities
Wildlife movement opportunities are often called wildlife corridors
The project site functions as part of a larger contiguous open space area but not as a
wildlife movement corridor The drainages and ridgelines provide connectivity
between large tracts of open land to the southwest of the site and could serve as local
wildlife movement corridors, but do not provide for long-distance wildlife
movement According to the biological report prepared for the project, the site does
not provide crucial connectivity to isolated areas of habitat. Therefore, the proposed
project would not significantly impact wildlife movement and impacts on wildlife
corridors are considered less than significant
IV e. Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation
Source Oak Tree Report Parcel 2 of P. M. 3494, prepared by Trees, Etc for Mr and
Mrs. Erasamo Dominguez, June 27, 2006 This report is available for review as part
of the project file at Santa Clarita City Hall, Planning Counter, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 during normal business hours (7 30
a m, to 5.30 p.m. Monday through Thursday 8 00 a m to 5 00p m Friday)
The City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance (Ordinance 88-34) is the only local
policy or ordinance that protects biological resources. This ordinance establishes
regulatory measures that mandate the manner in which oak trees may be removed,
pruned, cut or encroached upon Oak trees include any tree of the oak genus Quercus,
which includes valley oaks, California live oaks, canyon oaks, interior live oaks and
scrub oaks regardless of size Per the Oak Tree Ordinance, in order to remove or
modify any trees on the project site, an applicant will need to secure an Oak Tree
Permit from the City.
According to an oak tree survey conducted by Trees, Etc in June 2006, the project
site has four (4) oak trees All of these trees are coastal live oaks (Quercus agrifolia)
The survey determined that none of these trees would need to be removed nor would
they be encroached upon within their driplines and/or protected zones according to
the City's Ordinance as they are located outside of the proposed grading area
However, to ensure these trees are protected, the following mitigation measures will
be implemented -
Mitigation Measure- IV -2:
In order to avoid accidental damage or disturbance to oak trees on or near the
site, prior to the issuance of grading permit, all oak trees on site or within 50
feet of the potential area of ground disturbance shall be fenced at their
protected zones with a minimum 4' high fence before any site grading
commences Fencing shall remain during all phases of construction and shall
not be moved or removed without City approval
Mitigation Measure—IV-3:
In order to avoid accidental damage or disturbance to oak trees on or near the
site, no equipment storage, debris drop, parking, etc., shall occur within the
oak tree drip lines during construction.
Mitigation Measure—IV-4:
No over -excavation outside of any cut and/or fill slopes ("tops" or "toes") for
the proposed project shall occur within the driplme and/or Protected Zone of
any on-site native Oak trees, unless required by the project engineer and
approved by the City of Santa Clarita.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures IV -2 through IV -4, impacts to
protected biological resources such as oak trees are expected to be less than
significant
IV f. No Impact
The project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted
habitat conservation plans, and the projects would have no related impacts.
IV g. No Impact
The project site is not within a Significant Ecological Area identified on either
Exhibit OS -2 of the City's General Plan or the Los Angeles County Significant
Ecological Area mapping. The project site is also not within a Significant Natural
Area identified by the CDFG. The closest such area to the project sites is the Santa
Clara River Corridor Significant Ecological Area, which exists north of the project
site, south of Soledad Canyon Road The proposed project would not encroach into,
or otherwise damage, the Santa Clara River corridor Therefore, the proposed
project would have no impact to Significant Ecological Areas or Significant Natural
Areas
IV h. N/A
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
V a. No Impact
The project site is vacant with assorted oak trees and native and non-native
vegetation on the site. Since the project site is undeveloped there are no significant
historical resource onsite. Furthermore, this portion of the Santa Clarita Valley is not
known or expected to contain any historic resources onsite, as the majority of historic
resources in the valley are associated with railroad development and the Newhall
community. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource, and the project would have no
related impacts.
V b. Less Than Significant with Incorporation of Mitigation
The project site is not known or expected to contain prehistoric or historic archeo-
logical sites However, the project involves significant grading into previously
30 (.50
undisturbed soils. Thus, there is a potential for grading of the project to encounter
previously undiscovered archeological resources. In the unlikely event that
archaeological resources are encountered during grading or construction of the
project, Mitigation Measure V-1 requires all project grading and construction efforts
to halt until an archeologist examines the site, identifies the archaeological
significance of the find, and recommends a course of action Incorporation of
Mitigation Measure VI -1 would ensure the proposed project would not significantly
impact archaeological resources. Impacts are considered less than significant with the
incorporation of mitigation.
Mitigation Measure V-1: If archaeological resources are encountered
during project construction, all construction activities shall halt until an
archeologist certified by the Society of Professional Architects examines the
site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a
course of action. Construction shall not resume until the site archaeologist
states in writing that the proposed construction activities will not significantly
damage archaeological resources, and the City of Santa Clarita concurs with
this conclusion
V c. Less Than Significant with incorporation of Mitigation
The earth materials on the project sites consist of alluvium underlain by the
Miocenene Mint Canyon Formation The alluvium layer is anticipated to be thicker
along the valley floor than along the hillsides and ridgelme slopes. Paleontological
resources or unique geologic features are unlikely to be present within these earth
materials However, due to the undeveloped nature of the site, and the substantial
excavation that is proposed, it cannot be precluded that paleontological resources will
not be encountered during grading. Thus, to ensure the proposed project does not
impact paleontological resources, Mitigation Measure V-2 requires all project
grading and construction efforts to halt if paleontological resources are found, until a
paleontologist examines the site, identifies the significance of the find, and
recommends a course of action Incorporation of Mitigation Measure VI -2 would
ensure the proposed project would not significantly impact paleontological resources
or unique geologic features
Mitigation Measure V-2: If paleontological resources are encountered
during project construction, all construction activities shall halt until a
paleontologist, with qualifications that meet the satisfaction of the City of
Santa Clarita, examines the site, identifies the significance of the find, and
recommends a course of action. If such a scenario arises, construction shall
be halted and not resumed until recommended by the site paleontologist and
approved by the City of Santa Clarita
V d. Less Than Significant Impact
There are no known human remains on the sites The project site is not part of any
formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of historic or
prehistoric human remains. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered
during construction or excavation activities. Regardless State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050 5, requires all project grading and construction efforts to halt if a burial
site is encountered and not resume until the County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 5097 98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the proposed
protect would not result in significant impacts due to disturbing human remains.
