HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 08 199 PARKING STRUCTURE (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT
Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by
October 26, 2010
Ben Jarvis
MASTER CASE 08-199: A REQUEST TO ADOPT A
RESOLUTION APPROVING A RIDGELINE ALTERATION
PERMIT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND AN OAK
TREE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ADDITIONAL SURFACE PARKING AND THREE PARKING
DECKS AT AN EXISTING CHURCH IN THE RESIDENTIAL
ESTATE ZONE.
Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving
Master Case 08-199 (Ridgeline Alteration Permit 08-003, Hillside Development Review 08-005,
Oak Tree Permit 08-026) to allow for the construction of new surface parking spaces and three,
two-level parking structures at 22833 Copper Hill Drive in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B).
BACKGROUND
Grace Baptist Church was originally entitled in 1991 under the jurisdiction of the County of Los
Angeles. In 1997, the property was annexed into the City of Santa Clarita and church buildings
were constructed in 1998. The project site contains four buildings, totaling approximately
150,000 square feet, and 677 parking spaces. Under Los Angeles County standards, the church
was required to provide 501 parking spaces: one space for every five fixed seats in the church's
largest assembly area. Under existing City requirements, 626 parking spaces are required: one
parking space for every four fixed seats in the largest assembly area. The existing facility meets
the City's parking requirement. On December 30, 2008, an entitlement application was filed by
Grace Baptist Church (applicant) requesting approval for additional surface and structured
parking to serve the church's existing patronage. A public hearing was scheduled before the
Adopfed.-Je.,<,,. / o -g5
Planning Commission on February 16, 2010; however, that hearing was continued when the
applicant asked that a signal be included at the intersection of Copper Hill Drive and Sycamore
Creek Drive. As part of the required street improvements, a raised median would have been
installed on Copper Hill Drive, west of Sycamore Creek Drive. This median would have
precluded left turns to and from Tupelo Ridge Drive, a residential street located just west of
Sycamore Creek Drive.
When residents who live south of Copper Hill Drive became aware of the planned street
improvements, they formed an ad hoc group to oppose the construction of the raised median.
After multiple community meetings which included residents, the applicant, and City staff, the
City suggested an interim street improvement plan that would postpone construction of the raised
median in front of Tupelo Ridge Drive until future traffic volumes warranted its installation. In
the meantime, street improvements consisting of full curb, gutter, sidewalk, and a painted median
would continue to allow existing turning movements at both church driveways as well as the
intersections of Copper Hill Drive at Sycamore Creek Drive and Tupelo Ridge Drive. Condition
Nos. EN 10 and ENI I address both the interim and ultimate street improvements that are required
as part of this project. According to the applicant, the interim improvements would not create a
need for a traffic signal. The proposed street improvements were presented to the community in
June and local residents supported the interim measures. .
On September 7, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the project.
Two people spoke in favor of the project, and another resident raised concerns about the number
of oak trees that would be relocated or removed. After receiving the staff presentation and public
testimony, by a vote of 4-0 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
approve the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes a request for approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Hillside
Development Review Permit and Oak Tree Permit to allow for the construction of additional
surface parking and three, two-level parking structures. The additional surface parking and the
three parking decks would provide a total of 1,057 parking spaces. The proposed project does
not include additional assembly areas, classrooms or administrative offices. The additional
parking is being proposed to accommodate the existing patronage of the church, not to support an
expansion of the existing use.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is bordered by property in unincorporated Los Angeles County to the north, the
Residential Suburban zone to the south and east, and the Residential Moderate zone to the west.
Commercial uses are located southeast of ,the property at the intersection of Seco Canyon Road
and Copper Hill Drive. Copper Hill Drive comprises the southern edge of the property and San
Francisquito Canyon Road runs along the west side of the property. A Southern California
Edison transmission corridor traverses the property diagonally, running in a
northeasterly/southwesterly manner.
2
ANALYSIS
Consistency with the General Plan
The proposed parking structures, as conditioned, would conform with the various goals and
policies of the General Plan, specifically with regard to Community Design Element Goal 5: To
preserve and integrate the prominent and distinctive natural features of the community as open
space for the use and visual enjoyment of all City residents. In addition, Policy 5.1 requires the
retention of designated major landforms, such as ridgelines, especially when they contribute to
the overall community identity. Roadway improvements associated with the project would
support Circulation Element Policy 1.3: Adopt a program of street and highway landscaping (i.e.
median planting and street trees) to enhance the appearance of the City's circulation system. The
project would also support Circulation Element Policy 1.6: Develop design standards for
roadway and intersection improvements to safely and efficiently accommodate existing and
projected transportation patterns and circulation.
Ridgeline Alteration Permit
A significant ridgeline, as identified in the City's General Plan, is located on the project site and
runs generally north to south bisecting the subject property. This project requires a Ridgeline
Alteration Permit because some of the grading necessary for the parking structures will occur
within the Ridgeline Preservation Zone, which is defined as the upper two-thirds of the slope.
However, the proposed parking decks would be located approximately 200' away from the crest
of the ridgeline. As shown in the attached ridgeline location exhibit, the required grading and
structures will not alter the shape or silhouette of the existing crest and the ridgeline will
substantially retain its integrity and natural grade. Also, the ridgeline is no longer pristine and
was previously disturbed by the construction of two water tanks that are located in the center of
the property. The proposed parking expansion and structures will be built in areas that were
graded flat as part of the original church development and will not result in further grading or
reduction of natural hillsides.
Hillside Development Review Permit
A Hillside Development Review Permit is required for development proposed on slopes with an
average cross slope that exceeds 10%. The average cross -slope of the site is 38%. 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). As proposed, the project Would comply with the Hillside
General Plan
Zoning
Land Use
Project:
RE
RE
Church
North
L.A. County
L.A. County
Single -Family Residential
South
RS
RS
Single -Family Residential
East
RS
RS
Multi -Family Residential
West
RM
RM
Single -Family Residential
ANALYSIS
Consistency with the General Plan
The proposed parking structures, as conditioned, would conform with the various goals and
policies of the General Plan, specifically with regard to Community Design Element Goal 5: To
preserve and integrate the prominent and distinctive natural features of the community as open
space for the use and visual enjoyment of all City residents. In addition, Policy 5.1 requires the
retention of designated major landforms, such as ridgelines, especially when they contribute to
the overall community identity. Roadway improvements associated with the project would
support Circulation Element Policy 1.3: Adopt a program of street and highway landscaping (i.e.
median planting and street trees) to enhance the appearance of the City's circulation system. The
project would also support Circulation Element Policy 1.6: Develop design standards for
roadway and intersection improvements to safely and efficiently accommodate existing and
projected transportation patterns and circulation.
Ridgeline Alteration Permit
A significant ridgeline, as identified in the City's General Plan, is located on the project site and
runs generally north to south bisecting the subject property. This project requires a Ridgeline
Alteration Permit because some of the grading necessary for the parking structures will occur
within the Ridgeline Preservation Zone, which is defined as the upper two-thirds of the slope.
However, the proposed parking decks would be located approximately 200' away from the crest
of the ridgeline. As shown in the attached ridgeline location exhibit, the required grading and
structures will not alter the shape or silhouette of the existing crest and the ridgeline will
substantially retain its integrity and natural grade. Also, the ridgeline is no longer pristine and
was previously disturbed by the construction of two water tanks that are located in the center of
the property. The proposed parking expansion and structures will be built in areas that were
graded flat as part of the original church development and will not result in further grading or
reduction of natural hillsides.
Hillside Development Review Permit
A Hillside Development Review Permit is required for development proposed on slopes with an
average cross slope that exceeds 10%. The average cross -slope of the site is 38%. 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). As proposed, the project Would comply with the Hillside
Ordinance because the construction of the parking structures would limit grading to areas that
have already been disturbed. The site's primary natural topographic feature would be preserved
(the ridgeline), and the southern -facing parking deck would be set back on the hillside and
screened with landscaping.
Oak Tree Permit
The site contains 126 oak trees, none of which are heritage trees. The 23 oak trees that will be
removed or replanted are not indigenous and were planted by Grace Baptist Church as part of the
original landscape plan. The impacted oak trees are located along driveways and parking areas,
not in natural settings, and, based on information received from the County on the original
Conditional Use Permit, none were planted to mitigate oak tree impacts for previous onsite or
offsite projects. Seven oak trees will be transplanted as part of the project. These trees are good
candidates for relocation due to their health and vigor. The other 16 oak trees are not good
candidates for relocation due to their poor or stressed condition. These trees will be replaced
with 16 new oak trees. The proposed development will encroach into the protected area of two
additional oak trees that will remain in place.
Parking
According to the applicant, while the existing church facility meets the current requirements of
the Unified Development Code's parking requirement of 626 spaces, actual demand exceeds
supply during peak periods. Based on a parking study that was submitted as part of the project
application, the actual peak parking demand during the 10:45 a.m.* service on Sunday is 824
spaces. This results in a deficiency of 147 spaces. During times of peak parking demand, church
members must utilize two unpaved, graded, lots for their parking needs. The proposed project
would construct parking decks on these unpaved lots, along with a third deck that would be built
over a portion of an existing parking lot in the center of the property. The parking decks would
consist of one level of at -grade, surface parking, with a second level constructed above. The
improvements would bring the total number of parking spaces to 1,057, exceeding the 824 spaces
that the church currently needs during peak demand periods.
Visual Impacts
Two of the parking structures will not be visible from either Copper Hill Drive or the single
family residences south of Copper Hill Drive because the structures will be located on the
northern portion of the church campus and will be screened by the existing buildings on the site.
The applicant has prepared a photo simulation showing that the proposed parking structure on the
southern portion of the campus will be partially visible from existing single family residences
located approximately 300 feet to the south and will be visible to motorists on Copper Hill Drive.
Proposed landscaping would screen the structure and the use of colored concrete would help the
structure to blend into the surrounding area. Photo simulations are attached that show both
before and after depictions of the site, with and without project landscaping.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed development qualifies as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and an Initial Study was prepared. Based on the Initial Study's findings, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The Initial Study did not identify any project
impacts that had the potential to be significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures and a
mitigation monitoring plan were created to ensure that the project complied with the City's Oak
Tree Ordinance.
PUBLIC NOTICING
As required by the Unified Development Code, 816 property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius
of the subject property were notified of the public hearing by mail. An additional 212 notices
were sent to property owners beyond this radius who reside south of Copper Hill Drive. A public
notice was placed in The Signal newspaper on October 5, 2010, and a sign was posted at the site
on October 12, 2010, for a public hearing on October 26, 2010. Copies of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration were available for public review at the Valencia Library,
at City Hall, and also at the City's website. To date, the Planning Division has not received any
written correspondence regarding the proposed project as a result of this notice.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project meets the requirements of the Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance, Hillside
Development Ordinance, and Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance by limiting the impacts to the
existing ridgeline, natural hillsides, and oak trees on the project site. The proposed project limits
the parking expansion to areas that have been previously disturbed as part of the original church
development thereby avoiding impacts to the remaining natural topography. The oak trees that
will be impacted are not native to the site, were planted as part of the church's original
landscaping plan, and are not trees that were planted as mitigation for another project. With the
mitigation measures and proposed replacement trees, the net number of oak trees on the property
would remain the same. The project has been designed to accommodate the existing patronage
of the church and does not include any expansion of assembly areas, offices, or classrooms.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission recommends City Council adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and approving Master Case 08-199 (Ridgeline Alteration Permit 08-003,
Hillside Development Review 08-005, Oak Tree Permit 08-026) to allow for the construction of
new surface parking spaces and three, two-level parking structures at 22833 Copper Hill Drive in
the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A).
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact is anticipated as a result of adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approving the development request.
5
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Vicinity Map (Exhibit A)
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B)
Site Plan
Photo Simulations
Ridgeline Exhibit
Interim Striping Improvements
Mitigated Negative Declaration available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Initial Study available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Planning Commission Staff Report available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Planning Commission Resolution available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Zoning Map available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Oak Tree Report available in the City Clerk's Reading File,
Oak Tree Inventory available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Preliminary Landscape Plan available in the City Clerk's Reading File
C�
RESOLUTION 10-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVING MASTER CASE 08-199, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 08-005,
RIDGELIKE ALTERATION PERMIT 08-003 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 08-026 TO ALLOW
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SURFACE PARKING AND THREE, TWO-LEVEL
PARKING STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22833 COPPER HILL DRIVE
(APN 3244-032-018, 020) IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
(hereafter "City") hereby makes the following findings of fact:
a. On December 30, 2008, an entitlement application was filed by Grace Baptist Church (the
"applicant") with the Planning Division which included the following requests: a Hillside
Development Review for grading associated with the expansion of existing parking areas
on a property with an average slope greater than 10 percent; a Ridgeline Alteration Permit
to allow for development activities within the Ridgeline Preservation Zone in the upper
two-thirds of a designated Significant Ridgeline; and an Oak Tree Permit to allow for
grading activities within the protected zone of two oak trees and the relocation and
replacement of 23 oak trees (the project);
b. On April 16, 2009, a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held during
which staff provided a list of items required by staff in order to consider the application
complete. In addition, staff provided direction regarding bringing the project into
compliance with various development requirements;
C. The 62.07 -acre project site is located on the north side of Copper Hill Drive between
Seco Canyon Road and San Francisquito Canyon Road ("the project site"), as shown on
Exhibit "A", attached. The subject property comprises the following two parcels:
Assessor Parcel Nos. 3244-032-018, and 3244-032-020;
d. 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;
e. The project site is bordered by hillside residential property in unincorporated Los Angeles
County to the north, the Residential Suburban (RS) zone to the south and east, and the
Residential Moderate (RM) zone to the west. Surrounding land uses include
single-family residences, town homes, and a Southern California Edison transmission
corridor which runs through the subject property from north to south;
f. An environmental Initial Study was prepared for the project on August 11, 2010, which
found that no significant adverse impacts were identified that could not be mitigated to a
level of insignificance;
g. During a duly noticed public hearing on February 16, 2010, and due to potential changes
in the project description (a potential traffic signal), the Planning Commission continued
the item to a date uncertain;
h. As required by the Unified Development Code, 816 property owners within a 1,000 foot
radius of the subject property were notified of the public hearing by mail. Notices were
sent to an additional 212 property owners beyond this radius who reside south of Copper
Hill Drive. A public notice was placed in a local newspaper (The Signal) on August 17,
2010, and a sign was posted at the site on August 24, 2010, for a public hearing on
September 7, 2010;
The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this matter commencing
on September 7, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, CA;
j. At the September 7, 2010, public hearing, after considering the staff presentation, the
staff report, the applicant presentation, and public testimony on the proposal, the City of
Santa Clarita Planning Commission in a 4-0 vote recommended that the City Council
adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master
Case 08-199 and all of its associated entitlements;
k. As required by the Unified Development Code, 816 property owners within a 1,000 foot
radius of the subject property were notified of the public hearing by mail. Notices were
sent to an additional 212 property owners beyond this radius who reside south of Copper
Hill Drive. A public notice was placed in a local newspaper (The Signal) on October 5,
2010, and a sign was posted at the project site on October 12, 2010, for a public hearing
on October 26, 2010; and
At the October 26, 2010, City Council meeting, the City Council considered staffs
presentation, the staff report, the applicant presentation and public testimony on the
proposal.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. The
City Council hereby finds with respect to the Mitigated Negative Declaration:
a. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
b. Based on the findings in the Initial Study, it was determined that mitigation measures
would be incorporated as part of the project to reduce impacts to a level less than
significant and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project.
C. 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. An
Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on August
17, 2010, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from August
17, 2010, through October 26, 2010;
d. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment. Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita City Council;
e. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the decision of the City Council is made is the Master Case 08-199 project file
located within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the
Director of Community Development; and
f. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby adopts the Mitigated
Negative Declaration prepared for this project.