Vi. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
VI a. Less Than Significant with Incorporation of Mitigation
Sources Updated Geologic and Geothechnical Engineering Report, Parcel 2,
31
Parcel Map 3494, Santa Clarita, California, June 2006. Prepared by GeoSolls
Consulting for G. Marshall Hann
Response to City of Santa Clarita Development Services Division Geotechnical
Review Sheet Dated August 11, 2006, Parcel 2, Parcel Map 3494, Santa Clarita,
California, September 15, 2006. Prepared by GeoSoils Consulting for G Marshall
Hann
These report is.available for review as part of the project file at Santa Clarita City
Hall, Planning Counter, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA
91355 during normal business hours (7 30 a in to 5 30 p in. Monday through
Thursday 8 00 a. in. to 5.00 p. in. Friday)
Geologic Setting:
The subject site is located near the southern edge of the Santa Clarita Valley in the
northern foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains of the Traverse Ranges. The San
Gabriel Mountains are comprised of plutonic and metamorphic rocks that are being
thrust over the San Fernando Valley to the south. The Santa Clarita Valley is an east
trending trough within the Traverse Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Traverse
Ranges Province is composed of parallel, east -west trending mountain ranges and
intervening sediment filled valleys.
The Traverse Ranges Province is one of the most active tectonic/seismic areas of the
United States. The distinctive geologic structure of the Traverse Ranges is dominated
by the effects of north -south compressive deformation that result in thrust faulting,
strike -slip faulting and bedrock folding, these active geologic features are attributable
to convergence between the `Big Bend" of the San Andreas Fault and northwestern
motion of the Pacific Plate and have caused thrust fault related earthquakes such as
the 1994 Northridge, 1971 San Fernando and the 1987 Whittier Narrows
earthquakes
Mayor east -west trending faults associated with these mountain systems include the
Malibu -Santa Monica -Hollywood, the Raymond and the San Fernando -Sierra Madre -
Cucamonga fault systems, the latter fault system is associated with the most
devastating earthquakes in the Los Angeles area in historic times, i e the 1971 San
Fernando earthquake and the 1994 Northridge earthquake
The San Fernando -Sierra Madre fault zone is a recently active portion of the larger
fault system that stretches from Ventura to San Bernardino along the south side of a
series of large mountain ranges. Other mayor east -west trending faults associated with
the Traverse Ranges of Southern California include the Malibu -Santa Monica -
Hollywood, Santa Susana, Oak Ridge, and the Raymond fault systems A short
segment of the potentially active San Gabriel fault has recently been shown to offset
Holocene alluvial materials and therefore has been designated as being active by the
State Geologist
Also of interest to this site is the San Andreas Fault The fault zone, aside from being
one of the most active fault zones in the United States, is locally considered to be
active, and likely overdue for a moderate to large magnitude earthquake Repeated
earthquakes and continued movement along this active tectonic feature account for a
great portion of this part of California's topographic expression The section of the
fault system that is closest to this site is responsible for the Richter magnitude 8+ Fort
Tejon earthquake of 1857, an event that shattered and ruptured the ground surface for
over one hundred and fifty miles. The site lies within approximately 30 miles of the
closest, accurately mapped main trace of the San Andreas Fault
(i) Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or
within any other fault zones identified on Exhibit S-2 of the City's General Plan.
Also, the geotechnical engineering report that was prepared for the project states
that the project site does not fall within an earthquake fault rupture hazard
(Alquist-Priolo) Zone (Hart and Bryant 1999). Therefore, impacts are expected
to be less than significant
(ii) Less Than Significant Impact
As stated in VI(a), the project site is located in one of the most seismically active
regions of the United States, as such the proposed project that will be built will
eventually be subject to strong seismic ground shaking at some point in time
The project does not propose any dwelling units but rather accessory residential
uses such as a landscaped area, a gazebo, and a garage. Consequently,
precautions are taken during design, engineering and construction of structures
to minimize earthquake damage. The proposed structures will be required to be
built according to the Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, and
are subject to building inspection during and after construction. Structures for
human habitation must be designed to meet or exceed California Uniform
Building Code standards for Seismic Zone 4. Conforming to these required
standards will ensure the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse
effects due to strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the proposed project
would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects due to strong
seismic ground shaking Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
(iii) Less Than Significant
A portion of the project site is located within a known liquefaction area as shown
on Exhibit S-3 of the City's General Plan. The project's geotechnical
engineering report analyzed potential impacts regarding liquefaction and found
that due to the site's shallow soil conditions which are underlain by bedrock, the
site's liquefaction potential was not considered to be a hazard to the site
Therefore, impacts are expected be less than significant.
(iv) Less Than Significant with Incorporation of Mitigation
Based on findings of the project's geotechnical engineering report, and with the
recommendations contained in the report incorporated into the project
(Mitigation Measure VIA), the proposed project will not be subject to geologic
hazard from landslides, settlement, or slippage. The geotechnical report noted
the evidence of mass wasting but determined that they will be of no effect to the
site due their location and distance from the site With incorporation of
Mitigation Measure VIA, the project would not result in any significant
landslide impacts.
Mitigation Measure VI -1
To the satisfaction of the City's Geotechnical Engineer all the
recommendations identified in the project's geotechnical engineering report
(Updated Geologic and Geothechnical Engineering Report, Parcel 2,
Parcel Map 3494, Santa Clarita, California, June 2006 Prepared by
GeoSoils Consulting for G Marshall Hann) shall be implemented
VI b. Less than Significant Impact
During construction of the proposed project the soils on-site may become exposed
and, thus, subject to temporary erosion. However, the project is required to comply
with existing regulations that reduce soil erosion potential. The proposed project will
comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires the implementation of Best
Available Control Measures (BACM's) to reduce the potential for wind erosion.
Similarly, water erosion during construction would be substantially reduced by
complying with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). As
further detailed in Section VIII of this report, NPDES requires the construction of the
project to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and
prevent eroded soils from washing offsite. Thus, the potential to increase erosion
during any construction activity would be effectively mitigated through the required
compliance activities Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than significant
VI c. Less Than Significant with Incorporation of Mitigation
Geologic units encountered on the site include; artificial fill soils (af), alluvial soils
(Qal), Slopewash (Qsw), and bedrock of the Mint Canyon Formation (Tmc) Portions
of the site have been previously graded and certain manufactured slopes appear
unstable. The geotechnical report set forth specific recommendations to rectify these
problems as well as ensure new manufactured slopes and pads are geologically sound
and stable. The project's geotechnical engineering report provides recommendations
to ensure proper stability of the site. With implementation of these recommendations
as required by Mitigation Measure VI -1 (see section VI -a above), the project would
not result in any significant impacts related to unstable soils or geologic units Thus,
impacts would be considered less than significant with the incorporation of
mitigation
VI d. Less Than Significant
The natural alluvial soil (Qal) consists of mixtures of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and
boulders (SM to GM soil types based upon the Unified Sods Classification System)
The alluvium is generally gray to brown with increasing moisture and density with
depth The geotechnical report calls for the removal of alluvium and slope wash and
replacement with approved fill material that is properly prepared and compacted The
site is underlain by bedrock of the Mint Canyon Formation (Tmc) and is considered
to have a low expansive potential Thus, impacts are expected to be less than
significant
VI e. No Impact
The project site does not propose residential dwelling units or other use that would
require sewer conveyance or the installation of septic systems Therefore, no impacts
are expected.