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
landform grading so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches
into the natural topography;
The project proposes the addition of new surface parking and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously developed. Grading will be conducted in
areas that were graded flat or that are part of the manufactured slopes that were created to
facilitate the original church construction. The topography of the ridgeline and other
natural slopes will not be impacted by the project.
b. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent
possible;
The project proposes the addition of new surface parking and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously developed. The project proposes 32,000
cubic yards of cut and 32,000 cubic yards of fill. Although the existing slopes have been
disturbed during prior projects, the natural topographic features and appearances are
being conserved by means of landform grading so as to blend any manufactured slopes or
required drainage benches into the natural topography.
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.
3
The project proposes the addition of new surface parking and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously developed. One of the new parking
structures is located north of the existing church buildings in the existing parking area.
The other two parking structures have been located in areas that have previously been
graded flat as part of the original development of the church. Any slopes that are
proposed to be impacted are manufactured slopes that were created as part of the original
project. The proposed parking areas have been located on portions of the site that are
intended to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the
preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features on the
site.
d. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms
that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized.
The project requests the approval of three parking structures. The parking structures meet
minimum setback requirements and are less than 35' in height. Two parking structures
will not be visible from either Copper Hill Drive or the single family residences south of
Copper Hill Drive because the structures will be located on the northern portion of the
church campus in the existing parking area and will be screened by the existing buildings
on the site. The applicant has prepared a photo simulation showing that the proposed
parking structure on the southern portion of the campus will be partially visible from
existing single family residences located approximately 300 feet to the south, across
Copper Hill Drive. While the structure would be visible, landscaping would screen the
parking deck and the use of colored concrete would allow the structure to blend into the
hillside.
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 protect the slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to
minimize the visual effect of the grading on the subject property. Although the project
does require the removal of 23 oak trees, all of these trees would be relocated or replaced
on the site. The oak trees impacted by proposed grading were planted by Grace Baptist
Church, installed as part of a planned landscape associated with previous site
development. All of the impacted oak trees are in landscape situations, not natural
settings. They are placed along the roadways and parking areas. Given the fact these
trees were planted by the church, located near adjacent roadways and are easily
accessible, some of the impacted trees are good candidates for relocation within the
campus. Other oak trees are not candidates for relocation due to their stressed and poor
condition. These trees will be replaced with new specimens. None of the impacted oak
trees were planted to mitigate impacts created by other development projects.
4 /�
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.
Although the project requires the completion of improvements to Copper Hill Drive
including curbs, gutters, sidewalks and a future raised median, the alignment of Copper
Hill Drive will not be affected and no additional streets will be designed or constructed
with this project. The slopes adjacent to Copper Hill Drive have been designed to emulate
and compliment the existing slopes and hillsides in the area. Structures proposed as part
of the project would be built into the hillside and would emulate the character of the
existing sloped areas.
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.
The project is located within the City of Santa Clarita's Ridgeline Preservation Overlay
and requires a Ridgeline Alteration Permit. The grading for the structure closest to the
ridgeline will not extend to the top of the slope and will not alter the existing silhouette of
the ridgeline. The project would require the removal of 23 oak trees on the site, all of
which would be either relocated or replaced. Given that the proposed grading would not
disrupt the existing ridgeline, that landscaping would be used to screen the parking decks,
and that any oak trees that would be impacted would be replaced, any disruption of view
corridors or scenic vistas would be minimal.
SECTION 4. RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the
foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
a. The proposed use is in conformance with the various goals and policies of the General
Plan;
The proposed use is in conformance with the various goals and policies of the General
Plan, specifically with regard to Community Design Element Goal 5: To preserve and
integrate the prominent and distinctive natural features of the community as open space
for the use and visual enjoyment of all City residents. In addition, Policy 5.1 requires the
retention of designated major landforms, such as ridgelines, especially when they
contribute to the overall community identity. The proposed project has a Ridgeline
located on the project site and runs generally north to south bisecting the subject property.
The proposed project only impacts portions of the site that were previously disturbed as
part of the original church development and does not alter the silhouette of the ridgeline.
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;
The project proposes to add surface parking and three, two-level parking structures to the
existing church site. Two parking structures will not be visible from either Copper Hill
Drive or the single family residences south of Copper Hill Drive because the structures
will be located on the northern portion of the church campus in the existing parking area
and will be screened by the existing buildings on the site. The applicant has prepared a
photo simulation showing that the proposed parking structure on the southern portion of
the campus will be partially visible from existing single family residences located
approximately 300 feet south of the property, across Copper Hill Drive. Proposed
landscaping would screen the structure and the use of colored concrete would help the
structure to blend into the surrounding area.
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;
A ridgeline is located on the project site and runs generally north to south bisecting the
subject property. The church buildings are located approximately 500 feet east of the
ridgeline which reaches an elevation of approximately 1,520 feet above mean sea level.
The base of the slope is at an elevation of approximately 1,430 feet. As such, the upper
two-thirds of the slope begins at an elevation of 1,460 feet. The existing church
buildings are approximately 70 feet lower than the ridgeline at an elevation of 1,448 feet.
This project requires a Ridgeline Alteration Permit because grading is proposed above the
elevation of 1,460 feet. Neither the grading activity nor the structures will reach the top
of the ridgeline and therefore will not affect this ridgeline's silhouette. The ridgeline has
previously been graded and disturbed by the construction of two water tanks located in
the center of the subject property. The proposed project would would be located at a
lower elevation than the water tanks.
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;
The proposed project includes a request to allow for the construction of additional surface
parking and three, two-level parking structures to accommodate the existing patronage of
Grace Baptist Church. The proposed project does not include a request for new
construction of assembly areas, classrooms or administrative offices. In addition, the
subject property is bordered by existing residential development on all sides and will not
impede the normal and orderly development 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;
As shown in the ridgeline location exhibit provided by the applicant, the required grading
and structures will not reach the top of the ridgeline and therefore will not affect the
6
ridgeline's silhouette. The church campus is located approximately 500 feet east of the
ridgeline which reaches an elevation of approximately 1,520 feet above mean sea level.
The base of the slope is at an elevation of approximately 1,430 feet. As such, the upper
two-thirds of the slope begins at an elevation of 1,460 feet. The existing church
buildings are approximately 70 feet lower than the ridgeline at an elevation of 1,448 feet.
While grading limits will occur above the 1,460' elevation, grading and construction
activities will remain well below the existing ridgeline and will not violate the visual
integrity of the ridge.
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;
The project proposes the addition of new surface parking and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously developed. One of the new parking
structures would be located north of the existing church buildings in the existing parking
area. The other two parking structures would be located in areas that have previously
been graded flat as part of the original development of the church. Any slopes that are
proposed to be impacted are manufactured slopes that were created as part of the original
project. The proposed parking areas have been located on portions of the site that are
intended to 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;
The proposed project includes a request to allow for the construction of additional surface
parking and three, two-level parking structures to accommodate the existing patronage of
Grace Baptist Church. The proposed project does not include a request for new
construction of assembly areas, classrooms or administrative offices and therefore, does
not change the existing density on the site. The proposed project makes use of native
landscaping material intended to protect the slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to
minimize the visual effect of the grading on the subject property.
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;
The project proposes the addition of new surface parking and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously developed. One of the new parking
structures is located north of the existing church buildings in the existing parking area.
The other two parking structures have been located in areas that have previously been
graded flat as part of the original development of the church. Any slopes that are
proposed to be impacted are manufactured slopes that were created as part of the original
project. The proposed parking areas have been located on portions of the site that are
intended to minimize the effects of grading to the extent practicable to ensure that the
natural character of the ridgeline is preserved. The applicant has avoided grading on any
natural slopes that have not been previously disturbed, thus exceeding 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;
The project proposes the addition of new surface parking and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously developed. The project proposes 32,000
cubic yards of cut and 32,000 cubic yards of fill. The existing slopes have been disturbed
during prior projects. Where possible, the natural topographic features and appearances
are being conserved by means of constructing the parking structures into the existing
hillsides in an effort to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into
the natural topography.
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;
The proposed development demonstrates creative and imaginative site design by limiting
the project to areas of the site that have previously been disturbed as part of the original
project. In addition, two of the three parking structures will not be visible from
surrounding residences or streets due to their location on the north side of the church
campus. Although the parking structure closest to Copper Hill Drive will be partially
visible to residents on Tupelo Ridge Drive, the structure will be screened by landscaping
on the south side of the parking structure to the maximum extent allowable by the Los
Angeles County Fired Department Fuel Modification Unit. Colored concrete will also be
used to help the structure blend into the surrounding hillside.
k. The proposed use or development does not alter natural landmarks and prominent
natural features of the ridgelines; and
Any slopes that are proposed to be impacted are manufactured slopes that were created as
part of the original project. The proposed parking areas have been located on portions of
the site that are intended to minimize the effects of grading to the extent practicable and
ensure that the natural landmarks and prominent natural features of the ridgeline are
preserved.
1. The provisions and implementation of this section does not create an undue economic
hardship or deny the minimal use of the land.
The implementation of the Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance has not created an undo
E?
/V
economic hardship on Grace Baptist Church, nor has the ordinance denied the minimal
use of the subject property in that the applicant will be able to make better use of the site
through the provision of adequate parking.
SECTION 5. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and
findings, the Planning Commission 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:
The site contains 126 oak trees, none of which are designated as Heritage, based on their
size. All of the oak trees impacted by proposed grading were planted by Grace Baptist
Church, installed as part of a planned landscape associated with previous site
development and are in landscape situations, not natural settings. The trees are located
along the roadways and parking areas and none of the oak trees proposed for relocation or
replacement was planted as mitigation measures for other, off-site projects. Given the
fact these trees were planted by the church, located near adjacent roadways and are easily
accessible, some of the impacted trees are good candidates for relocation within the
campus. The other oaks are not good relocation specimens due to their poor or stressed
condition. The project will impact 25 non-native oak trees on the project site. The project
will encroach into the protected zone of two trees; seven trees will be boxed and relocated
on the site; and 16 trees will be removed and replaced -with 16 new trees. The trees
recommended for replacement with new trees are rated in fair to poor condition and are
not likely to perform well if transplanted. It is necessary to remove, relocate, and
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. No reasonable
alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of
the property. Therefore, the project complies with all required findings.
SECTION 6. Based on the findings contained in Sections 1-5 above, the City Council
hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration approving the following entitlements requested
under Master Case 08-199: Hillside Development 08-005, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 08-003
and Oak Tree Permit 08-026, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B).
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2010.
MAYOR
0
15.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
10
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sarah P. Gorman, 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 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
/7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby
certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution 10- adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on , 2010, which is now on file in my
office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
2010.
City Clerk
By
Deputy City Clerk
12
/8
c'
y{t�i�G ��'�F�.�!1 ��f't ,•{/�'�-fYi,�i:..%.�1J6 �+ r, �
~P 1'+��"J�i.SF fix f,♦J�f K � �•(p +�� , + � ••
,syr # 1}p,�"'" �I%i'�YC�j,�NeY�j`��r� 1�ll�i��ft+A�4d'f Of f�,6 t� �ySiY�'o+' •
rf4 \ 9s Ji
JF w'_ a s�• ?11 6tP,p�� ��' �Yr� ���•\ ,aa�+v .Pili'• _ • • +
v124t�'" r"63Jei'-mow
Pill
� � � � .' t • Ir. >� " +rte
tilt,
S'�• •.!t..iyt2, � Ru s drP _ '7S4 „�„ �'. `
Resolution Exhibit B
MASTER CASE 08-199
HILLSIDE REVIEW PERMIT 08-005, OAK TREE PERMIT 08-026,
AND RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 08-003
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
GC1. 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.
a�
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page 2 of 13
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
PLI. The applicant is granted approval to construct additional surface parking and three, two-
level parking structures. With the addition of the surface parking and three parking
structures, the site will contain 1,057 parking spaces. The project 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 Significant Ridgeline on the
property 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 existing topography.
Landscaping Requirements
LR 1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall provide final landscape, lighting
and irrigation plans for Planning Department/Landscape Review Consultant review and
approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect who
is familiar with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book
Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20° to 30° F; maximum summer
high temperatures typically 105° F to 110° F).
LR2. The applicant shall be aware that additional fees will be required to be paid by the
applicant for the review of required landscape and irrigation plans by the City's
landscape consultant based on an hourly rate. An invoice will be provided to the
applicant at the completion of the review of the plans. The applicant will be required to
pay all associated fees to the City of Santa Clarita prior to the release of the approved
landscape and irrigation plans for the project.
Standard Landscape Requirements and Conditions
LR3. Final landscape plans shall contain all elements as listed in the checklist for preliminary
landscape plans (Attachment `A'), and shall conform to the following:
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08.-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page 3 of 13
(a) Commercial and Industrial Projects
i. Site and landscape plans shall include a calculation showing the percentage
of the site to be landscaped (a minimum of ten (10) percent of the site area
for landscaping, with a minimum of five (5) percent planting area in the
parking lot) and a calculation showing the square footage of parking lot(s)
and percentage of landscape in parking lot(s) (Municipal Code/UDC § §
17.15.040(A)(4);17.18.070(E)(2)).
ii. Landscape plans shall show at least one (1) 24" box tree per four (4)
parking stalls in parking lots/areas, and 36" box trees in planters at the ends
of parking aisles. The plans shall show tree species selection, distribution
and spacing to provide 50% canopy coverage of all parking lots/areas
within 5 years of planting (Municipal Code § 17.18.070(E)(10)).
ill. Landscape plans shall show headlight -screening hedges, wall or landscaped
earthen berm, not less than thirty (30) inches nor more than forty-two (42)
inches in height at specified locations on parking lot perimeters. Individual
hedge plants shall be 36" tall and spaced so that they touch leaf -to -leaf at
time of final inspection (Municipal Code § 17.18.070(D)(1)).
iv. Where parking and/or drive aisles abut walls, fences, property lines,
walkways or structures, landscape and site plans shall show planter beds
delineated by continuous concrete curbing at least six (6) inches high and
six (6) inches wide, at least (3) feet from such walls, fences, etc. These
planter beds shall be landscaped except as permitted by the Director of
Community Development (Municipal Code § 17.18.070(E)(9)).
v. Prior to planting, the applicant shall flag all tree locations along the
project's street -facing frontage and call the Planning Division for a pre -
planting inspection.
(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. Trees visible from the property's public street frontage and/or in the
property's street -facing common area for a residential project shall be a
minimum 24" box size, and shall include a proportionate number of 36,"
48," and 60" box -size specimens (Santa Clarita Community Character and
Design Guidelines, adopted March 2009).
iii. Landscape plans shall show plant material to screen at maturity all trash
enclosures, transformer boxes, vault boxes, backflow devices, and other,
exterior mechanical equipment. Screening material may include trees,
a�
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page 4 of 13
shrubs (15 gallon minimum size), clinging vines, etc. Masonry block
(concrete masonry unit) trash enclosures shall be screened with both shrubs
and clinging vines (Municipal Code § § 17.15.040(B)(1-4).
iv. Landscape plans shall show all lighting fixtures, base dimensions, and
typical finish elevations.
v. 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)).
vi. 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 Community
Development.
vii. The applicant shall design all irrigation systems for water conservation.
viii. The applicant shall place water -conserving mulching material on all
exposed soil in planting areas not covered by turfgrass. Mulching material
may include, and is not limited to, shredded bark, river rock, crushed rock,
pea gravel, etc., and must be at least three (3) inches deep.
ix. Trees planted within fourteen (14) feet of the paved road section along
Copper Hill Drive shall conform to Municipal Code § 13.76.110 et seq
(Parkway Tree Influence Area) and City Ordinance 92-38 (Parkway
Influence Area). The property owner/manager/homeowners' association
shall irrigate and maintain these trees according to City standards.
x. Trees planted within City right-of-way shall conform to Municipal Code §
13.76 et seq (Parkway Trees).
xi. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install all proposed irrigation and
landscaping, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to
the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The Director
may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation
inspection.
xii. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Director of
Community Development a letter from the project landscape architect
certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation have been installed and
function according to the approved landscape plans.