Vi f. Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed grading consists of 13,637 cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced
on-site No significant landform changes are proposed and the topographic character
of the site would remain largely intact Furthermore, the project site is subject to the
Hillside Development Ordinance because the cross -slope on the property is greater
than 10% The Hillside Development Ordinance assures that development minimizes
adverse affects of hillside development and preserves the welfare and safety of
community residents by: (1) providing hillside development standards to maximize
positive impacts of site design and grading, landscape, building architecture as well
as ensuring that the projects are in compliance with the goals and objectives of the
General Plan, (2) -assures maintenance of the essential natural characteristics of the
area such as mayor landforms, vegetation and wildlife communities, hydrologic
features, scenic qualities and open space that contributes to a sense of place (3)
Retain the integrity of predominant off-site and on-site views in hillside areas in
order to maintain the identity, image and environmental quality of the City. In
addition, the project will be required to obtain a Ridgelme Alteration Permit (RAP)
due to its proximity to Primary Ridgelme The requirements for the RAP will require
that the proposed grading be accomplished in a manner that preserves the integrity of
the ridgelme, thereby minimizing the project's impacts` on these important geologic
features
With compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and the Ridgelme
Alteration Permit, impacts are expected to be less than significant.
VI g. Less Than Significant
The protect proposes 13,637 cubic yards of cut and fill. Slopes, grading design,
construction and use must conform to all applicable sections of Chapter 17 80
Hillside Development Ordinance as well as other sections of the City's Uniform
Development Code As proposed, the impacts of earth movement for the project shall
be in conformance with the UDC and would be less than significant
VI h. Less Than Significant
The proposed project will require Hillside Development Review as part of the
development process as stated above Development proposals on properties having
an average cross -slope equal to or greater than 10% require Hillside Development
Review. Natural topographically prominent features and appearances are to be
conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slope or
drainage benches into the natural topography. Graded slopes will be rounded and
contoured to blend with the existing terrain as much as possible. Therefore, as
proposed, the impact of the project on slopes slightly greater than 10% would be less
than significant.
VI i. Less Than Significant
A Significant Ridgelme is located to the south of the project site and is within
sufficient proximity to require a Ridgelme Alteration Permit (RAP). The project site
is also subject to a Hillside Development Review since its gradient is greater than
10%. Natural topographic features and appearances are to be conserved by means of
landform grading to blend any manufactured slope or drainage benches into the
natural topography Furthermore, the proposed grading would not affect the top of
the Significant Ridgeline to the south and would not affect this ridgelme's silhouette.
Therefore, as proposed, the project would not result in the destruction, covering, or
modification of any unique geologic or physical feature, and would have no
significant related impacts.
VI j. N/A
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
VII a. No Impact
The project does not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than
the small amounts of pesticides, fertilizers and cleaning agents required for normal
maintenance of the structures and landscaping. The project must adhere to applicable
zoning and fire regulations regarding the use and storage of any hazardous
substances. The site is currently vacant and has not previously been developed
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the site has been used for underground storage
of hazardous materials Therefore, no impacts are expected.
VII b No Impact
The site is not known or expected to contain any underground storage tanks (USTs),
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), gas lines, or other hazardous material conduits or
storage facilities. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to 65962.5. There exists no evidence of industrial abuse,
legal/illegal dumping, mining, or oil and gas exploration/production. Furthermore,
the project does not propose any industrial uses, waste treatment/storage facilities,
power plants, or other land uses that are typically associated with hazardous material
accidents. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment Therefore, no
impacts are expected
VII C. No Impact
The project site is not located within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of an existing or
proposed school. Furthermore, as discussed in Section VII.a) of this report, the
proposed uses are not anticipated to store, use, or generate substantial amounts of
hazardous materials, and are not anticipated to utilize any acutely hazardous
materials Therefore, no impacts are expected
35 S5
VII d. No Impact
The project site has no previous development and is not known or expected to
contain any hazardous materials. The site is not found on any list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment No
impacts are expected
VII e. No Impact
There are no airports located within two miles of the project site; and the project site
is not within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the project would not result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in proximity to an airport. No impacts
are expected.
ViI f No Impact
The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. There are no airplane
transportation facilities, public or private, within two miles of the project site
Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in proximity to a private airstrip. Thus, no impacts are expected.
VII g No Impact
The construction and operation of the proposed project would not place any
permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public streets
Furthermore, the project site is not utilized by any emergency response agencies, and
no emergency response facilities exist in the project vicinity Therefore, the
proposed projects would have no impact to emergency response planning.
VII h Less than Significant Impact:
As shown on City's Fire Hazards Zone map (Exhibit S-5 of the City's General Plan),
the projects site is located within the "Within 1000' of Brush Area" fire hazard area.
The Fire Department will review the site plans for the Hillside Development Review
submitted by the applicant as part of the proposed protect and provide conditions of
approval to ensure the project complies with the California Fire Code The California
Fire Code generally includes access requirements, water system requirements, fuel
modification plan requirements, and additional requirements. In addition, the project
proposes only the construction of a landscaped area, a garage, and a gazebo. Thus,
given the required compliance with the California Fire Code, impacts are expected to
be less than significant
VI i. No Impact
The site is not known or expected to contain any electrical transmission lines, gas
lines, oil lines, or other hazardous material conduits or storage facilities Therefore,
the proposed project would not expose people to existing sources of potential health
hazards . Therefore, no impacts are expected
VI j. N/A
Viii. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ViII a Less than Significant Impact
Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to develop water quality
standards to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters. In accordance with
California's Porter/Cologne Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCBs) of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are required to
develop water quality objectives that ensure their region meets the requirements of
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act
Santa Clarita is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB The Los
Angeles RWQCB adopted water quality objectives in its Stormwater Quality
Management Plan (SQMP) This SQMP is designed to ensure stormwater achieves
36
compliance with receiving .water limitations Thus, stonnwater generated by a
development that complies with the SQMP does not exceed the limitations of
receiving waters, and thus does not exceed water quality standards.
Compliance with the SQMP is ensured by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which
is known as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under
this section, municipalities are required to obtain pen -nits for the water pollution
generated by stonnwater in their jurisdiction These permits are known as Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permits. Los Angeles County and the 85
incorporated Cities therein, including the City of Santa Clanta, obtained an MS4
(Permit # 01-182) from the Los Angeles RWQCB, most recently in 2001 Under this
MS4, each permitted municipality is required to implement the SQMP.
In accordance with the County -wide MS4 pennit, all new developments must comply
with the SQMP In addition, as required by the MS4 permit, the City of Santa Clanta
has adopted a Standard Urban Stonnwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) ordinance to
ensure new developments comply with SQMP The City's SUSMP ordinance
requires new developments to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that
reduce water quality impacts, including erosion and siltation, to the maximum extent
practicable. This ordinance also requires most new developments to submit a plan to
the City that demonstrates how the project will comply with the City's SUSMP and
identifies the project -specific BMPs that will be implemented.
The project consists of a grading to create a landscaped area, the future construction
of a gazebo and a garage None of the proposed uses are point source generators of
water pollutants, and thus, no quantifiable water quality standards apply to the
project. As an urban development, the proposed project would add typical, urban,
nonpoint-source pollutants to stone water runoff As discussed, these pollutants are
permitted by the County -wide MS4 permit, and would not exceed any receiving
water limitations. Compliance with the MS4 pen -nit would ensure that the proposed
projects would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements, and the projects would have no related significant impacts
VII b Less than Significant Impact
The project would not install any groundwater wells, and would not otherwise
directly withdraw any groundwater In addition, there are no known aquifer
conditions at the project site or in the surrounding area, which could be intercepted
by excavation or development of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would
not physically interfere with any groundwater supplies.
The Santa Clara River and its tributaries are the primary groundwater recharge areas
for the Santa Clarita Valley (City of Santa Clarita General Plan, 1991) The site's
runoff currently flows into the natural drainage system and empties into the Santa
Clara River. The proposed project would not add impermeable surfaces and would
maintain the site's outflow into the drainage system. Therefore, the proposed project
would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies Impacts are expected to be less
than significant
VII c Less than Significant Impact
Development projects that increase the volume or velocity of surface water can result
in an increase in erosion and siltation Increased surface water volume and velocity
causes an increase in siltation and sedimentation by increasing both soil/water
interaction time and the sediment load potential of water
The proposed project would alter the site's drainage by replacing the existing natural
sheet flows with engineered drainage systems due to the grading and manufactured
slopes. The surface water runoff that currently occurs on-site will not be increased
significantly by the development since minimal impermeable surfaces are proposed
37 57
As required by the City of Santa Clanta and the Countywide MS4 Permit, 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 Since the
project includes only minimal impermeable surefaces, standard engineering practices
are expected to achieve this requirement. Consequently, the project would not
substantially increase erosion or siltation off-site.
Furthermore, the project does not propose channelizmg any natural drainage courses
or focusing surface water flows into any areas of exposed soil. In addition, the onsite
drainage system, in accordance with the NPDES requirements discussed above in
Section VIII(a), is also required to include BMPs to reduce erosion and siltation to
the maximum extent practicable.
Therefore, with the application of standard engineering practices, NPDES
requirements, and City standards, the project wound not result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or offsite and, thus, impacts are expected to be less than significant
VII d Less than Significant Impact
As discussed in section VIII c) of this report, the proposed project will not be
creating a substantial amount of impermeable surfaces and would not be substantially
increasing runoff from the site In addition, the site does not alter the course of a
stream or river. Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than significant.
VII a Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project would not increase runoff since it does not propose installing
substantial impermeable surfaces However, as discussed above in Sections VIII c)
and VIII d), compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance would ensure that post -
development peak storm water runoff rates to not exceed pre -development peak
storm water runoff rates. Therefore, the off-site drainage network that supports the
project site and surrounding watershed will be adequate to handle the project's post
development runoff
In addition, the project proposes grading to create landscaped areas, the future
construction of a gazebo and a garage for residential purposes These uses are not
typically generators of polluted runoff Therefore, the project impacts are expected to
be less than significant
VII f Less than Significant Impact
As discussed above, the proposed project will not be a point -source generator of
water pollutants. The project consist of grading for landscaped areas, a gazebo, and a
garage and long-term water pollutants expected to be minimal, those that may occur
would be typical urban stormwater pollutants Compliance with the City's SUSMP
ordinance will ensure these stormwater pollutants would not substantially degrade
water quality.
The project does, however, have the potential to generate short-term water pollutants
during construction, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and equipment
fluids The Countywide MS4 permit requires construction sites to implement BMPs
to reduce the potential for construction -induced water pollutant impacts These
BMPs include methods to prevent contaminated construction site stormwater from
entering the drainage system and preventing construction -induced contaminates from
entering the drainage system. The MS4 identifies the following minimum
requirements for constructions sites in Los Angeles County
1. Sediments generated on the project site shall be retained using adequate
Treatment Control or Structural BMPs;
2 Construction -related materials, wastes, spills or residues shall be retained at
the project site to avoid discharge to streets, drainage facilities, receiving
38 `�>
waters, or adjacent properties by wind or runoff-,
3 Non -storm water runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and any other
activity shall be contained at the project site; and
4. Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an
effective combination of BMPs (as approved in Regional Board Resolution
No 99-03), such as the limiting of grading scheduled during the wet
season; inspecting graded areas during rain events; planting and
maintenance of vegetation on slopes; and covering erosion susceptible
slopes.
In addition, projects with a construction site of one acre or greater, such as the
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. This permit
is known as the State's General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit or the
State's General NPDES Permit. Since the proposed project involves greater than one
(1) acre of land disturbance, the project is required to submit to the SWRCB a Notice
of Intent (NOI) to comply with the State's General Construction Activity Storm
Water Permit This NOI must include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) that outlines the BMPs that will be incorporated during construction.
These BMPs will minimize construction -induced water pollutants by controlling
erosion and sediment, establishing waste handling/disposal requirements, and
providing non -storm water management procedures
Complying with the both the MS4's construction site requirements and the State's
General Construction Permit will ensure that construction of the proposed project
would not significantly impact water quality Thus, impacts are considered less than
significant.
VII g, h No Impact
The project site does not propose housing, nor is it located within a I00 -year flood
zone. Therefore, it will not place housing within the 100 -year flood zone, nor -will it
place structures therein which would obstruct or impede flows No impacts are
expected
VII i. No Impact
The project site is not within a floodplain and there are no levees, dams, or other
water detention facilities within the vicinity of the project that could potentially pose
a significant risk of loss, injury or death (See also § VII (g) and VII(h). Thus, the
proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving flooding and the project would have no related impacts
VII j. No Impact
There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the project site that is capable of
producing seiche or tsunami Similarly, the folding of the bedrock in the slopes
adjacent to the project sites indicates that these slopes are not prone to mudslides.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact from seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow
VII k. Less than Significant Impact
The project would not alter the drainage patterns. Regardless, as discussed above in
Sections VIII c) and VIII d), compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance would
ensure that post -development peak storm water runoff rates to not exceed pre -
development peak storm water runoff rates. Further, as discussed in section VII g and
h, the proposed changes to the sites drainages would not cause any significant
impacts Similarly, although the project involves grading and changes to topography,
the site's general down sloping gradient will remain Consequently, groundwater
flows would not be substantially changed. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in significant impacts from changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course
19 �S9
and direction of surface water and groundwater
VII 1. No Impact
The project site does not contain any channels, washes, creeks, or rivers. Thus, no
impact is expected.