C 3
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page 5 of 13
Fuel Modification Conditions
LR4. The project site is located within the high fire severity fuel modification zone. As a result,
the landscape and irrigation plans will require the review and approval of the Los
Angeles County Fuel Modification Unit. The applicant shall submit the final set
landscape and irrigation plans for review to the Fuel Modification Unit and the City at the
same time to allow for a concurrent review of the plans. The applicant shall be aware that
multiple revisions to the landscape plans may occur from each agency due to conflicting
landscaping requirements. The City will make every effort to assist in this process;
however, it is the responsibility of the applicant to work through conflicting requirements
with each agency to acquire approval of one landscape and irrigation plan for the project.
LR5. The applicant shall submit the following materials to the Fuel Modification Unit with the
landscape and irrigation plans to undergo review:
(a) Labeled photos of the project site;
(b) Labeled photos of the surrounding properties to the project site;
(c) An aerial photo (can be copied from the City of Santa Clarita's website);
(d) Contact information for the City Planner assigned to the project, including
address, phone number, and email address; and,
(e) Project site plan and building elevations.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
General Requirements
EN 1. At issuance of permits or other grants of approval, the applicant agrees to develop the
property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the
Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance,
Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance,
Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code.
EN2. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line
Adjustment encompassing all parcels within the boundaries of this project prepared by or
under the direction of a person licensed to practice land surveying in the State of
California shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, in compliance with
applicable City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, and State of California Codes.
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. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES
Municipal Stormwater Permit as a parking lot 5,000 square feet or more or with 25 or
more parking spaces. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall have
approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page 6 of 13
incorporates appropriate post construction best management practices (BMPs),
maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the project.
Refer to the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) guide for details.
EN5. This project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore, the applicant must obtain
coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General
Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the applicant shall file with the State a
Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed project. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the
City, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include a copy of the NOI and shall
reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by
the State upon receipt of the NOI.
Street Improvement Requirements
EN6. All streets shall be designed in accordance with the City's Unified Development Code
and street design criteria; construction shall be completed prior to building final.
ENT Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, curb
and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public or private street right-of-way, the
applicant shall submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved site plan,
oak tree report and conditions of approval and obtain encroachment permits from the
Engineering Division.
EN8. Prior to building final, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34
KV within or fronting the project site shall be installed underground.
EN9. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall submit a street tree location plan to the
City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. The location of the street trees
shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan shall include
proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference.
EN 10. Prior to building final, the applicant shall construct the following interim street
improvements as shown on the approved site plan:
Street Name
Copper Hill Drive
------.
Inverted 'Curb
&`Base &EStreet
Street
Sidewalk Landscaped �.
Shoulder IGutter
PavingLightsr»
Trees5'mm
Me an
( �;
}�X -
1X 1X
1X
'X Ix
EN 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay an in -lieu fee for full
street improvements along the frontage of the project site. The in -lieu fee shall be based
on a cost estimate calculated by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer.
�5
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page 7 of 13
Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements
EN12. Prior to issuance of encroachment permits for public improvements (Street, Sewer, Storm
Drain, Water), the applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer, shall guarantee
installation of the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or
any other acceptable means. Building final shall be withheld if the improvements are not
completed.
EN 13. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and
Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General
Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project.
This project is located in the Bouquet Canyon B&T District. The current rate for this
District is $16,280. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time
of payment.
Standard B&T Fee Calculation:
Church = the gross acres (4.65 acres) x the district rate ($16,280.00) = $75,702.00
until June 30, 2011.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
BSI. At the time of application for a building permit, please submit to the Building and Safety
Division the following construction documents for plan review:
❑ Two sets of plans that include architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and
plumbing plans.
❑ Two sets of truss drawings & calcs, if used.
❑ One set structural calculations, energy calculations and a copy of the soil report.
BS2. All buildings and structures shall comply with the detailed requirements of the 2007
California Building (CBC), Mechanical (CMC), Electrical (CEC)and Plumbing (CPC)
and Energy Codes 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 website at www.santa-clarita.com.
BS3. Prior to issuance of building permits the following shall be completed regarding grading:
❑ Obtain a grading permit and perform rough grading and/or recompaction.
❑ A final compaction report and a Pad Certification shall be submitted to and approved
by the Development Services Division (Engineering).
BS4. The project shall fully comply with the disabled access requirements as specified for
public accommodations in Chapter 11 B of the California Building Code. The Federal
a6
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page 8 of 13
ADA requirements are not reviewed by California jurisdictions. However, ADA
compliance is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor.
BS5. All of the disable access requirements including site accessibility information and details
shall be part of the architectural plans (vs. the civil plans) and will be reviewed by
building and safety. Civil plans used for grading purposes are not reviewed or approved
for site accessibility requirements.
BS6. All new non-residential buildings and additions will require a soils and geology
investigation report. The report shall be formally submitted to the Development Services
Division (Engineering) for review and approval. Include one copy of the report to
building and safety when the plans are submitted for review.
BST Provide a route of travel from the parking garages to the main buildings.
BS8. Prior to issuance of building permits, additional clearances from agencies not present at
this DRC will be required from:
a. William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district,
b. Castaic Lake Water Agency,
c. L. A. County Fire Prevention Bureau,
d. L. A. County Sanitation District,
e. L. A. County Environmental Programs (Industrial Waste),
An agency referral list is available at the Building and Safety public counter.
BS9. The California Plumbing Code (CPC) shall be used to determine the minimum number of
plumbing fixtures. Horizontal drainage piping shall have a minimum slope of '/4" per foot,
or 2%, to the point of disposal. (CPC sec 708.0) Slopes shallower than 2% will not be
approved by the Building Official.
BS 10. The project is located within the city's Fire Zone and shall comply with the City's Fire
Hazard Zone requirements. See the city's website at www.santa-clarita.com.
BSI I. The Building and Safety Division has begun scanning plans for permanent storage.
Please incorporate the following information into the plans on the full size sheets:
a. The Plan Check Number, Sheet Title, and the Sheet Number of the Total Number of
Sheets shall be located in the lower right hand corner of each sheet of the plans.
b. A copy of the Planning Conditions.
c. The Recommendation Section of the Soils/Geology Report.
d.. ICC, ICBO, UL and other outside testing agency reports when those reports contain
information required by the contractor for construction or installation of items or
materials that are not otherwise shown or detailed on the plans.
e. The Truss drawing layout. (if used)
a�
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page 9 of 13
BS12. These comments are based on a review of preliminary plans submitted by the applicant
for this DRC. A thorough review will be performed and more specific comments
mentioned when the complete plans are submitted to Building and Safety for a formal
plan review.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
ES 1. All tenant improvement projects valuated greater than $100,000 must comply with the
City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance.
ES2. If the project is valuated above $100,000 the applicant shall comply with the following:
❑ A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be
prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any
grading or building permits.
❑ A minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and
50% of the remaining C&D waste must be diverted from landfills.
❑ A deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $50,000, whichever is less, is
required. The deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50% of the
inert and remaining C&D waste was diverted.
ES3. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of
the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please
contact Environmental Services staff for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City.
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
SDI. The applicant shall annex into a local zone of the landscape maintenance district (LMD)
before a grading permit is issued.
TRANSIT DIVISION
TR 1. There is fixed route bus service every half hour between the hours of 5 am and 10 pm on
CopperhiIl Drive daily.
TR2. At this time the Transit Impact Fee does not apply to commercial/industrial
developments. This fee is subject to change and the applicant shall pay the current fee at
the time of final map recordation or building permit issuance, whichever comes first.
TR3. Applicant shall construct a pedestrian path from the bus stops to the development.
TR4. Applicant shall provide a bus stop at the location of.,
❑ WB Copperhill Drive FS second entrance to project
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page 10 of 13
TR5. The bus stop shall consist of a 10'x25' concrete passenger waiting pad placed behind the
sidewalk and include a stylized bench and trash receptacle. Bench and trash receptacle
specifications and all appropriate paperwork for bus stop shall be supplied to the Transit
Division prior to installation. Proposed amenities shall be approved by City Transit staff
prior to installation.
TR6. Bus stop shall be shown and labeled on the site plan.
TR7. The bus stop shall comply with all ADA regulations as specified in the most recent
version of the California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (Ca1Dag). Proposed disabled
access shall be drawn on all plans.
TR8. Prior to occupancy of the first building, the bus stop shall be installed to the satisfaction
of city staff.
TR9. At the location of the bus stop, the sidewalk shall meet the street for no less than 20'.
TRIO. Applicant shall construct an in -street concrete pad pursuant to the current city standard
and APWA 131-1.
URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION
General Conditions:
UF1. The applicant and their contractor's shall be in compliance with the City of Santa Clarita
Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times throughout
the said project. A copy of both documents can be provided upon the applicant's request.
U172. The applicant and their contractor's shall adhere to all recommendations of the project
arborist Mr. Craig Crotty of Craig Crotty Arboriculture issued both in the submitted oak
tree report and those issued in the field during the required monitoring.
UF3. The applicant is permitted to encroach into the protected zone of two (2) coast live
(Quercus agrifolia) trees, remove and relocate seven (7) coast live oak trees and remove
and replace sixteen (16) coast live oak trees as proposed.
Preservation and Protection:
U174. Prior to the start of construction and/or grading, the applicant shall coordinate a
preconstruction meeting which shall take place on site. The applicant shall invite all
necessary contractors including but not limited too the grading contractor, engineer,
general contractor, project arborist, city planner and the city arborist.
UF5. Prior to the start of grading, the applicant shall be required to install protective fencing
around oak trees numbers 40 and 41 and any other oak tree that is exposed to possible
impacts. It is recommended that the applicant incorporate an overall tree protection plan
that protects all trees that are proposed to remain on site.
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page I1 of 13
UF6. For this application, the applicant will be permitted to use the orange four (4') foot high
vinyl safety fence. Fencing shall be supported by steel post spaced evenly at eight (8) feet
on center. The top and bottom of the fence shall be secured to the post with tie wire to
avoid failure during in climate weather.
UFT Once the protective fencing has been installed and approved by the city arborist, the
fencing shall not be removed, taken down, relocated or altered in any way without the
written authorization from the city arborist. Fencing shall be installed prior to the
preconstruction meeting.
UF8. All work completed within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be completed in the
presence of the applicants project arborist and must be performed by hand only unless
waived by the City Oak Tree Specialist.
UF9. All oak tree roots that are encountered during construction that measure two (2") inches
in diameter or larger shall be preserved at all times unless waived by the City Oak Tree
Specialist.
OF 10. Exposed roots shall be immediately wrapped in moistened layers of burlap around the
entire root. Surface roots which have been exposed and are not permitted for removal
shall be kept moist and covered with a 2-3 inch layer of natural wood chips or approved
mulch.
UF11. Roots which have been permitted for removal shall be cut clean with a proper pruning
device and completed either by or in the presence of the applicant's project arborist.
OF 12. The applicant and their contractor's shall have a designated self-contained concrete and
hazardous waste clean out station on site. The clean out station shall be placed a
minimum of 100' feet from any oak tree on site.
UF13. At no time shall the applicant or their contractor's be permitted to park or place any form
of construction equipment, vehicles or material within the protected zone of any oak tree.
UF14. At no time shall the applicant or their contractor's be permitted to wash, clean or rinse
any form of construction equipment, vehicles or tools within the protected zone of an oak
tree. Nor shall any other form of hazardous material or liquid be permitted to enter the
protected zone of an oak tree.
Removal - Relocation:
UF15. All oak trees proposed for relocation shall be performed by an approved qualified tree
relocating company.
OF 16. All oak trees proposed for relocation shall have a minimum 90 day side boxing period.
Once 90 days have passed, the bottom roots may be cut to complete the boxing of the oak
tree.
30
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page 12 of 13
UF17. Boxing of the oaks shall be performed during the winter months when the transpiration
rates are at their lowest. Anti -transpirants and root growth regulators may be applied at
the recommended rates on the label and/or as recommended by the tree relocating
company.
Mitigation and Monitoring:
OF 18. The applicant shall me required to monitor all work completed within the protected zone
of an oak tree. This includes the boxing of all oak trees proposed for relocation.
Monitoring shall include written documentation and photos of all work which take place
within the protected zone. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City of Santa
Clarita Urban Forestry Division's Oak Tree Specialist within 24 hours of each days work.
OF 19. Any oak tree which is approved for relocation shall require mandatory 5 year mitigation
and monitoring period beginning from the time of final signoff and issuance of final
certificate of occupancy. Monitoring reports for relocated oak trees shall be submitted
monthly for the first year, bi-monthly for the second year and quarterly for the remaining
three years for a total of 30 reports.
UF20. The 16 replacements oak trees shall require a two year monitoring period with reports
being submitted quarterly for a total of 8 reports.
UF21. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and the removal of any permitted oak trees, the
applicant shall be required to bond for the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture)
dollar value of the oaks being removed. The current dollar value of the 16 coast live oak
trees is listed at $58,642.06.
UF22. The applicant shall be required to initiate the bond and renew annually as necessary until
all required mitigation has been completed and approved by the City of Santa Clarita
Urban Forestry Division.
Landscaping - oaks
UF23. All landscaping that is proposed for within the oak tree mitigation area shall consist of
plant material that is compatible with California native oak trees. A list of these plants is
available on-line or may be obtained through the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree
Specialist.
UF24. Irrigation for replacement oak trees shall consist of bubbler type irrigation at the rate of
two bubblers per tree.
UF25. Irrigation for relocated oak trees shall be installed per the recommendation of the tree
relocating company.
Street Trees
UF26. The applicant shall be required to install parkway trees along Copper Hill Drive. All
parkway trees shall be approved by the City of Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division and
the City of Santa Clarita Special Districts (LMD) Division.
�3 /
Master Case 08-199
HR 08-005, OTP 08-026, RAP 08-003
October 26, 2010
Page 13 of 13
UF27. All parkway trees shall meet or exceed the minimum requirements set forth in the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Specification Guidelines for
Container -Grown Landscape Trees and Shrubs.
UF28. All trees planted within the public right of way shall be planted in accordance with the
City of Santa Clarita Tree Planting and Staking Detail Sheet. This sheet may be obtained
from the City Arborist.
UF29. The applicant shall be required to install and maintain irrigation to all trees planted within
the public right of way.
UF30. Street trees planted within a turf parkway shall require a 36" inch diameter mulched tree
well installed at the base of each tree. An approved arbor guard shall be placed at he base
of each parkway tree planted in turf.
UF31. The applicant shall be required to submit a final landscape plan that addresses all oak
trees and parkway trees. Prior to installation, the landscape plan shall require signed
approval from the City of Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division (Oak Tree Specialist).
UF32. Upon completion of the project and prior to exoneration of bonds, the applicant shall be
required to submit a spreadsheet with the GPS location of all parkway trees and oak trees.
GPS information shall include the location, genus, species and trunk diameter of each
tree.
UF33. Upon completion of the said project, the applicant shall call for a final inspection to
verify compliance with the above Conditions of Approval.
UF34. These conditions have been prepared based upon the information provided by the
applicant at the time of final submittal. The applicant may contact the City of Santa
Clarita Oak Tree Specialist for any questions or comments related to the above
conditions. Oak Tree Specialist can be reached at (661) 294-2548.
S:\CD\CURRENT\!2008\08-199 (HR, RLA)\Planning Commission\08-199 Conditions.doc
30-1-11,
x
!W
MLu
>
V oO
J Q
J_
d U
0 F--
M U Z
w ��
W 00
UN
N
r�
V
U
LL,
UOU
J Q
J_
a a U
1M��1 O Z
W :n
00
UN
N
U
ww
Vo0
rrC�^ i Q
vJ = Of
a a
n, Q
O z
W 0�
UN
N
I
IN
V/
X
LU
-
A4
A
f
1
I
.t
n
Yl.l
V441
II
ky
1-
1
I.