VII M. Less than Significant Impact
As discussed above in Sections VIII a), VIII c), VIII d), and VIII,e) of this report, the
project is required to comply with the City's SUSMP ordinance, the Countywide
MS4 permit, the State's NPDES General Construction Permit, and required to
implement a SWPPP. Compiling with these requirements of the Clean Water Act and
the NPDES will ensure the proposed project would not significantly impact
stormwater management. Thus, impacts are expected to be less than significant.
VII M. Less than Significant Impact
(i) The project will not have a potential significant impact resulting from
construction and post construction activity regarding storm water runoff, because
the project is required to comply with the Countywide MS4 permit process and
the State's NPDES General Construction Permit process as well as a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). Therefore, impacts are
considered less than significant.
VII M. Less than Significant Impact
(ii) The project will not have potential discharges from areas of material storage,
vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous material handling or storage, delivery areas
or loading docks or other outdoor work areas because none of these activities are
proposed as part of the project. Additionally, the project is required to comply
with the Countywide MS4 permit process, the State's NPDES General
Construction Permit process as well as implementing a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program (SWPPP) In particular, the SWPPP would establish BMP's
for use, storage and handling of construction equipment onsite As a result,
impacts are considered less than significant
VII M. Less than Significant Impact
(iii) The project will not significantly environmentally increase the flow velocity or
volume of storm water runoff because the project is required to comply with the
Countywide MS4 permit process, the State's NPDES General Construction
Permit process as well as implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SWPPP) See also section VII (c) Impacts are considered less than
significant
VII M. Less than Significant Impact
(iv) The project will not significantly or environmentally harmfully increase the
erosion of the project site or surrounding areas because the project is required to
comply with the Countywide MS4 permit process, the State's NPDES General
Construction Permit process as well as implementing a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program (SWPPP). See also section VII (c). Thus, impacts are
considered less than significant.
VII in. Less than Significant Impact
(v) The project will not significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the
beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits
such as riparian corridors or wetlands See also section VII (a) Therefore,
impacts are considered less than significant
VII M. Less than Significant Impact
(vi) Implementation of project activities will not cause harm to the biological
integrity of the drainage systems, watersheds or water bodies. Neither
construction nor operation of the proposed project will generate pollutants in an
amount or concentration that could affect the biological integrity of the drainage
system or watercourses As previously discussed the project must further
incorporate BMP's to minimize emissions of water pollutants from the site As a
result, impacts are considered less than significant.
VII m. No Impact
(vii) The project proposes accessory residential uses and does not propose the
construction of any residential units or structures designed for any other land
use. The City will require a lot line adjustment to merge the adjacent parcel
which contains an existing home (owned by the same owner as the proposed
project) to the one on which the project is proposed. Construction and operation
of the project are required to comply with the California Waste Management
Act, which requires a 50% or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City
complies with this act through the City's franchised solid waste management
services, which will provide waste disposal service to the existing home as well
as the proposed accessory structures Therefore, no impacts are expected
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
IX a. Less Than Significant
The subject site is within the Sand Canyon community located within the Canyon
Country area of the City of Santa Clarita. Development in the vicinity of the project
is in a suburban pattern and consists of individually -constructed custom homes on
large lots (2 acre minimum) The project site is zoned for Residential Estate (RE) and
the proposed residential accessory uses are consistent with the residential
development in the surrounding areas Thus, the project is consistent with the
surrounding developments and would not divide an established community
Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than significant.
IX b. No Impact
The project site is not part of a specific plan or redevelopment plan, and the City of
Santa Clarita is not within the Coastal Zone, as described in the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1966. Thus, the only land use plans or policies that apply to the
project site are the City's Unified Development Code and General Plan The City's
General Plan and zoning map designates the project site for Residential Estate (RE)
uses. The proposed project consists on ancillary residential uses and, thus, all
development standards will be satisfied and the project meets the intent of the
General Plan Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable land use
plans, policies, or regulations and would cause no related environmental impacts.
IX c. No Impact
The project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved environmental resource
conservation plan Therefore, the projects would not conflict with any adopted
environmental conservation plans As a result, no impacts are expected
X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES
X a, b. No Impact
Gold mining and oil production were historically the principal extraction activities in
and around the Santa Clarita Valley area. The proposed project site is not within a
mineral area identified on Exhibit OS -5 "Mineral Resources" of the City's General
Plan, and the site is not known to contain mineral resources Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, and
no impacts on mineral resources are expected
Xi. NOISE
X c. No Impacts
The proposed site is currently undeveloped and has not been used as a Mineral
Resource Recovery Site delineated in the City of Santa Clanta's General Plan The
project is anticipated to utilize grading materials, many of which are nonrenewable
resources, including sand, gravel, and earth, some of which will be onsite soils that
are deemed adequate for re -use in controlled fills. All imported fill material shall not
contain any organic matter, debris, or any individual particles greater than six inches
in diameter. Therefore, there will be no loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource and no other impacts are anticipated.
Market -rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and manpower during
construction. Similarly, energy and water resources that would be utilized by the
proposed landscaping areas, would be supplied by the regional utility purveyors,
which participate in various conservation programs. Furthermore, there are no
unique conditions that would require excessive use of nonrenewable resources on the
project site, and the project is expected to utilize energy and water resources in the
same manner as typical residential development. Therefore, the proposed projects
would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner,
Therefore, no impacts are expected
X a. Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is located southeast of the terminus of Wann Springs Drive and east
of Josel Drive within the City of Santa Clarrta The California State Office of Noise
Control (Department of Health) published a recommended noise/land use
compatibility matrix. This matrix indicated that residential land uses and other noise
sensitive receptors generally should be located in areas where outdoor ambient noise
levels do not exceed 65 to 70 dBA. Within the City of Santa Clanta General Plan,
the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) has been established as the average
equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24 -hours day.
The project involves grading 2.1 to 3.1 cut and fill slopes within a currently
undeveloped site and will be consistent with the existing land uses in the project
vicinity, all of which are designated as Residential Estate under the City of Santa
Clarrta General Plan Future structures associated with the project site include a
landscaped area, a gazebo, and a garage, all of which are accessory uses associated
with an adjacent residence As a result, the project will not generate any additional
traffic on local roadways and will not generate substantial long-term operational
noise Short-term construction noise emissions may be anticipated during grading of
the site and during the construction of the aforementioned structures However, the
City's Noise Ordinance limits construction between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM
Monday through Friday, and 7 AM to 6 PM on Saturdays. Therefore, the proposed
project is not anticipated to expose persons or generate levels of noise in excess of
standards established in the local General Plan, other noise ordinances or applicable
standards of other agencies. Thus, impacts are expected to be less than significant
XI b. Less Than Significant impact.
The project site operations are not anticipated to generate excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels During short-term construction grading
activities, infrequent vibrations may be generated by cut and fill equipment.
However, in accordance with the City's noise ordinance, construction would be
limited to 7 AM to 7 PM on Monday through Friday and from 7 AM to 6 PM on
Saturday In addition, the project will not generate long-term operational noise
impacts as it consists of accessory residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project
would not expose persons to generation of significant vibration or other groundborne
noise level impacts Impacts are expected to be less than significant
XI c. Less Than Significant Impact -
The proposed project will not increase ambient noise levels in the protect vicinity
above levels existing without the project The main noise generating activity that will
take place as part of this project is from the grading for 2 1 to 3 1 cut and fill slopes.
This will be a temporary increase and will cease once the grading is complete. The
proposed development includes the construction of a gazebo and a garage as well as
an area for landscaping. Use of these facilities will not cause a measurable increase in
ambient noise levels Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than significant.
XI d. Less Than Significant Impact.
The project site location is surrounded by low density residential land uses and
undeveloped land. Project construction will consist of grading activities including,cut
and fill of the land as well as the construction of a gazebo and a garage Temporary
project construction ambient noise is required to meet the standards of the City's
noise ordinance explained in X b above Therefore, the proposed project would not
cause any significant impacts from temporarily generating noise Impacts are
expected to be less than significant
XI e. No Impact
The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan of within two
miles of a public airport No impacts are expected
XI I. No Impact
The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip No
impacts are expected.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
XII a. No Impact
Growth -inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that foster
or encourage population and/or economic growth These include adding residential
units or businesses, expanding infrastructure, and generating employment
opportunities. Residential development consistent with the General Plan and existing
zoning is not considered substantial
The proposed project includes grading to construct a gazebo and a garage as well as
landscaping a portion of the site The project does not propose new residential units
or businesses, the expansion of infrastructure, or developments providing additional
employment opportunities Therefore, the proposed project would not induce
substantial population growth and no impacts are expected
XII b. No Impact
The project site is undeveloped Therefore, the proposed projects would not displace
any persons No impacts are expected
XII c. No Impact
The project site is undeveloped Therefore, the proposed projects would not displace
any housing. No impacts are expected
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
XIII a.
(i) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project will not result in the need for additional new or altered fire
protection services and will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The
proposed project would construct a garage, gazebo, and landscaping area, and, in
turn, would increase the structures served by the Los Angeles County Fire
Department However, the project itself is not large enough to require the
development of additional Fire Department facilities. The Department can serve the
proposed project with its existing facilities and the project would not cause a change
in service ratios or response times. Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than
significant
(ii) No Impact
The proposed project will not result in the need for additional new or altered police
protection services and will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The
proposed project would not result in the development any additional residential units
The project proposes to construct a garage and a gazebo and thus would not increase
the residents served by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department The
Department can serve the proposed development with its existing facilities and the
project would not cause a change in service ratios or response times Therefore, no
impacts are expected.
(iii) No Impact
The Santa Clarita Valley is served by five public school districts. The nearest school
to the proposed project site is approximately 0 5 miles to the north along Iron
Canyon Road. The project consists of grading including cut and fill of the site area
and the construction of a garage, gazebo, and landscaping area The proposed project
does not include the construction of residential units or other units that would
potentially increase the existing population of the surrounding area. Therefore, the
project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
school facilities within the City of Santa Clanta Thus, no impacts are expected
(iv) No Impact
The project consists of grading the proposed site and the construction of a garage and
gazebo The completion of the project will not result in the need to construct new
park facilities for public services Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
XIV. RECREATION
XIV a. No Impact
The proposed project consists of grading, cut and fill slopes with walkways and small
pad areas for the construction of a garage and gazebo The development of these
structures will not result in an increase in the existing population within or
surrounding the project site. The project therefore, would not increase the use of the
existing neighborhood and regional parks of other recreational facilities such that
substantial deterioration would occur No impacts are anticipated
XIV b. No Impact
The proposed project does not include any recreational facilities nor would it require
the construction or expansion of off-site recreational facilities since it proposes only
residential accessory structures. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an
adverse effect on the environment associated with the construction of a recreational
facility. Thus, no impacts are expected.
XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC
XV a,b No Impact
The proposed project would create landscaped areas, a gazebo, and garage These are
accessory residential structures and would not generate any new or additional vehicle
trips Thus, the project would have no impacts related to an increase in traffic or
acceptable levels of service on area roadways No impacts are expected.
XV c. No Impact
The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
44 6y
airport or public use airport Consequently, the proposed project would not affect
any airport facilities and would not cause a change in the directional patterns of
aircraft Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to air traffic patterns.
XV d. No Impact
The project has no internal circulation plan as it will be used for accessory residential
use The applicant will be required by the City to record a lot line adjustment to
combine the project site parcel with the adjacent residential parcel to the northeast
(APN# 2848-003-023) The associated residential parcel currently has safe access to
an area roadway Thus, the project will have no impacts related to hazardous design
features
XV e. No Impact
See discussion XV(d) above. No impacts are expected
XV f. No Impact
See discussion XV(d) above. No impacts are expected
XV g. No Impact
The proposed projects do not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation. No impacts are expected.
XV h. No Impact
See discussion XV(d) above No impacts are expected.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
XVI a, b, e. No Impact
Currently, wastewater treatment in Santa Clarita is handled by two Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts. District No. 26 serves the Saugus, Placenta, and Canyon
County areas and District NO. 32 serves the Newhall and Valencia areas. (City of
Santa Clarita General Plan Exhibit PF -3)
The proposed project site is located within the jurisdiction of District NO. 26, which
operates the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant. The proposed project will not exceed
the requirements of the applicable Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated
The proposed project includes the construction of accessory residential uses and will
not connect to the City's and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's (LACSD)
wastewater collection and treatment system. Thus, it will not exceed wastewater
requirements of existing treatment or transmission facilities, would not result in the
construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, and would not impact wastewater
treatment capacity Therefore, as proposed the project will have no impact on the
City's and the LACSD's wastewater facilities
XVI c. Less than Significant Impact
The ultimate destination for storm water runoff from the City of Santa Clarita is the
Santa Clarita River. The State Subdivision Map Act requires the Los Angeles County
to provide storm drainage As such, the storm drainage system of Santa Clarita is
maintained by the County Flood Control District. As discussed above in Section
VIII, the project would not increase storm water runoff Therefore, the project will
not significantly impact the current storm water drainage system
XVI d. Less than Significant Impact
The only water demand generated by the proposed project is irrigation for the
proposed landscaping. The Santa Clarita Water Company (SCWC) will provide
water services to the project area. The SCWC's water sources are derived primarily
from the State Water Project, local ground water, and the Castaic Lake Water
Agency. Contract entitlements from the State vary from year to year with the SCWC
heavily dependent on this source of water Currently the SCWC has the ability to
provide water to the project without impacting its ability to provide water to its other
customers. As proposed, the project will not have any significant impacts on the
water supply
XVI f.g. No Impact
The construction of the project will not require the service of a landfill for the
project's solid waste disposal needs because it consists of accessory residential uses
Likewise, since the project would not generate solid waste, the project would not
conflict with any statutes or regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impacts
are expected
XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
XVII a. Less than Significant Impact
As discussed in Section IV of this document, the proposed project would not have
substantial impacts to special status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and
migration. Furthermore, the proposed project would not affect the local, regional, or
national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and would not threaten
any plant communities Similarly, as discussed in Section V of this document, the
proposed project would not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, or
paleontological resources and, thus, would not eliminate any important examples of
California history or prehistory Therefore, the proposed project does not have a
Mandatory Finding of Significance due to impacts to biological or cultural resources
XVIi b. Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project would not cause impacts that are cumulatively considerable and
the project's contribution to existing cumulative impacts would not be considerable.