IFT
f
,a
a
I
IN
V/
X
LU
2
In
Length 10O 836
Acres 60.75
S=(0.0023x 1 Ox 100836)/60.75=38.2%
PROJECT SITE
_I
VICINITY MAP
Zoning: RE (Residential Estate), APN # 3244-032-018, 3244-032-020
Master Case 08-199, Hillside Review 08-005, Ridgeline Alteration
Permit 08-003, Oak Tree Permit 08-026
JENSENVEMURA.
I612 RDRIAN srRErr
SLOPE • RIDGE • TOPO EXHIBIT
SHEET
DESIGN
&SURVEY, INC
CA.1 89009
F" 905/EObEeRi
FA% 90s/65A-9078
GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH
1 of
Aug 29 Xtlg
.a.
-1 #
FA
49;
Ai
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO: Master Case 08-199
PERMIT/PROtCT
NAME: Ridgeline Alteration Permit 08-003, Hillside Development Review 08-005,
and Oak Tree Permit 08-026
APPLICANT: Grace Baptist Church
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT: The proposed project.is located at 22833 Copper Hill Drive, (APN 3244-
032-018, 020) in the Residential Estate (RE) zone of the City of Santa
Clarita.
DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT: The applicant is requesting approval for new surface parking and three, two-level
parking decks for use by the existing church on the subject property. The project is located within the
Ridgeline Preservation Overlay and is subject to a Ridgeline Alteration Permit. A Hillside Development
Review Permit is required due to the topography of the site. An Oak Tree Permit is required to allow for the
removal, relocation, and mitigation of 23 oak trees. The parcel is approximately 62 acres in size and is located
on the north side of Copper Hill Drive, between Seco Canyon Road and San Francisquito Canyon Road. The
project would also include improvements to Copper Hill Drive along the project site's frontage, improvements
would include curb, gutter, sidewalks, and striping. The property is zoned RE (Residential Estate).
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the
requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Planning and Building Services
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[ ] Are Not Required [X] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
Lisa M. Webber, AICP
PLANNING MANAGER
Prepared by: 1' Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner
(SjgnT11rq) (Name/Title)
Approved by, Lisa Webber, AICP, Planning Manager
(Signs re) (Name/Title)
Public Review Period From August 17, 2010 To September 7, 2010
Public Notice Given On August 17 2010
[X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
SAMCURRENTN12008\08-199 (HR, RLA)\CEQA\08-199 MND.doc
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:
The applicant shall retain and protect oak trees #40 and #41 in their current location.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and grading activities.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure IV -2:
The applicant shall box oak trees #42, #43, #44, #46, #47, #48, and #49, and relocate them
on the project site.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and grading activities.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure IV -3:
The applicant shall replace oak trees #110, #111, #115, and #121, with a total of four (4)
24 -inch box oak trees.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and grading activities.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure IV -4.:
The applicant shall replace oak trees #45, #50, #112, #113, #114, #116, #118, #119, and
#120, with a total of nine (9) 36 -inch box oak trees.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and grading activities.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Public'Works Department
Mitigation Measure IV -5:
The applicant shall replace oak trees #109, #117, and #122 with a total of three (3) 48 -inch
box oak trees.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and grading activities.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department
. •
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
None Required
VI, GEOLOGY AND SOILS
None Required
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
None Required
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
None Required
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
None Required
X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES
None Required
XI. NOISE
None Required
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
None Required
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
None Required
XIV. RECREATION
None Required
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
None Required
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
None Required
50
Initial Study
City of Santa Clarita
Project Title/Master Case Number:
Lead Agency name and address:
Contact person and phone number:
Project location:
Applicant's name and address:
Project Site Assessor Parcel No
General Plan designation:
Zoning:
Master Case 08-199
Ridgeline Alteration Permit 08-003
Hillside Development Review 08-005
Oak Tree Permit 08-026
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Ben Jarvis, AICP
Associate Planner
Grace Baptist Church
22833 Copper Hill Drive
Santa Clarita, CA 91390
Grace Baptist Church
22833 Copper Hill Drive
Santa Clarita. CA 91390
.3244-032-018,1020
Residential Estate (RE)
Residential Estate (RE)
PROJECT SETTING AND DESCRIPTION:
Regional Setting
The City of Santa Clarita lies within the Santa Clarita Valley in north Los Angeles
County. The Santa Clarita Valley is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains on the
southeast and the Santa Susana Mountains on the southwest. To the north are a series of
mountains at the convergence of the San Gabriel (Traverse) and Coast Ranges, which
include the Sierra Pelona, Sawmill, and Liebre Mountains. The San Gabriel and Santa
Susana Mountains separate the Santa Clarita Valley from the San Fernando Valley and
the Los Angeles Basin, which lie to the south. The San Gabriel, Sierra Pelona, Liebre;
and Sawmill Mountains separate the Santa Clarita Valley from Antelope Valley and
Mojave Desert, which lie to the northeast. The Santa Clarita Valley is drained by the
Santa Clara River, which flows east to west from its headwaters in the San Gabriel
Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.
The city limits of the City of Santa Clarita encompass approximately 52 square miles and
are roughly bounded by the Golden State Freeway (1-5) on the southwest and the
Antelope Valley Freeway (SR 14) on the southeast, with parts of the City's Canyon
Country community extending beyond the Antelope Valley Freeway to the south and
east. The City of Santa Clarita is surrounded by the unincorporated territory on all sides.
The communities of Stevenson Ranch, West Ranch, and Castaic are located to the west of
the City of Santa Clarita. Portions of the City's eastern limits border the Fair Oaks Ranch
community and the Angeles National Forest. The Angeles National Forest extends north
of the City, in unincorporated County of Los Angeles territory.
Project Description
The 62.07 -acre project site is located on the north side of Copper Hill Drive between
Seco Canyon Road and San Fancisquito Canyon Road. The subject property comprises
Assessor Parcel Nos. 3244-032-018 and 3244-032-020, and is located in the North
Valencia/Saugus area in a northern part of the City.
Grace Baptist Church was originally entitled in 1991 under the jurisdiction 'of Los
Angeles County. The property site was annexed into the City of Santa Clarita in 1997
and the church was constructed in 1998 under the jurisdiction of the City. The church
campus consists of four buildings, totaling approximately 150,000 square feet and
contains 677 parking spaces. The original approval from Los Angeles County required
the applicant to provide parking at a rate of one space for every five occupants of the
church's largest assembly area. Since the largest assembly area had a total of 2,504 fixed
seats, the church was required to provide 501 parking spaces. The City of Santa Clarita's
parking standards are more stringent than the original County standards for the project.
Based on current City requirements, Grace Baptist Church requires 626 parking spaces
for existing uses on the site. The church currently complies with the City' parking
requirement. Even so, more people attend services at Grace Baptist Church than the
existing parking lots can accommodate. This creates an overflow situation where church
members park on unpaved areas and in drive aisles that were not designed for on -street
parking. To alleviate this issue, the church proposes to construct additional surface
spaces as well as three (3) two-story parking decks. The deck structures would provide
one level of parking at -grade with a second deck above. The deck structures would not
exceed 18' in height and the upper deck would be accessed via at -grade driveways
situated higher on the hill. When completed, the project would provide 1,057 parking
spaces, enough capacity to handle typical church operations, worship services, and
auxiliary activities. The project consists only of parking improvements that would serve
the existing church structures and services. No new buildings are proposed nor would the
existing buildings be expanded as part of the project.
Ridgeline Alteration Permit
A ridgeline is located on the project site and runs generally north to south bisecting the
subject property. The ridge slope begins at an elevation of 1,460' and extends upward to
a maximum elevation of 1,520'. The upper "two thirds" of the ridgline, the zone in
which development requires a Ridgeline Alteration Permit (RAP), begins at the 1,460.
Because the project will involves grading above this elevation on the ridge, the project
requires a RAP which includes a public hearing before both the Planning Commission
and City Council. The church buildings are located approximately 500 feet southeast of
the ridgeline and are situated on a flat area at an elevation of 1,448', approximately 72'
lower than the ridge. The proposed parking decks and additional surface parking spaces
would all be located at an elevation of 1,465' or less and would not affect or change the
ridgeline's silhouette. The ridgeline is not pristine and was graded previously to
accommodate two large -water tanks and a service road that are owned and operated by
the Valencia Water Company. The proposed development would be. located well below
the ridge and would not be visible from areas west of the summit.
Hillside Development Review Permit
A Hillside Development Review 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 overall site has an average cross -slope of
approximately 38 percent and is subject to the City's Hillside Review ordinance. The 62
acre property is essentially divided into two areas: a 23 acre graded area where the
existing parking areas and church buildings are located, and 39 acres of natural,
undeveloped, terrain. The surface parking expansion and structures that are proposed
under this project would be located on a portion of the site that has been previously
graded and will not further impact the hillside. Nonetheless, because the overall cross -
slope of the subject property exceeds 10%, a Hillside Development Review permit is
required.
Oak Tree Permit
The site contains 126 oak trees, none of which are heritage specimens. The project will
impact a total of 25 oak trees. The project will encroach into the protected zone of two
trees; seven trees will be boxed and relocated on the site; and 16 trees will be removed
and replaced with new trees. The trees recommended for replacement are rated in fair to
poor condition and are not likely to do well if transplanted. All of the oak trees located
on the property were planted when the church was originally constructed in 1998.
Parking
Parking demand exceeds the existing supply during worship services at Grace Baptist -
Church. There are 677 paved parking spaces on the church campus. During times of
peals parking demand, congregation members park in unpaved, graded areas adjacent to
the west entrance and also east of the amphitheater. The proposed project will add 380
spaces, for grand total of 1,057 parking stalls. Should more spaces be necessary during
special events or circumstances, up to 91 additional cars could be parked along
designated curb segments of the two internal circulation roads. This would bring the total
3
number of spaces, to 1,148. The additional spaces created by the project are intended to
meet the church's current and future parking needs.
Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is bordered by property in unincorporated Los Angeles County to the
north, the Residential Suburban zone to the south and east, and the Residential Moderate
zone to the west. Copper Hill Drive runs along the southern edge of the property and San
Francisquito Canyon Road runs along the west side of the property.
Surrounding land uses include single-family residences on all sides. A Southern
California Edison transmission corridor runs through the subject property from north to
south.
Responsible Agencies:
Los Angeles County Fire Department
Southern California Edison
0
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 [ ]
Hydrology / Water [
] Land Use / Planning
Materials
Quality
[ ] Mineral Resources [ ]
Noise [
] Population / Housing
[ ] Public Services [ ]
Recreation [
] Transportation/Traffic
[ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ]
I
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
envirorunent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0
[ ] 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.
, Planner Manager
7
gill/I,,
Date
g- ► o — t co
Date
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [ J [ ] [X] [ ]
not limited to, primary/secondary-ridgelines, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
d)Other [J [J [J [J
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [ ] [ ] [X] [ )
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [) [) [X] [ ]
number of people?
f) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or [ ] [ ) [X] [ ]
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [ J [ ) [X] [ ]
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
C
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological, interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted. Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
h) Other
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to '15064.5?
10
Potentially Less IThan Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] H 11 1X1
I 11 1X1 11
[1 [.1 [X1 11
11 11 1X1 11
11
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique
[ ] [ ] [ ] IN
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
[ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
outside of formal cemeteries?
e) Other:
[ ] H. [] []
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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?
11
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
[ ] [] [X] [ ]
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
[ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
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
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
features?
g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
yards or more?
h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
10% natural grade?
i) The destruction, covering or modification of any
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving explosion or the
release of hazardous materials into the environment
(including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
[ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
12
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ] [ ]
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ J [ ]
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)?
j) Other [ ] [ ]
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste [ ] [ ]
discharge requirements?
13
[X] [J
[X] []
[XJ []
CX] [ J
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level.(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I [X] I
[] [] [X] []
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?
14
[X]
[X]
[] [] [X]
I
[] [] H
[X]
[] [] []
IX]
[] [] []
[X]
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] [ ] Il. [X]
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course [ ] [ I [X] [ ]
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:
i) Potential impact of project construction and
project post -construction activity on storm water
runoff?
ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials
storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or
equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage,
delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor
work areas?
iii) Significant environmentally.harmful increase in
the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful
increases in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
v) Storm water discharges that would significantly
impair or contribute to the impairment of the
beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that
provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian
corridors, wetlands, etc.)
vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of [ ]
drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
15
[] [X] []
[] [X] []
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions [ J [ J [XJ [ J
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 limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ]
plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or
policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ]
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally [ ]
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ ]
inefficient manner?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
16
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Impact
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels [ ]
[ ] [X] [ J
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d),A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [ J
[ ] [X] [ ]
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing. without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ]
[ J [X] [ ]
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, [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [ ]
[ ] [ ] [XJ
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
17
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
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 enviromnental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
ii) Police protection? [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
iii) Schools? [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
iv) Parks? [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
XIV. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
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 [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
HK
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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 [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
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 [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [ ] [ ]
[X] [ ]
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ]
[X] []
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
19
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm L I I'] [X] L .l
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
20
[] H [X] 11
H H [X] [J
[] H [X] H
H [] [] [XJ
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
21
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I I [X]
[] [] [] [X]
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER
ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS
a) Less than significant impact. The City of Santa Clarita lies within
Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is bounded by
the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the Santa
Susanna Mountains to the southwest, and the mountains of Los
Padres and Angeles National Forests to the north. The
surrounding natural mountains and ridgelines, some of which
extend into the City, provide a visual backdrop for the City. Other
scenic resources within or visible from the City include the Santa
Clara River corridor, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of
canyons and natural drainages. The proposed project would not
significantly damage any scenic resources and would not interrupt
any views to scenic resources. The project proposes to add
surface parking and three, two-level parking decks to an existing
church site. Two parking Structures will not be visible from
Copper Hill Drive or the single family residences south of Copper
Hill Drive. The structures will be located on the northern portion
of the church campus in an area already used for parking and will
be screened by existing church buildings on the site. The
southern most parking deck will be constructed on a hillside
facing a residential neighborhood that is Iocated across Copper
Hill Drive to the south. This parking deck will be set back from
the edge of the hill approximately 60' and will be screened
significantly by landscaping. The applicant also proposes to use a
colored concrete that will better blend into the hillside. Two of
the structures (parking decks A and C) would be visible to some
of the residential areas south and east of the property; however,
the nearest home is approximately 300' away, across a major
arterial highway. Given that the most visible structure will be
screened with landscaping, set back into the hillside, will be
constructed with colored concrete to better blend into its
surroundings, that no scenic vistas exist, and that the existing
ridgeline will not be impacted, any impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The only roadway within the City
of Santa Clarita that is identified in the California Department of
Transportation's State Scenic Highway program is Interstate 5
which is designated as an "Eligible State Scenic Highway." The
proposed pro ect is located approximately three miles from
22
II. AGRICULTURE
RESOURCES
Interstate 5 and is not visible from the freeway
The project is
located within the City of Santa Clarita's Ridgeline Preservation
Overlay, which requires the applicant to obtain a Ridgeline
Alteration Permit. Project grading will not impact the top of the
ridge itself, and ridgeline's silhouette and profile will remain
unchanged. The new surface parking spaces and parking decks
will require the relocation or replacement of 23 oak trees, none of
which are heritage status. Given that there would be no net loss
in the number of oak trees onsite, that the existing ridgeline would
be preserved, and that the proposed parking decks would be
screened by landscaping or existing buildings, any impacts to
scenic resources would be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The subject property was
previously developed in 1998 and contains a community
assembly use (Grace Baptist Church). As part of the original
development approval, two areas were graded flat but were never
paved. These flat, unpaved areas are used for overflow parking
during periods of peals demand. The proposed project would
further develop these areas by building single -story parking
structures that provide one deck of parking over at -grade parking
lots. A third parking deck would be constructed over an existing
parking lot. The project is subject to City landscaping
requirements and the new parking decks will be located in areas
that are already utilized for parking purposes. Therefore, any
impact to the visual character of the site or its surroundings would
be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project, in accordance with
the Unified Development Code, is required to direct outdoor light
sources downward to minimize or eliminate spillover onto
adjacent properties. Headlight hedges or walls are also required
to reduce ambient light and glare. No site lighting would spill
into sensitive use areas or neighboring properties, and no daytime
or nighttime views would be adversely affected by the proposed
project. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.
a -c) No impact. No agricultural operations are conducted on the
project site, and the City of Santa Clarita General Plan does not
identify any important farmlands or lands for farmland use. In
addition, the site is not within an area of Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Local Importance as:identified by the California
Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource
Protection on the Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2002
map (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land
23
Resource Protection, 2004). Therefore, the proposed project
would have no impact to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance..