Therefore, the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance
due to cumulative impacts
XVII c. Less than Significant 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 future accessory structures built on the project site could be
exposed to strong seismic earth shaking due to the potential for earthquakes in
Southern California. However, modern engineering practices would ensure that the
geologic and seismic conditions of the proposed project would not cause substantial
adverse effects on humans In addition, said accessory structures are not in areas
where people would live or work. Section VII of this document examines the project
for potential impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. As explained in Section
VII, there are no hazardous conditions on the project site. Therefore, the proposed
project would not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance from environmental
effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on humans.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
I. AESTHETICS
None required
II AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
None required
III AIR QUALITY
None required
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure IV -1:
In order to reduce the potential impact to nesting birds through grading and other construction related activities,
ground and vegetation disturbing activities shall take place outside of the recognized nesting season, if practical
The nesting season typically occurs between early February and August, but can vary slightly from year to year. If
ground disturbing and vegetation disturbing activities must occur within the recognized nesting season, then pre -
construction nesting bird surveys, and weekly surveys thereafter during the nesting season, shall be performed to
identify any nests that may be impacted by construction activities. If any active nests are located within the
proposed disturbance area or within 100 feet of ground disturbing activities, a 100 feet buffer area will be flagged
around the nest (500 feet from any active raptor nest) and no activity will be allowed in the buffer area until
nesting is completed as verified by the project biologist Periodic monitoring by a biologist shall be performed to
determine when nesting is complete.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to and during the initial site clearing phase and initial construction
activities the monitor shall review the reports of preconstruction surveys.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
Mitigation Measure- IV -2:
In order to avoid accidental damage or disturbance to oak trees on or near the site, prior to the issuance of grading
permit, all oak trees on site or within 50 feet of the potential area of ground disturbance shall be fenced at their
protected zones with a minimum 4' high fence before any site grading commences. Fencing shall remain during all
phases of construction and shall not be moved or removed without City approval.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and prior to any clearance or ground
disturbance.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
Mitigation Measure—IV-3:
In order to avoid accidental damage or disturbance to oak trees on or near the site, no equipment storage, debris
drop, parking, etc , shall occur within the oak tree drip lines during construction.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: Random inspections throughout the construction process.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
Mitigation Measure—IV-4:
No over -excavation outside of any cut and/or fill slopes ("tops" or "toes") for the proposed project shall occur
within the driplme and/or Protected Zone of any on-site native Oak trees, unless required by the project engineer
and approved by the City of Santa Clarita.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and prior to any clearance or ground
disturbance.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure V-1: If archaeological resources are encountered during project construction, all
construction activities shall halt until an archeologist certified by the Society of Professional Architects examines
the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Construction
shall not resume until the site archaeologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities will not
significantly damage archaeological resources, and the City of Santa Clarita concurs with this conclusion
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall periodically coordinate with the contractor during
construction to ensure compliance with this measure.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
Mitigation Measure V-2: If paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, all
construction activities shall halt until a paleontologist, with qualifications that meet the satisfaction of the City of
Santa Clarita, examines the site, identifies the significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. If
such a scenario arises, construction shall be halted and not resumed until recommended by the site paleontologist
and approved by the City of Santa Clarita.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall periodically coordinate with the contractor during
construction to ensure compliance with this measure.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure VI -I
To the satisfaction of the City's Geotechnical Engineer all the recommendations identified to the project's
geotechnical engineering report (Updated Geologic and Geothechntcal Engineering Report, Parcel 2, Parcel
Map 3494, Santa Clartta, California, June 2006 Prepared by GeoSods Consulting for G. Marshall Hann) shall
be implemented
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall periodically coordinate with the contractor during
construction and review geotechnical inspection/evaluation documentation to ensure compliance with this
measure.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Geotechnical Engineer
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
None required
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
None required
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
IX LAND USE AND PLANNING
None required
X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES
None required
XI NOISE
None required
XII POPULATION AND HOUSING
None required
XIII PUBLIC SERVICES
None required
XIV RECREATION
None required
XV TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
None required
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
None required
APPENDIX A: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA - CODE
ENFORCEMENT TIMELINE OF EVENTS
70
GRADING PLAN - PAGE 71
P, i
lop
An.
r y
JGSEI_ DR1VEy
.S t` �- r
A2 LU
11 it
CZ
CO
.�1
CANYON RQAO Z
N G
44
LU
�
SAID .u•
1 y
� � `'tom{ � �' � �. T � 7� ! ~w• �e}.- e . � a
,:��,,, r�y.��i,��.��':1 w •.� ��}��'� L ., (moi,. ..
j T g .FI�J s
t+ 1 r t
't
Apt CL
1:.
FILL
® CUT
JIM
�I
If led Fill = 5871 I IIII
o>a a I 0
I i I i
1630\
11 a
Tom'_--._._..-.'_____ �J,
gkm
(
\\ / 99 1973
\\
J O
f \ %
/ � r
X\\
=Im3
\��--'�/ ��-•� �//� �\�
�-�--'�b� ice`
� EOES 1
NR�
Ob
Pt9p
P[rf t of &[o --urs = 4N2% ~_`_• \ "\ Kt \ \ \ . 2006 TO `\
ERASMO DOMINGUEZ
24300 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 300
VALENCIA, CA 91355
ATTN: G. MARSHALL HAHN
15230 Burbank BWd,
�►\ SIMND vanNuys.CA914r1
e. *-4 * I w T91: (8181787-8550
Fax: (818} 901-7451
infoovsikand.com
CUTAND FILL
MAP
____________
� cum NNW
Off NNW ow
rr
m on= w m w eac 1 r 1
O
M.
O
O
NbUk
Ou
t,
c
c
4
4
c
c
4
c
4c
4 c
J
vi
LL:
Lr)
11
Z_
J
<
0
C/).
.............
(6
LL.
a.
0
c
C
)
4
J
W
c
4 c
4
c
O
M.
O
O
NbUk
Ou
t,
SZ-G"KZC O V LSU6 P NlW3'11-13 ""S
• en �tR0 eI-rj el -S --a Pmr 90992
--- a 0uudS zanfiwwop owsei3
"' aouaplsaa zan6wwop o3roaa iwro
' I ou `V10 j, NVId ONI.LNVld 3dVOSONVI 3110 133N
�1
9 EL e
}
n - ,qa�
Lu
-- - � •, .'\_ Orli ;l � '" ,� � ,-. ,,,. ,) '"�`- �� � � ` . .
a %
I
0" 0
1,
`;� /.:r' � \ .-- Cin' -7-- -' -- --- -C- ) � - ' C7 r; 1 ;'•;
/ 1 _ •' _ - - - / Lam' � �'\� -� . )/ ee_ /' �1 -''/% l`� "l' ' 1 _ di \� It * � fir, /, \
1,11' I ` \ r/'//j' ''-;"3,`✓-n.n-.__ `\�'` _ _ - a_- - imo �) �` /0 '��; // •�•
,
LZ
cs
' i . / ._ / Y � -� ., �„_ �/ ..J <- r -T�� - G1;�a' ,.rap--' =�« ` � \` , � : I � . , I , •%
_' ✓Ir/ is /,
-
\ zI
, 1 / ,a 'S , � 7'm ., , •'� , '` /" / Ali / , ,
ry
�� ' 'v A � � � � - � ` � - � : i ,( lei \ V • � '
C7 J B
1 \OIC.
I �zP :7,
}
n - ,qa�
Lu
-- - � •, .'\_ Orli ;l � '" ,� � ,-. ,,,. ,) '"�`- �� � � ` . .
a %
I
0" 0
1,
`;� /.:r' � \ .-- Cin' -7-- -' -- --- -C- ) � - ' C7 r; 1 ;'•;
/ 1 _ •' _ - - - / Lam' � �'\� -� . )/ ee_ /' �1 -''/% l`� "l' ' 1 _ di \� It * � fir, /, \
1,11' I ` \ r/'//j' ''-;"3,`✓-n.n-.__ `\�'` _ _ - a_- - imo �) �` /0 '��; // •�•
,
LZ
cs
' i . / ._ / Y � -� ., �„_ �/ ..J <- r -T�� - G1;�a' ,.rap--' =�« ` � \` , � : I � . , I , •%
_' ✓Ir/ is /,
-
\ zI
, 1 / ,a 'S , � 7'm ., , •'� , '` /" / Ali / , ,
ry
EZS0-909M 41V L9EL8 ewxygeo eJuelo ewes
nwo0J°0 °1uel� ¢lueg wua Inor 90992
° O%Buuds W1 -m zanBU1WOQ OWSE13
a�uapisaa zanBuJwop _a3"cad IN3ns
SlIV130 ONIINVId 3dVOSONVI Pau 133Ms
Z -
a
Z
O
o L
0
T
C7
Z
F -
o
Z
g
gym® 5
0
m
=1.� •Ir i��
Z
(n
r -
EZS0-909M 41V L9EL8 ewxygeo eJuelo ewes
nwo0J°0 °1uel� ¢lueg wua Inor 90992
° O%Buuds W1 -m zanBU1WOQ OWSE13
a�uapisaa zanBuJwop _a3"cad IN3ns
SlIV130 ONIINVId 3dVOSONVI Pau 133Ms
Z -
a
Q
o
< "w
�
q
zi
4�Y<
z
D -
o
z
R
P
o
F
$
8
m F
o
-
—'
Z
F
o
\
Z
e 0
N b
W
,
0 00
I
I—III
w
z
w
z
o
f
Y
r3/P'MK.0 s
u
i
] l
9
W
u
4
<n
z
k
s,
o
w
j
`s
u
I
Q
Ucl
<
W
<
a
g
Z
z
W0
o
g
Q
o
'w
V
o
fn
¢
a
m
Y
d
EZS0-909M 41V L9EL8 ewxygeo eJuelo ewes
nwo0J°0 °1uel� ¢lueg wua Inor 90992
° O%Buuds W1 -m zanBU1WOQ OWSE13
a�uapisaa zanBuJwop _a3"cad IN3ns
SlIV130 ONIINVId 3dVOSONVI Pau 133Ms
Z -
a
h
CK
o
< "w
�
q
zi
4�Y<
z
D -
o
Q
J
N
o
O
(_
I
Z
O
o
-
—'
Z
F
o
\
Z
e 0
N b
W
,
0 00
I
I—III
w
r3/P'MK.0 s
N
B w
Y C O
z
Lu
W a
J s
rNWr N
^^ W
V!
w " h
z
Z
O
U °m
h
F -
PJ O LLN'tj 7 �u Y oz
�" IJo o�o3�xo �ooaaO��<d�od
Via$'' >
O ark ��a Wn11�g$ o<w�a�dg a'p
W`�° qs���
_ � �S;yzz� y�s�rc
p �OQ�LL °° a o 2z � r<oe��, �F� � �Y a RR`W''
w a a� L°�m 4�'�g�'"�o i u'C a.Yo•��3�,� �i<Sau+�- g�iF - 3+�im"aS g gg>�,�� g �g
o � � � ����'�� � �=�5���>�� �I�� g�� �4�°g-�w �i" ��+�<zg g"<�� �Ic��< �,°�nTa <° t°���•y"� � F�
z
z u,i;j qq I i
z � � 41IND
1
CL
\tL-
h
CK
< "w
wi
z
D -
o
Q
IR
O
ppK
N b
H
z
s,
o
j
`s
ZZ
W0
o
g
'w
V
o
V
a
J
w
w
i
o
oo�
>y<
r.
rf
m
I
B w
Y C O
z
Lu
W a
J s
rNWr N
^^ W
V!
w " h
z
Z
O
U °m
h
F -
PJ O LLN'tj 7 �u Y oz
�" IJo o�o3�xo �ooaaO��<d�od
Via$'' >
O ark ��a Wn11�g$ o<w�a�dg a'p
W`�° qs���
_ � �S;yzz� y�s�rc
p �OQ�LL °° a o 2z � r<oe��, �F� � �Y a RR`W''
w a a� L°�m 4�'�g�'"�o i u'C a.Yo•��3�,� �i<Sau+�- g�iF - 3+�im"aS g gg>�,�� g �g
o � � � ����'�� � �=�5���>�� �I�� g�� �4�°g-�w �i" ��+�<zg g"<�� �Ic��< �,°�nTa <° t°���•y"� � F�
z
z u,i;j qq I i
z � � 41IND
1
CL
\tL-