III. AIR QUALITY a) Less than significant impact. The proposed project will not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because the project consists
of parking facilities that accommodate existing religious services
that serve the community and, as conditioned, would be
consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, the project would not be in conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the AQMP. No impacts will result from the
installation of the project.
b). Less than significant impact. The project site is located within the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the
boundaries which consist of 6,600 square miles throughout Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The project
site is located within the City of Santa Clarita which is considered
a non -attainment basin. Construction activities may temporarily
increase airborne dust particles and vehicle emissions; however,
the construction activities, including grading of 32,000 cubic
yards of earth, will be short term in nature and air pollutant
emissions will cease upon completion of the construction. The
project will balance grading onsite with no soil export.. In
compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, the proposed project would
not exceed the thresholds of significance established by the
SCAQMD. Therefore; the project would not violate any air
quality standard or contribute substantially to any air quality
violation. The proposed project would have a less than
significant impact.
c) Less than significant impact. The City of Santa Clarita is within
the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). This basin is a non -attainment
area for Ozone (03), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Respirable
Particulate Matter (PM10), and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is in
a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The proposed
project would not exceed the thresholds. of significance
established by the SCAQMD because the project does not
propose the expansion of the existing use. The project would
construct parking areas to accommodate existing church patrons;
people who currently park in unimproved dirt lots during peak
times. As such, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD's
thresholds and is not considered a hindrance to the long-term
attainment status of the basin and, therefore, does not
significantly contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. Since,
24
the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's
thresholds, the project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and the project
would have less than significant impacts.
d) Less than significant impact. Certain residents, such as the very
young, the elderly and those suffering from certain illnesses or
disabilities, are particularly sensitive to air pollution and are
considered sensitive receptors. In addition, active park users,
such as participants in sporting events, are sensitive air pollutant
receptors due to increased breathing rates. Land uses where
sensitive air pollutant receptors congregate include schools, day
care centers, parks, recreational areas, medical facilities, rest
homes, and convalescent care facilities. The project site is not
adjacent to any sensitive receptors, and the proposed project
would not place sensitive land uses adjacent to substantial air
pollution sources. The project would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutants. concentrations. Therefore,
project impacts would be less than significant.
e) Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of the
addition of new surface spaces parking and three, two-level
parking decks and will not create additional or objectionable
odors. Therefore, any impact would be less than. significant.
IV. BIOLOGICAL a) Less than significant impact. The project consists of expanded
RESOURCES parking on a . property that was graded flat during, previous
construction activities. The church campus contains four existing
buildings, parking, and landscaping. The existing landscaping
includes 126 oak trees, none of which are heritage status. These
trees were planted when the church was originally constructed.
The project will impact a total of 25 oak trees. The project will
encroach into the protected zone of two trees. Seven trees will be
boxed and moved to other locations on the sits, and 16 trees will
be removed and replaced with 16 new oak trees. The trees that are
recommended for replacement are rated in fair to poor condition
and are not likely to transplant well. The. site is not known or
expected to contain any species identified as candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Further, the site does not contain
any habitat capable of supporting special status species.
Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant with
mitigation.
Mitigation Measure IV -1:
25
The applicant shall retain and protect oak trees #40 and #41 in
their current location.
Mitigation Measure IV -2:
The applicant shall box oak trees #42, #43, 1144, 446, 1147, #48,
and #49, and relocate them on the project site.
Mitigation Measure IV -3:
The applicant shall replace oak trees 4110, #111, #115, and #121,
with a total of four (4) 24 -inch box oak trees.
Mitigation Measure IV -4:
The applicant shall replace oak trees#45, #50, 4112, #113, #114,
#116, #118, 4119, and #120, with a total of nine (9) 36 -inch box
oak trees.
Mitigation Measure IV -5:
The applicant shall replace oak trees #109, #117, and #122, with a
total of three (3) 48 -inch box oak trees.
b) Less than significant impact. The proposed project site contains
no 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 or Wildlife
Service. Therefore, impacts resulting from the project would be
considered less than significant.
c) No impact. The proposed project is located on a site which does
not have any wetland, marsh, or other area as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, no impact will result
from the project.
d) Less than significant impact. The project proposes the addition of
surface parking spaces and three, two-level parking decks. The
additional parking is designed to accommodate existing patronage
of the church. No expansion of the assembly area, classrooms, or
administrative offices is proposed with, this project. The project
site is not a resident or migratory corridor nor is the area expected
to be utilized for the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species. The applicant would is
required to comply with the Federal Migratory Bird with regard to
nesting birds. Therefore, any impacts that would result from the
project would be less than significant.
e) Less than significant impact. The City of Santa Clarita's Oak
Tree Ordinance is the only local policy or ordinance that protects
26
27
biological resources. The site contains 126 oak trees, none of
which are heritage trees. The project is required to obtain an Oak
Tree Permit to allow for grading that will encroach into the
protected zone of two oak trees, require the relocation of seven
oak trees, and the removal of 16 oak trees. The removed trees
would be replaced with 16 new oak trees. The trees recommended
for replacement are rated in fair to poor condition and are not
likely to perform well if they are transplanted. The oak trees
impacted by the proposed project were planted by the applicant as
part of the landscaping associated with previous site development
in 1998. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation
measures identified above in section IV(a). Therefore, any
impacts would be anticipated to be. less than significant.
f) Less than significant impact. The project site is not within .a
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved regional or state
habitat conservation plan. The project site is subject to the City's
Oak Tree Ordinance which protects and regulates oak trees. As
proposed, the project would comply with the City's oak tree
policies and regulations. Therefore, the project would not conflict
with any adopted habitat conservation plans, and any impacts
created by the project would be less than significant.
g) No impact. The project site is not located within a Significant
Ecological Area identified on either the Exhibit OS -2 of the
City's General Plan or the Los Angeles County Significant
Ecological Area mapping. The project site is also not within a
Significant Natural Area identified by the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG). Therefore, the proposed project
would have no related impacts.
V. CULTURAL
a -d) No impact. The project proposes the addition of surface parking
RESOURCES
spaces and three, two-level parking decks on a church campus that
is already developed. Two of the areas designated for. parking
have been graded flat as part of previous development and are
used to accommodate overflow parking when needed. The third
parking deck would be constructed over an existing parking lot.
The proposed project would have no impact on cultural resources
because the property has been previously altered as part of the
original development of the church.
VI. GEOLOGY AND
a)i. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located
SOILS
within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or within any
.other fault zones identified on Exhibit S-2 of the City's General
Plan. The proposed project is required to comply with the
27
California Building Code that establishes regulations for
structures in potentially hazardous areas in order to withstand
impacts caused from localized earthquake activity. Therefore, the
proposed project would not unduly expose people or structures to
potential adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake
fault and would have a less than significant impact.
a)ii, Less than significant impact. The City of Santa Clarita is within
a seismically active region of Southern California. Consequently,
the proposed parking structures will likely be subject to strong
seismic ground shaking. However, the risks of earthquake damage
can be minimized through proper engineering, design, and
construction. Therefore it is anticipated that there would be a less
than significant impact due to strong seismic ground shaking.
a)iii. Less than significant impact. The project's geoteclinical
engineering report dated October 20, 2009, prepared by R.T.
Franklin and Associates, analyzed potential impacts regarding
seismic considerations and liquefaction. The City's GIS database
shows a potential for liquefaction on the subject property;
however, the project geotechnical report provides the following
discussion of liquefaction:
The State of California Seismic Hazard Map for the
Newhall Quadrangle (California Division of Mines and
Geology, 1998) indicates that the subject site is not located
within a potential liquefaction area. Furthermore, the sites
of the three proposed parking structures are underlain by
either bedrock materials of the Saugus formation, or
compacted fill soils, neither of which are generally subject
to liquefaction. Consequently, the site is not considered
susceptible to liquefaction or lateral spreading.
In summary, the project's geotechnical engineering report
determined the site's liquefaction potential is negligible; therefore
the project would result in a less than significant seismic -related
impact, including liquefaction.
J
b) Less than significant impact. The project will not result in
substantial wind or water soil erosion; however, the project will
result in the loss of some topsoil. The project site will be frilly
developed in compliance with applicable code requirements,
including standard engineering and grading requirements and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)
compliance. These are standard requirements from the
Engineering Division and are listed in the Conditions of
W.
Approval. The site will be graded and landscaped to prevent
erosion of the site to the maximum extent practical. Therefore,
impacts are considered less than significant.
c) Less than significant impact. The project site is not known to be
located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. All grading
activities are subject to a grading permit and will be completed in
accordance with requirements of the City of Santa Clarita Public
Works Department. Therefore, no impacts will result from the
proj ect.
d) Less than significant impact. The project site is not known to be
located on expansive soil. The geotechnical report states that the
potential for expansive soils is either "low" or "very low." All
construction activities will be done in accordance with applicable
Engineering and Building and Safety requirements. Therefore,
any impacts that would result from the project would be less than
significant.
e) No impact. The project is not proposing any structures where a
septic system would be installed. Therefore, soil suitability for
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems is not
applicable in this case, and the proposed project would have no
associated impacts.
f) Less than significant impact. The project proposes the addition of
new surface parking spaces and three, two-level parking decks on
a project site that was previously developed. Two of the areas
designated for parking have been graded flat as part of previous
development and have been used to accommodate overflow
parking as needed. The third parking deck would be constructed
over an existing parking lot. Although the project requires the
approval of a Hillside Development Review permit as a result of
the topography of the overall site, the new parking areas will be
developed on portions of the site that are primarily flat and were
previously graded. Therefore, any changes to the topography or
ground surface relief features of the project site would be less
than significant.
g) Less than significant impact.. The project proposes 32,000 cubic
yards of cut and 32,000 cubic yards of fill. Slopes, grading
design, construction and use must conform to all applicable
sections of Chapter 17.80 Hillside Development of the City's
Unified Development Code including to grade the slopes at a 2:1
interval. It is important to note that the existing slopes have been
disturbed during prior projects. As proposed, the impacts of earth
29
movement for the project shall be in conformance with the UDC
and would be less than significant.
h) Less than significant impact. The project proposes the addition of
new surface parking spaces and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously developed. Two
of the areas designated for parking have been graded flat as part
of previous development and have been used to accommodate
overflow parking as needed. The third parking deck would be
constructed over an existing parking lot. Although the project
requires the approval of a Hillside Development Review permit
as a result of the topography of the property, the new parking
areas will be developed on portions of the site that are primarily
flat and were previously graded. Therefore, impacts to slopes
with an average cross slope greater than a 10% natural grade
would be less than significant.
i) Less than significant impact. The project proposes the addition of
new surface parking and three, two-level parking decks on a
project site that was previously developed. Two of the areas
designated for parking have been graded flat as part of previous
development and have been used to accommodate overflow
parking as needed. The third parking deck would be constructed
over an existing parking lot. The project does not require the
destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or
physical feature; therefore there will be no impacts. -
VTI. HAZARDS AND a-g)Less than significant impact. The project proposes the addition
HAZARDOUS of new surface parking and three, two-level parking decks on a
MATERIALS project site that was previously developed. Two of the areas
designated for parking have been graded flat as part of previous
development and have been used to accommodate overflow
parking as needed. Some hazardous materials may be involved in
the construction of the parking decks -and the paving of the
parking areas; however, these materials would only be temporary,
as would any impact that they might create. The project site is
not located in the vicinity of a public or private airport, nor would
the project interfere with any adopted emergency response plan.
Any impacts created by the project would not be expected to be
significant.
h) Less than significant impact. The project is located within a
designated fire hazard area. As a result, the project is subject to
the Fuel Modification requirements of the Los Angeles County
Fire Department's Fuel Modification Unit which require the
project to be landscaped in a manner that will not present
30
additional risk of wildland fires to people or structures in the area.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
i) Less than significant. There are transmission lines that cross the
project site to the north and west of the existing water towers on
the site. However, the proposed addition of surface parking and
three, two-level parking decks are being designed to
accommodate the existing patronage of the church. No new
assembly areas, classrooms or administration buildings are
proposed. As a result, the project will not unduly expose
additional people to existing sources of potential health hazards.
Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.
VIII. HYDROLOGY a) Less than significant impact. Section 303 of the Federal Clean
AND WATER Water Act requires states to develop water quality standards to
QUALITY 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
compliance with receiving water limitations. Thus, stormwater
generated by a development that complies with the SQMP does
not exceed the limitations of receiving waters, and thus does not
exceed water quality standards
Compliance with the SQMP is ensured by Section 402 of the
Clean Water Act, which is known as the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under this section,
municipalities are required to obtain permits for the water
pollution generated by stormwater in their jurisdiction. These
permits are knovrn as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4) permits. Los Angeles County and 85 incorporated Cities
therein, including the City of Santa Clarita, obtained an MS4
(Permit 1/ 01-182) from the Los Angeles RWQCB, most recently
in 2001. Under this MS4, each permitted municipality is
required to implement the SQMP,
In addition, as required by the MS4 permit, the City of Santa
Clarita has adopted a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP) ordinance to ensure new developments cornply
31
with SQMP. The City's SUSMP ordinance requires new
developments to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs)
that reduce water quality impacts, including erosion and siltation,
to the maximum extent practicable. This ordinance also requires
most new developments to submit a plan to the City that
demonstrates how the project will comply with the City's
SUSMP and identifies the project -specific BMP that will be
implemented.
This project is considered a development planning priority
project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit
with the construction of a development greater than one acre in
size. In accordance with the MS4 Permit and the City's SUSMP
ordinance, a SUSMP that incorporates appropriate post
construction BMPs into the design of the project must be
prepared and approved prior to issuance of any grading or
building permits. Compliance with the MS4 permit and the
SUSMP would ensure that the proposed project would not violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and
the project would have no related significant impacts.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact related to water duality standards and waste
water discharge.
b) Less than significant impact. The Santa Clara River and its
tributaries are the primary groundwater recharge areas for the
Santa Clarita Valley (City of Santa Clarita General Plan, 1991).
The site's runoff currently flows into the natural drainage system
and empties into the Santa Clara River. The proposed project
would alter the drainage of the site by adding impermeable
surfaces; however, the proposed project would maintain the site's
outflow into the supporting drain system. Therefore, the
proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and
the project would have a less than significant impact,
c-e).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. As required by the City of Santa Clarita and
the Countywide MS4 Permit, any development on the site will
require that the final design of the development's drainage
system is engineered so that post -development peak runoff
32
discharge rates (a measure of the volume and velocity of water
flows) are equal to or less than pre -development peak runoff
rates.
The project site is relatively flat, surrounded by existing
developed parcels, including existing drainage systems. While
the proposed project will design on-site drainage systems to
adequately address the flow on the project site, these drainage
systems will tie into the existing drainage systems adjacent to the
project site. There are no existing rivers, streams, or waterways
on the project site. Therefore, the development of the project site
will not alter any existing water ways and would therefore, not
create impacts to erosion or siltation on or off of the project site.
In addition, the onsite drainage system in accordance with the
NPDES requirements discussed above in Section VIII(a), is also
required to include Best Management Practices (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 would have
a less than significant impact related to erosion or siltation on- or
offsite, flooding on- or offsite, or polluted runoff.
f) Less than significant impact. The proposed project will not alter
the water sources on the site and the surrounding area. The
proposed development will not be a point -source generator of
water pollutants. Compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance
will ensure that the proposed project would not generate
stor nwater pollutants that would substantially degrade water
quality.
The project, however, also has the potential to generate short -
tern 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 storinwater from entering the
drainage system and preventing construction -induced
contaminates from entering the drainage system. The MS4
identifies the following minimum requirements forconstruction
sites in Los Angeles County:,
Sediments generated on the project site shall be
retained using adequate Treatment Control or.
Structural BMPs;
2. Construction -related materials, wastes, spills or
residues shall be retained at the project site to avoid
discharge to streets, drainage facilities, receiving
waters, or adjacent properties by wind or runoff;
3. Non -storm water runoff from equipment and vehicle
washing and any other activity shall be contained at
the project site; and
4. Erosion from slopes and charmels shall be controlled
by implementing an effective combination of BMPs
(as approved in Regional Board Resolution No. 99-
03), such as the limiting of grading scheduled during
the wet season; inspecting graded areas during rain
events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on
slopes; and covering erosion susceptible slopes.
In addition, projects with a construction site of one acre or
greater, such as the project site, are subject to additional
stormwater pollution requirements during construction. The
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) maintains a
statewide NPDES permit for all construction activities within
California that result.in one (1) or more acres of land disturbance.
This permit is known as the State's General Construction
Activity Storm Water Permit or the State's General NPDES
Permit. Since the proposed project involves greater than one (1)
acre of land disturbance, the project is required to submit to the
SWRCB a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the State's
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. This NOI
must include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
that outlines the BMPs that will be incorporated during
construction. These BMPs will minimize construction -induced
water pollutants by controlling erosion and sediment, establishing
waste handling/disposal requirements, and providing non -storm
water management procedures.
Complying with both the MS4's construction site requirements
and the State's General Construction Permit, as well as
implementing an SWPPP will ensure that future construction
activity on the project site would have a less than significant
impact on water quality.
g) No impact. The project site is not within the 100 -year or 500 -
year flood zones as shown on the City's "Flood Zones" map.
Therefore, the proposed project would not place future housing in
flood hazard areas and would have no related impacts.
The project site is not within the 100 -year or 500-
M
year flood zones as shown on the City's "Flood Zones" map.
Therefore, the proposed project would not place future structures
in a flood hazard area and would have no related impacts.
i) No impact. Thcre are no levees, dams, or other water detention
facilities in the vicinity of' the pro.ject site. Therefore, the
proposed project or future related projects would not expose
people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and the
project would have no related impacts.
j) No impact. There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the
project site that are capable of producing seiche or tsunami.
Similarly, the project site is not in an area prone to landslides, soil
slips, or slumps. Therefore, the proposed project would have no
impact from seiche, tsunami, or mud1low.
k) . Less than significant impact. The project would alter the site's
drainage patterns only in the fact that there will be less
impervious area and therefore potentially more stormwater run-
off. 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 do not exceed
pre -development peak storm water runoff rates. Further,
development activities associated with the proposed surface
parking and parking structures will be limited to the surface for
building pad preparation, No grading activities will be conducted
on the project site that would conic into contact with any
groundwater flows. Consequently, groundwater flows would not
be affected.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant
impacts from changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course
and direction of surface water and groundwater.
1) Less than significant impact. While the proposed project will
design on-site drainage systems to adequately address the flow on
the project site, these drainage systems will tie into the existing
drainage systems adjacent to the project site which ultimately
drains to the Santa Clara River. There are no existing rivers,
streams, or -waterways on the project site. Therefore, the project
would not have a significant impact due to the modification of a
wash, channel, creek, or river.
m)i. Less than significant impact.. The project will not have a
_potential significant impact resulting from construction and post
MI
construction activity regarding storm water nlnoff, because the
project is required to comply with the Countywide MS4 permit
process, the State's NPDES General Construction Permit process
as well as implementing a SUSMP compliance plan and. Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). Therefore a less
than significant impact to stornwater runoff.
m)ii. Less than significant impact. The project will not have
potential discharges. from areas of material storage, vehicle or
equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous material handling or
storage, delivery areas or loading docks or other outdoor work
areas because none of these activities are proposed as part of the
project. Additionally, the project is required to comply with the
Countywide MS4 permit process, the State's NPDES General
Construction Permit process as well as implementing a SUSMP
compliance plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program
(SWPPP). In particular, the SWPPP would establish BMP's for
use, storage and handling of construction equipment on-site.
Therefore, a less than significant impact in regards to vehicle
storage and maintenance.
m)iii. Less than significant impact. The project will not
significantly environmentally increase the flow velocity or
volume of stone water runoff because the project is required to
comply with the Countywide MS4 permit process, the State's
NPDES General Construction Permit process as well as
implementing a SUSMP compliance plan and Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). See also section VII (c).
Therefore, a less than significant impact in regards to storm water
runoff velocity.
m)iv. Less than significant impact. The project will not
significantly or environmentally harmfully increase the erosion of
the project site or surrounding areas because the project is
required to comply with the Countywide MS4 permit process, the
State's NPDES General Construction Permit process as well as
implementing a SUSMP compliance plan and Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). See also section VII (c).
Therefore, a less than significant impact in regards to erosion.
m)v. Less than significant impact. The project will not
significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the
beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water
quality benefits such as riparian corridors or wetlands. See also
section VII (a). Therefore, not significantly impacting the use of
36
W
water reception.
m)vi. Less than significant impact. Implementation of project
activities will not cause harm to the biological integrity of the
drainage systems, watersheds or water bodies. Neither
construction nor operation of the proposed project will generate
pollutants in an amount or concentration that could affect the
biological integrity of the drainage system or watercourses. As
previously discussed the project must further incorporate BMP's
to minimize emissions of water pollutants from the site.
Therefore, not significantly impacting the biological integrity of
the drainage system.
m)vii. Less than significant impact. The project proposes a new
parking lot that will eventually be constructed on a pad that will
be created as a result of grading. Construction and operation of
the project are required to comply with the California Waste
Management Act, which requires a 50% or better diversion rate
for solid waste. The City complies with this act through the City's
franchised solid waste management services, which will provide
waste disposal service to proposed homes therefore, a less
significant impact regarding solid waste.
IX. LAND USE AND a) No impact. The project proposes the addition of new surface
PLANNING parking spaces and three, two-level parking decks on a project
site that was previously developed. Two of the areas designated
for parking have been graded flat as part of previous development
and have been used to accommodate overflow parking as needed.
The third parking deck would be constructed over an existing
parking lot. The project does no include the expansion of any
assembly areas, classrooms or offices on the church campus. The
project will not physically divide and would have no impact to an
established community.
b) Less than significant impact. The project site is not part of a
specific plan or redevelopment plan, and the City of Santa Clarita
is not within the Coastal Zone, as described in the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1966, or any other plan designed with the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The
project is required by the IJDC to obtain a Ridgeline Alteration
Permit and Hillside Development Review permit, which will
analyze grading techniques in order to preserve the natural
appearance of the significant ridgelines and natural slopes. The
propose project is located on portions of the site that were
previously disturbed by the original development of the church
The project is subject to and would adhere to the requirements of
37
the UDC. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact.
c) Less than significant impact. The project site is not within a
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved environmental
resource conservation plan. The site is subject to the City of
Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance, and as proposed, the
development would comply with all oak tree requirements.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted
environmental conservation plans, and the project would not be
expected to create any significant impacts.
X. MINERAL AND a) No impact. The project site is not within a mineral area identified
ENERGY RESOURCES on Exhibit OS -5 "Mineral Resources" of the City's General Plan,
and is not otherwise known to contain mineral resources.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource, and the project would
have no related impacts
b) No impact. The project site is not within a mineral area identified'
on Exhibit OS -5 "Mineral Resources" of the City's General Plan,
and is not otherwise known to contain mineral resources.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource, and the project would
have no related impacts.
c) Less than significant. Many of the resources utilized for
constriction are nonrenewable, including, sand, gravel, earth,
iron, steel, and hardscape materials. Other construction resources,
such as lumber, are slowly renewable. In addition, the project
would commit energy and water resources as a result of the
construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed
development. Much of the energy that will be utilized on-site will
be generated through combustion of fossil fuels, which are
nonrenewable resources. Market -rate conditions encourage the
efficient use of materials and manpower during construction.
Similarly, the energy and water resources that would be utilized
by the proposed parking lot would be supplied by the regional
utility purveyors, which participate in various conservation
programs. rurthennore, there are no unique conditions that
would require excessive use of nonrenewable resources on-site,
and the project is expected to utilize energy or water resources in
the same manner as typical modern development. Therefore, the
proposed project would not use nonrenewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner, and the project would have a less
38
XI. NOISE
than significant impacts.
a) Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not
expose persons or generate levels of noise in excess of standards
established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance. The
proposed project involves the construction of three, two-level
parking decks that are not in close proximity to residential uses.
As proposed, the project would not create excessive noise that
would significantly impact nearby residences. The proposed
project would not be located in an area that would be subject to
ambient noise levels that exceed 65dB. In addition, the proposed
project would not generate additional traffic and would therefore
not cause noise on nearby roadways to increase above the
maximum outdoor exposure levels above 65dBA.
It is anticipated that the construction of the proposed parking
strictures would generate construction -related noise impacts.
However, these impacts are anticipated to be temporary. The
City's noise ordinance (Section 11.44 of the Municipal Code)
limits the hours of construction to between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
during the week, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, with no
construction on Sundays or specified holidays. Compliance with
this ordinance will limit the constniction related noise impact
associated with the construction" of the proposed project.
Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
b) Less than significant impact. There are no established vibration
standards in the City of Santa Clarita. Furthermore, the proposed
expansion of the church use on the project site would neither
generate, nor expose people to excessive groundborne vibrations
or groundborne noise levels. Construction of the project may
temporarily generate vibrations. However, the proposed project
does not involve construction practices that are typically
associated with vibrations, such as pile driving and large-scale
demolition. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any
significant impacts.
c) Less than significant impact. The proposed project does not
include the expansion of any assembly areas, classrooms or
offices on the church campus. The project proposes the addition
of new surface parking and three, two-level parking structures to
accommodate the existing patrons of the church. The proposed
project will not increase ambient noise levels above the existing
noise levels without the project. Therefore the proposed project
would not create any significant impacts.
39
d) Less than significant impact. Construction of the project will
generate short-term noise. Examples of the level of noise
generated by construction equipment at 50 feet from the source is
presented in the following table:
Table XT -1
Noise Levels Generated by Typical
Construction Equipment
Type of
Equipment
Range of
Sound
Levels
Suggested
Sound
Levels for
Analysis
(dBA at 50 feet)
Pile driver
(12,000-18,000 ft-
lb/blow)
81 —96
93
Rock drill
83-99
96
Jack hammer
75-85
82
Pneumatic tools
78-88
85
Pumps
68-80
77
Dozer
85-90
88
Tractor
77-82
80
Concrete mixer
75-88
85
Front-end loader
86-90
88
Hydraulic
backhoe
81 —90
86
Hydraulic
excavator
81 —90
86
Grader
79-89
86
Air compressor
76-86
86
Truck
81 —87
86
Source: EPA 1971
Noise levels decrease substantially with distance. Tractors, trucks
and graders result in noise levels in the 80-86 dBA level at 50
feet.
Title 11, Chapter 44, Noise Regulations of the City's Munici
WE
Code (Section 11.44.040) provides the following noise production
limitations:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person within the City to
produce or cause or allow to be produced noise which is
received on property occupied by another person within the
designated region, in excess of the following levels, except as
expressly provided otherwise herein:
B. Corrections to Noise Limits. The numerical limits
given in subsection A above shall be adjusted by the
following corrections, where the following noise
conditions exist:
Section 11.44.0.80 of the Municipal Code places the following
limitations on construction times for purposes of limiting noise
impacts and the project will be' subject to this limitation,
therefore, no nighttime noise impacts are anticipated:
No person shall engage in any construction work
Re "ion Time Sound )Level dB
Residential zone Da 65
Residential zone Night 55
Commercial and Day 80
manufacturing
Commercial and Night 70
manufacturing
At the boundary line between a residential property and
a commercial and manufacturing property, the noise
level of the quieter
Noise
Condition
Correction
in dB
(1) Repetitive impulsive noise
-5
(2) Steady whine, screech or hum
-5
The following corrections apply to day
only:
(3) Noise occurring more than 5 but
+5
less than 15 minutes per. hour
(4) Noise occurring more than 1 but
+10
less than 5 minutes per hour
(5) Noise occurring less than 1 minute
zone shall be used.
Noise
Condition
Correction
in dB
(1) Repetitive impulsive noise
-5
(2) Steady whine, screech or hum
-5
The following corrections apply to day
only:
(3) Noise occurring more than 5 but
+5
less than 15 minutes per. hour
(4) Noise occurring more than 1 but
+10
less than 5 minutes per hour
(5) Noise occurring less than 1 minute
+20
per hour
which requires a building permit from the City on
sites within three hundred (300) feet of a residentially
zoned property except between the hours of seven
a.m. to seven p.m. Monday through Friday. and eight
a.m. to six p.m. on Saturday. Further, no work shall
be performed on the following public holidays: New
Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving,
Christmas, Memorial Day and Labor Day.
Project construction is required to meet these standards, and the
project poses no unique conditions that require excessive noise to
be generated during construction, such as jack -hammering or
demolition. The project is located within a residential zone,
however the closest residence is approximately 300 feet south of
the project. Furthermore, no work shall be performed on the
following public holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day,
Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day and Labor Day. The
restrictions on construction related noise would reduce noise -
related impacts to less than significant levels during construction.
Noise levels are not anticipated to adversely affect the
neighboring uses.
e) No impact. The project site is not located within an airport land
use plan or within two miles of _a public airport or public use
airport. Therefore, no impacts will result from the project
f) No impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private
airstrip and would not expose people to excessive noise levels.
Therefore, no impacts will result from the project.
XII. POPULATION a) Less than significant impact. The proposed project does not
AND HOUSING include the expansion of any assembly areas, classrooms or
offices on the church campus. The project proposes the addition
of new surface parking spaces and three, two-level parking decks
to accommodate the existing patrons of the church. The project
would not extend roads, although improvements such as curb,
gutter, sidewalk, and median improvements would be made to
Copper Hill Drive along the frontage of the project site. The
project would not induce growth by creating new infrastructure
and is designed to serve the existing church membership.
Therefore, any impact would be less than significant.
b) No impact. The proposed addition of surface and structured
parking on the site will accommodate the needs of the existing
church congregation and there are no housing or residential uses
on the subject property, proposed or existing. Therefore, the.I
42
proposed project would not displace housing, and would have no
associated impacts.
c) No impact. The proposed addition of surface and structured
parking on the site will accommodate the needs of the existing
church congregation. There are no housing or residential uses on
the subject property proposed, or existing. Therefore, the
proposed project would not displace people, and would have no
associated impacts.
XIII. PUBLIC a)i. Less than significant impact. As part of the Consolidated Fire
SERVICES Protection District, the City of Santa Clarita and the planning area
receive fire protection and emergency medical services from the
Los Angeles County Fire Department. The project site contains an
existing church, and is within an area that is already served by
existing lire stations. As such, response times would be
acceptable and the incremental increase in demand associated
with project implementation is not expected to adversely affect
service or create the need for new facilities. The project is located
in a Fire Hazard area and all ,landscaping associated with the
project is subject to the review of Los Angeles County Fire
Department Fuel Modification Unit. Therefore, impacts. with
regard to fire protection are considered to be less than significant.
a)ii. No impact. The proposed project will not result in the need for
additional new or altered police protection services and will not
alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The project site
is currently developed with an existing church. No expansion of
assembly or classroom space is proposed. The project would not
require additional Sheriff Department facilities. Therefore, the
project would have no impact policeprotection services.
a)iii.No Impact. The proposed project would not increase or decrease
dwelling units within the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed
project is an existing church and includes no residential uses. The
church.property is served by the Saugus Union School District for
elementary education. Middle school and high school services are
provided by the William S. 1-Iart Union High School District.
Since the project would not generate any additional residents or
students, there would be no impact to local school service.
a)iv. No Impact. The proposed project would not contribute new
residences to the area that would lead to an increase in the use of
the local and regional parks systems. Therefore, the proposed
project'would have no adverse impact on park services.
43
XIV. RECREATION a) No impact. The proposed project would not increase the use of
neighborhood and regional parks nor would the project increase
the number of residents in the area. Therefore, the project would
not lead to substantial physical deterioration of recreational
facilities, and would have no related impacts.
b) No impact. The proposed project does not involve, and would
not require, the construction or expansion of off-site recreational
facilities. Therefore, the proposed project does not involve the
development of recreational facilities that would have an adverse
effect on the environment, and the project would have no
associated impacts. No impact will result to recreation demand or
services.
XV. , a) Less than significant impact. The City of Santa Clarita's adopted
TRANSPORTATION Circulation Element of its General Plan includes a master plan for
/TRAFFIC the City's highway and roadway system (General Plan Exhibit C-
2). This master plan was developed to serve the City's existing
transportation needs, as well as the City's projected transportation
needs at build -out. The City's projected transportation needs
were determined by evaluating build -out conditions of the City in
accordance with land use designations.
The project site is designated Residential Estate (RF.,) in both the
City's General Plan and zoning code. A Community Assembly
use is permitted in the RE zone, subject to the issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit. Grace Baptist Church obtained the
necessary permits when it was first entitled and is consistent with
both the General Plan and zoning code. The proposed project is
not anticipated to generate additional trips over what was
originally envisioned when the church was first constructed. The
church and does not propose the expansion of any assembly,
classroom or administrative space, and the new parking capacity
is intended to serve current church members.
Copper Hill Drive is a major arterial roadway. The project would
dedicate sufficient right-of-way and would construct frontage
improvements along Copper IIill Drive. The church would bond
for future median improvements that would be constructed when
they are warranted based on traffic conditions. With the addition
of these improvements, the existing roadway network will be able
to support the project's anticipated traffic demand. Therefore,
any impacts would be less than significant.
b) No impact. The proposed expansion of surface parking and the
construction of the new parking decks is designed to
accommodate the existing church and is not intended to induce or
encourage church expansion. The project would not impact. a
Congestion Management Plan designated highway. Therefore,
the proposed project would not exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, an established level of service standard, and would
have no related impacts.
c) No impact. The project site is not within an airport land use plan
or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.
Consequently, the proposed project would not affect any airport
facilities and would not cause a change in the directional patterns
of aircraft:. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact
to air traffic patterns.
d) . No impact. The project has been evaluated by the City's Traffic
Division and its circulation design has been found not to contain
any hazardous conditions. In addition, the project's circulation
design meets the City's engineering standards. Therefore, the
proposed project would not increase hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible use, and would have no associated
impacts.
e) Less than significant impact. The project's ingress/egress and
circulation are required to meet the Los Angeles County Fire
Department's standards, which ensure new developments provide
adequate access for emergency vehicles. The project site and
surrounding roadway network do not pose any unique conditions
that raise . concerns for emergency access, such as narrow,
winding roads or dead-end streets. Thus; standard engineering
practices are expected to achieve the Fire Department's standards,
Furthermore, final project plans are subject to review and
approval by the Fire Department to ensure that the site's access
complies with all Fire Department ordinances and policies. With
this compliance, the project would not cause significant impacts
due to inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the project
would have no impact related to emergency access.
f) Less than significant impact. The proposed project would add
new surface parking spaces and three, two-level parking decks for
the use of the existing church facility. Under the City's Unified
Development Code, the 626 parking spaces are required for the
church. The project would create a total of 1,057 parking spaces,
exceeding the City's minimum requirement. The project
complies with the .City's parking standards, and therefore, would
have less than a significant impact on parking capacity.
45
g) Less than significant impact. There is fixed route bus service
every half hour between the hours of 5;00 am and 10:00 pm on
Copper IIill Drive, daily. The project includes the addition of a
new bus stop at the location of westbound Copper Hill Drive,
beyond the western -most entrance to the project site. The
proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans., or
programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, any
impact would be less than significant.
h) Less than significant impact. The proposed project involves the
construction and grading for a new parking lot for an existing
church. The project would not create hazards or barriers of
bicyclists. Sidewalk, curb, gutter, and median improvements
would be required on Copper Hill Drive along the frontage of the
project site; however these improvements would not impede
bicycle movements or create barriers for cyclists. Therefore, and
impacts would be less than significant.
XVI. UTILITIES AND a) No impact. The proposed project includes an expansion to an
SERVICE SYSTEMS existing church parking area through the creation of new surface
parking spaces and the construction of three two-story parking
decks. The project does not include any expansion in building
area or use. The project complies with existing zoning and
General Plan designations and would not be expected to generate
atypical run-off or effluent. Wastewater is not anticipated to
exceed treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) No impact.. The proposed development would not increase the
demand for water and wastewater service, because the project
would not result in additional residents or building space.
Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the
construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities off-site, and the project would have no associated
impacts.
c) Less than significant impact. The proposed project will not
require the construction of new storm water facilities, nor will it
require the expansion or upgrade of existing facilities. Any
impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.
d) Less than significant impact. The project proposes the addition of
surface parking and three, two-level parking structures on the site.
The additional parking is designed to accommodate the existing
patronage of the church. No expansion of the assembly area,
classrooms, or administrative offices is proposed with this
46
project. As a result, the proposed project will not have a
significant impact on the water supplies available to serve the
project.
e) Less than significant impact. The project proposes the addition of
surface parking spaces and three, two-level parking decks on the
site. The additional parking is designed to accommodate the
existing patronage of the church. No expansion of the assembly
area, classrooms, or administrative offices is proposed with this
project. As such, no additional effluent would be generated. The
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts provide wastewater
services to the project site and the existing treatment facilities are
sufficient to serve the proposed project. Therefore, any impacts
would be less than significant.
f) Less than significant impact. The project proposes the addition of
surface parking spaces and three, two-level parking decks on the
campus of an existing church. The additional parking is
necessary to serve the existing patronage of the church. No
expansion of the assembly area, classrooms, or administrative
offices is proposed with this project and no additional demand for
solid waste services would be generated by the additional parking
areas. Landfills that serve the project site include the Chiquita
Canyon and Sunshine Canyon sanitary landfills. Any impact to
the solid -waste disposal facilities would be less than significant.
g) Less than significant impact. The project proposes the addition of
surface parking spaces and three, two-level parking decks on the
campus of an existing church. The additional parking is
necessary to serve the existing patronage of the church. No
expansion of the assembly area, classrooms, or administrative
offices is proposed with this project. The California Integrated
Waste Management Act requires that jurisdictions maintain a
50% or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City implements
this requirement through the City's franchised Solid Waste
Management Services. Per the agreements between the City and
the franchised trash disposal companies, each franchisee is
responsible for meeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of
50% on a quarterly basis. Franchisees are further encouraged to
meet the City's overall diversion rate goal of 75%. The proposed
project is required to comply with the applicable solid waste
franchise's recycling system, and thus, will meet the City's and
California's solid waste diversion regulations. Therefore, the
project would not cause any significant impacts from conflicting
with statutes or regulations related to solid waste.
47
XVII. MANDATORY a) No impact. The project does not have the potential to degrade the
FINDINGS OF quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish
SIGNIFICANCE or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) No impact. The project does not have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects or the effects of probable future projects.
c) No impact. The project does not have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
48
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
I. AESTHETICS
None Required
Il. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
None Required
1II. AIR QUALITY
None Required
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure IV -1: ,
The applicant shall retain and protect oak trees 440 and #41. in their current location.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and grading activities.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure IV -2:
The applicant shall box oak trees #42, #43, #44, 446, #47, #48, and 4.49, and relocate them
on the project site.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and grading activities.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure IV -3:
The applicant shall replace oak trees #110, #111, #115, and #121, with a total of four (4)
24 -inch box oak trees.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and grading activities.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department
Mitigation Measurc IV -4:
The applicant shall replace oak trees #45, #50, 4.112, #113, #114, #116,.#1d 8, #119, and
#120, with a total of nine (9) 36 -inch box oak trees.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and grading activities.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure IV -5:
The applicant shall replace oak trees 4109, #117, and #122 with a total of three (3) 48 -inch
box oak trees.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and grading activities.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department
49
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
None Required
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
None Required
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
None Required
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND .WATER QUALITY
None Required
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
None Required
X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOIJRCES
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
50
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 08-199
HILLSIDE REVIEW PERMIT 08-005, OAK TREE PERMIT 08-026,
AND RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 08-003
DATE: September 7, 2010
TO: Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lisa M. Webber, AICP, Planning Manager
CASE PLANNER: Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Grace Baptist Church
LOCATION: 22833 Copper Hill Drive, (APN 3244-032-018, 020)
REQUEST: This is a request for the addition of new surface parking and three, two-
level parking decks for use by the existing church on the subject property.
The project is located within the Ridgeline Preservation Overlay and is
subject to a Ridgeline Alteration Permit. A Hillside Development Review
Permit is required due to the topography of the site. An Oak Tree Permit
is required to allow for the encroachment into the protected zone of two
oak trees and the relocation or replacement of 23 oak trees on the project
site. The property is approximately 62 acres in size and is located on the
north side of Copper Hill Drive, between Seco Canyon Road and San
Francisquito Canyon Road. The subject property comprises Assessor
Parcel Nos. 3244-032-018 and 3244-032-020, and is located in the RE
(Residential Estate) zone.
BACKGROUND
Grace Baptist Church was originally entitled in 1991 under the jurisdiction of the County of Los
Angeles. In 1997, the property was annexed into the City of Santa Clarita and church buildings
were constructed in 1998. The project site contains four buildings, totaling approximately
150,000 square feet, and 677 parking spaces. Under Los Angeles County standards, the church
was required to provide 501 parking spaces: one space for every five fixed seats in the church's
largest assembly area. Under existing City requirements, 626 parking spaces are required: one
parking space for every four fixed seats in the largest assembly area. The existing facility meets
the City's parking requirement.
On December 30, 2008, an entitlement application was filed by Grace Baptist Church (applicant)
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 2 of 7
requesting approval for additional surface and structured parking to serve the church's existing
patronage. Following the initial meeting with City representatives, the applicant submitted a
revised plan in April of 2009. The applicant continued to work with the City to resolve issues
associated with Fuel Modification (Los Angeles County Fire Department) and proposed street
improvements on Copper Hill Drive. The applicant met with the Seco Canyon Homeowners'
Association on October 20, 2009, and informed them about the project. 35 residents were in
attendance. A community meeting was also held at Grace Baptist Church on January 26, 2010.
Although meeting notices were sent to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site,
no residents attended the meeting.
A public hearing was scheduled for February 16, 2010, and official notices were sent and
published in accordance with Section 17.01.100 of the Unified Development Code. The public
notices included not only a description of the parking expansion project, but also details on the
required street and median improvements for Copper Hill Drive. In accordance with General
Plan Circulation Element requirements, road improvements include a raised landscaped median
along Copper Hill Drive, a major arterial, that would prohibit left turns directly from northbound
Tupelo Ridge Drive to westbound Copper Hill Drive. Under the ultimate General Plan
improvements, motorists who wish to turn left onto Copper Hill Drive from Tupelo Ridge Drive
would have to turn right (eastbound) and then make a U-turn at Sycamore Creek Drive, an
intersection approximately 400' to the east. The General Plan roadway improvements would
also prevent left turns onto eastbound Copper Hill Drive the church's western -most driveway.
Prior to the scheduled public hearing, and based on the requirement to construct a raised median
on Copper Hill Drive that would restrict turning movements at the church's westerly driveway,
the applicant requested that the City review the feasibility of a traffic signal for the church's
westerly driveway at the intersection of Copper Hill Drive and Sycamore Creek Drive, a local
residential street. Staff felt that the traffic signal could have created new traffic patterns in the
residential neighborhood south of Copper Hill Drive and would likely have impacted the signal
operation at the intersection of Seco Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive, a short distance to the
east. None of these impacts were analyzed as part of the Initial Study nor was included in the
public notice that had been mailed out. Due to these reasons, on February 16, 2010, the Planning
Commission continued this item to a date uncertain to allow additional time to prepare a study
evaluating this signal and its impact on the neighborhood. The study found that traffic volumes
for the church could support a signal at this location and would have minimal impacts on
residential streets south of Copper Hill Drive. It should also be noted that homeowners on
Sycamore Creek Drive were supportive of a traffic signal at this location.
Additionally, in response to the public notices that had been sent out for the February 16 public
hearing, staff received input from local residents who raised concerns about the proposed
roadway improvements. In response to these concerns, a community meeting was held at Grace
Baptist Church on April 14, 2010. More than 50 people attended the meeting. A majority of the
residents opposed the raised median proposed for Copper Hill Drive, requesting that other
options be considered. The residents organized an ad hoc community group, the Copper Hill
Coalition of Good Neighbors (Coalition), and solicited input for possible solutions. On May 17,
2010, the applicant and City staff met with Mr. Gary Johnson and Mr. Al Sosa, the leaders of the
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 3 of 7
Coalition to discuss a list of suggested options the Coalition had developed. During the meeting,
the City Traffic Division proposed a set of interim roadway improvements that was agreeable to
all parties. The interim solution includes delaying construction of much of the raised median
until traffic volumes warrant its full construction. Full curb, gutter, sidewalk improvements
along the entire project frontage, and lane striping modifications to accommodate build out of
Copper Hill Drive, a six lane arterial roadway on the City's General Plan, would be constructed
as part of the project. Condition Nos. EN 10 and EN 1.1 address both the interim and ultimate
street improvements that are required as part of this project. The interim improvements would
not restrict any turning movements that currently exist in that the center median would consist of
painted striping. According to the applicant, the interim improvements would not necessitate the
need for a traffic signal.
The interim roadway improvements were presented to 22 local residents at a subsequent
community meeting that was held on June 16, 2010. The improvements were well received and
appear to resolve the majority of the issues that were raised by the community. The meeting also
provided another opportunity for the residents to ask the applicant about the specifics of the
parking expansion project. With most of the community issues resolved, a new public hearing
was scheduled for September 7, 2010.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes a request for approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Hillside
Development Review Permit and Oak. Tree Permit to allow for the construction of additional
surface parking and three, two-level parking structures. The additional surface parking and the
three parking decks would provide a total of 1,057 parking spaces. The proposed project does
not include additional assembly areas, classrooms or administrative offices. The additional
parking is being proposed to accommodate the existing patronage of the church, not to support
an expansion of the existing use.
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. A community
assembly use is permitted in the RE zone, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
The project site is bordered by property in unincorporated Los Angeles County to the north, the
Residential Suburban zone to the south and east, and the Residential Moderate zone to the west.
Commercial uses are located southeast of the property at the intersection of Seco Canyon Road
and Copper Hill Drive. Copper Hill Drive comprises the southern edge of the property and San
Francisquito Canyon Road runs along the west side of the property. A Southern California
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 4 of 7
Edison transmission corridor traverses the property diagonally, running in a
northeasterly/southwesterly manner.
ANALYSIS
Consistency with the General Plan
A community assembly use is permitted in the RE zone subject to the issuance of a Conditional
Use Permit, which as noted above, was approved under the County in 1991. The proposed
parking structures, as conditioned, would conform with the various goals and policies of the
General Plan, specifically with regard to Community Design Element Goal 5: To preserve and
integrate the prominent and distinctive natural features of the community as open space for the
use and visual enjoyment of all City residents. In addition, Policy 5.1 requires the retention of
designated major landforms, such as ridgelines, especially when they contribute to the overall
community identity. Roadway improvements associated with the project would support
Circulation Element Policy 1.3: Adopt a program of street and highway landscaping (i.e. median
planting and street trees) to enhance the appearance of the City's circulation system. The project
would also support Circulation Element Policy 1.6: Develop design standards for roadway and
intersection improvements to safely and efficiently accommodate existing and projected
transportation patterns and circulation.
Ridgeline Alteration Permit
A significant ridgeline, as identified in the City's General Plan, is located on the project site and
runs generally north to south bisecting the subject property. The elevation of the top of the ridge
is 1,520 feet above mean sea level. The base of the slope is at an elevation of approximately
1,430 feet. As such, the upper two-thirds of the slope, the area in which a Ridgeline Alteration
Permit is required, begins at an elevation of 1,460 feet. This project requires a Ridgeline
Alteration Permit because some of the grading necessary for the parking structures will extend
above the elevation of 1,460 feet. The existing church buildings are located approximately 500
feet east of, and 70 feet lower than, the ridgeline. Neither the existing buildings nor the proposed
parking decks would protrude over the crest of the ridgeline. The Ridgeline Preservation
Ordinance requires both the Planning Commission and City Council to hold public hearings for a
project within the Ridgeline Preservation zone. The ordinance also states that the City Council is
the approving authority for a Ridgeline Alteration Permit.
As shown in the attached ridgeline location exhibit, the required grading and structures will be
approximately 200 feet from the top of the ridgeline and will not alter the shape or silhouette of
the existing crest. The ridgeline will substantially retain its integrity and natural grade. Also, the
General Plan
Zonin.9
Land Use
Project:
RE
RE
Church
North.
L.A. County
L.A. County
Single -Family Residential
South
RS
RS
Single -Family Residential
East
RS
RS
Multi -Family Residential
West
RM
RM
Single -Family Residential
ANALYSIS
Consistency with the General Plan
A community assembly use is permitted in the RE zone subject to the issuance of a Conditional
Use Permit, which as noted above, was approved under the County in 1991. The proposed
parking structures, as conditioned, would conform with the various goals and policies of the
General Plan, specifically with regard to Community Design Element Goal 5: To preserve and
integrate the prominent and distinctive natural features of the community as open space for the
use and visual enjoyment of all City residents. In addition, Policy 5.1 requires the retention of
designated major landforms, such as ridgelines, especially when they contribute to the overall
community identity. Roadway improvements associated with the project would support
Circulation Element Policy 1.3: Adopt a program of street and highway landscaping (i.e. median
planting and street trees) to enhance the appearance of the City's circulation system. The project
would also support Circulation Element Policy 1.6: Develop design standards for roadway and
intersection improvements to safely and efficiently accommodate existing and projected
transportation patterns and circulation.
Ridgeline Alteration Permit
A significant ridgeline, as identified in the City's General Plan, is located on the project site and
runs generally north to south bisecting the subject property. The elevation of the top of the ridge
is 1,520 feet above mean sea level. The base of the slope is at an elevation of approximately
1,430 feet. As such, the upper two-thirds of the slope, the area in which a Ridgeline Alteration
Permit is required, begins at an elevation of 1,460 feet. This project requires a Ridgeline
Alteration Permit because some of the grading necessary for the parking structures will extend
above the elevation of 1,460 feet. The existing church buildings are located approximately 500
feet east of, and 70 feet lower than, the ridgeline. Neither the existing buildings nor the proposed
parking decks would protrude over the crest of the ridgeline. The Ridgeline Preservation
Ordinance requires both the Planning Commission and City Council to hold public hearings for a
project within the Ridgeline Preservation zone. The ordinance also states that the City Council is
the approving authority for a Ridgeline Alteration Permit.
As shown in the attached ridgeline location exhibit, the required grading and structures will be
approximately 200 feet from the top of the ridgeline and will not alter the shape or silhouette of
the existing crest. The ridgeline will substantially retain its integrity and natural grade. Also, the
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 5 of 7
ridgeline .is no longer pristine and was previously disturbed by the construction of two water
tanks that are located in the center of the property. The proposed parking expansion and
structures will be built in areas that were graded flat as part of the original church development
and will not result in further grading or reduction of natural hillsides.
Hillside Development Review Permit
A Hillside Development Review Permit is required for development proposed on slopes with an
average cross slope that exceeds 10%. The average cross -slope of the site is 38%. 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). As proposed, the project would comply with the Hillside
Ordinance because the project would limit grading to areas that have already been disturbed.
The site's primary natural topographic feature would be preserved (the ridgeline), and the
southern -facing parking deck would be set back on the hillside and screened with landscaping.
Oak Tree Permit
The site contains 126 oak trees, none of which are heritage trees. The 23 oak trees that will be
removed or replanted are not indigenous and were planted by Grace Baptist Church as part of the
original landscape plan. All the oak trees are located along driveways and parking areas, not in
natural settings. Seven of the oak trees are good candidates for relocation elsewhere on the
campus due to their health and vigor. The other 16 oak trees are not good candidates for
relocation due to their poor or stressed condition. These trees will be replaced with 16 new oak
trees. The proposed development will encroach into the protected area of two additional oak
trees that will remain in place.
Parking
According to the applicant, the existing onsite parking consists of 677 paved/marked parking
spaces on the Grace Baptist Church campus. While the existing church facility meets the current
requirements of the Unified Development Code's parking requirement of 626 spaces, actual
demand exceeds supply during peak periods. Based on a parking study that was submitted as part
of the project application, the actual peak parking demand during the 10:45 a.m. service on
Sunday is 824 spaces. This results in a deficiency of 147 spaces. During times of peak parking
demand, church members must utilize two unpaved lots for their parking needs. One lot is
adjacent to the western church entrance and the other is located east of the amphitheater. The
proposed project would construct parking decks on these unpaved lots, along with a third deck
that would be built over a portion of the existing parking lot. The improvements would bring the
total number of parking spaces to 1,057, exceeding the 824 spaces that the church needs during
peak demand periods.
Access
Access to the project site is provided by two existing driveways off of Copper Hill Drive. The
project would not change how vehicles access the property from Copper Hill Drive. The upper
and lower levels of the parking decks would have direct at -grade access from adjacent
driveways. The proposed project would not change existing access patterns nor would the
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 6 of 7
interim median and street improvements on Copper Hill Drive eliminate or alter existing access
to the neighborhoods along Tupelo Ridge Drive or Sycamore Creek Drive; however, the
applicant would be required to pay for the cost of the project's share of full improvements along
Copper Hill Drive. In the future, when traffic and safety conditions warrant, Copper Hill Drive
would be fully improved with a raised, landscaped, median in compliance with the General Plan.
Grading
The project proposes 32,000 cubic yards of cut and 32,000 cubic yards of fill, balancing the
grading amounts on site. Slopes, grading design, construction methods, and use must conform to
all applicable sections of Chapter 17.80 Hillside Development of the City's Unified
Development Code including a maximum of 2:1 graded slopes. To a large extent, the project
would make use of the existing topography placing the structures and additional parking in areas
that were graded flat during the original church construction or in areas where slopes were
previously created, such as along the frontage of Copper Hill Drive. Grading activities would be
reviewed by the City's Engineering Division and would be conditioned to meet all applicable
grading requirements.
Visual Impacts
The project proposes to add surface parking and three, two-level parking structures to the
existing church site. Two parking structures will not be visible from either Copper Hill Drive or
the single family residences south of Copper Hill Drive because the structures will be located on
the northern portion of the church' campus in the existing parking area and will be screened by
the existing buildings on the site. The applicant has prepared a photo simulation showing that
the proposed parking structure on the southern portion of the campus will be partially visible
from existing single family residences located approximately 300 feet south of the property,
across Copper Hill Drive. Proposed landscaping would screen the structure and the use of
colored concrete would help the structure to blend into the surrounding area. Photo simulations
are attached that show both before and after depictions of the site, including with and without
project landscaping. During the community meeting, one homeowner expressed concern for the
appearance of the parking deck closest to Copper Hill Drive.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed development qualifies as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and an Initial Study was prepared. Based on the Initial Study's findings, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The Initial Study did not identify any project
impacts that had the potential to be significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures and a
mitigation monitoring plan were.created to ensure that the project complied with the City's Oak
Tree Ordinance.
PUBLIC NOTICING
As required by the Unified Development Code, 816 property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius
of the subject property were notified of the public hearing by mail. An additional 212 notices
were sent to property owners whose property fell beyond the legal noticing area but whom the
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 7 of 7
applicant and City felt should still be notified of the project. A grand total of 1,028 notices were
sent out. A public notice was placed in The Signal newspaper on August 17, 2010, and a sign
was posted at the site on August 24, 2010, for a public hearing on September 7, 2010. Copies of
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration were available for public review at the Valencia
Library and at City Hall. Following this public noticing, the Planning Division has not received
any written correspondence regarding the proposed project.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project meets the requirements of the Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance, Hillside
Development Ordinance, and Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance by limiting the impacts to the
existing ridgeline, natural hillsides, and oak trees on the project site. The proposed project limits
the parking expansion to areas that have been previously disturbed as part of the original church
development thereby avoiding impacts to the remaining natural topography. The oak trees that
will be impacted are not native to the site and were planted as part of the church's original
landscaping. With mitigation measures and proposed replacement trees, the net number of oak
trees on the property would remain the same. Further, the project has been designed to
accommodate the existing patronage of the church and does not include any expansion of
assembly areas, offices, or classrooms.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
Adopt Resolution P10-06, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommending the
City Council approve Master Case 08-199 (Ridgeline Alteration Permit 08-003, Hillside
Development Review 08-005, Oak Tree Permit 08-026) to allow for the construction of new
surface parking spaces and three, two-level parking structures at 22833 Copper Hill Drive in the
City of Santa Clarita, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A).
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution P10-06
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A)
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Aerial/Zoning Maps
Site Plan
Hillside/Ridgeline Exhibit
Preliminary Landscape Plans
Photo Simulations
S:\CD\CURRENT\!2008\08-199 (HR, RLA)TIanning Commission\08-199 Staff Report.doc
RESOLUTION NO. P 10-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE MASTER CASE 08-199, HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 08-005, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 08-003 AND OAK
TREE PERMIT 08-026 TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SURFACE PARKING
AND THREE,: TWO-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22833
COPPER HILL DRIVE (APN 3244-032-018, 020) IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF.. FACT. The Planning Commission does- hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. On December 30, 2008, an entitlement application was filed by Grace Baptist Church (the
"applicant") with the Planning Division: which included the following requests: a. Hillside
Development Review: for grading associated.with the .expansion of existing parking areas
on a property with an average slope greater than..10: percent; a Ridgeline Alteration. Permit
to allow for development activities within the .Ridgeline Preservation Zone. in the upper
two-thirds of a designated Significant Ridgeline; and an Oak Tree Permit to allow for
grading activities within the. protected _zones of two oak trees and the relocation and
replacement of 23 oak trees;
b. On April 16, 2009, a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held during
which staff provided a list of items required by staff. in order to.:consider. the. application
complete. In addition, staff provided direction regarding bringing the . project into
compliance with various development requirements;
C*. The 62.07 -acre project site is located on the north side of Copper Hill.Drive between Seco
Canyon Road and San Francisquito Canyon Road. The subject property comprises the
following.two parcels: Assessor Parcel Nos..3244-.032-018, and 020 within the community
of Valencia.
d. 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;
The project site is bordered by hillside residential property in unincorporated Los Angeles
County to the north, the Residential Suburban (RS) zone to the south..and east, and the
Residential Moderate (RM) zone to the west. Surrounding land uses include single-family
residences on all --sides, A Southern California: Edison transmission corridor runs through,
the -subject property from north to .south;
f During a duly noticed public hearing on February 16, 2010, and due to .potential changes in
Resolution PI0-06
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 2 of 10
the project description (a potential traffic signal), the Planning Commission continued the
item to a date uncertain;
g. As required by the Unified Development Code, 816 property owners within a 1,000 -foot
radius of the subject property were'notified of the public hearing by mail. Notices were
sent to an additional 212 property owners. who live near the project site. A public notice
was placed in a local newspaper (The Signal) on August 17, 2010, and a sign was posted at
the site on August 24, 2010 for 'a public'hearing on September 7,"2010;
h.. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this matter commencing
on September 7, 2010; at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita;
and
i. At the September 7, 2010; 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.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL .QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based
upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
a. An Initial Study for this project . has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);.
b. Based on the findings in the Initial Study, it was determined that mitigation measures
would be incorporated as part of the project to reduce impacts to a level less than
significant and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project.
c. 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 August 17, 2010, in
accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from August 17, 2010
through September 7, 2010;
d. There is no. substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect. on the
environment. Approval of a Mitigated' Negative Declaration for this project reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission;
e.. The documents and other materials which. constitute the record of proceedings upon which
the decision of the Planning Commission is made is the Master Case 08-199 project file
located within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the
Director of Community Development; and
Resolution P10-06
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 3 of 10
f. The Planning Commission, based upon the findings sed 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.Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: .
a. That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of
landform grading so as to blend any manufactured• slopes or required drainage benches
into the natural topography;
The project proposes the addition of new surface- parking -and three, two-level parking.
structures on a project site that was previously developed. Grading will be conducted in
areas that were graded flat or that are part of the manufactured slopes that were created to
facilitate the original church construction. The topography of the ridgeline and other.
natural slopes will not be impacted by the project.
b. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent possible;
The project proposes the addition of new surface parking and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously- developed: The project proposes 32,000,
cubic yards -of cut and 3.2,000 cubic yards of fill. -Although the existing slopes. have been
disturbed during prior projects, the natural topographic features and appearances are being
conserved by means of landform grading so; as to blend any manufactured slopes or
required'drainage benches into the natural topography.
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 project proposes the addition of new .surface parking and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously developed. One. of the new parking
structures is located north of the existing church buildings in the existing parking area. The
other two parking structures have been located in areas that have previously been graded
flat as part of the original development of'the church: 'Any slopes that are proposed to be
impacted are manufactured slopes that' -were created as part of the original project. The
proposed parking areas have been located ori portions `of the site that are•'intended to
substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservation
of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features on the site.
Resolution P10-06 ..
Master Case 08-199"
Seplember 7, 2010
Page 4 of 10
d. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms that
would. sehve.ao: blend buildings and:stt.u.cturos with the terrain are utilized
The project requests the approval of three parking structures. The parking structures meet
minimum setback requirements and are less than 35' in height. Two parking structures will
not be visible from either Copper Hill Drive or the single family residences south of
Copper Hill Drive because the structures will be, located on the northern portion of the
church campus in the existing parking area and will be screened by the existing buildings
on the site. The applicant has prepared a photo .simulation showing that the proposed
parking structure on .the southern portion of the campus will be partially visible from
existing single family residences. located approximately 300 feet to the south, across
Copper Hill Drive. While the structure would be visible, landscaping would screen the
parking deck and the use.of.colored concrete would allow the structure to blend into the
hillside.
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 andprivate property owners.
The preliminary landscape plan submitted by the applicant makes use of native landscaping
material intended to, protect the slopes from slippage. and soil :erosion and to minimize the
visual effect of the grading on the subject property: Although the project does require the
removal of 23 oak trees, all of these trees would be relocated or replaced on the site. The
oak trees impacted by proposed grading were planted by Grace Baptist Church, installed as
part of a planned landscape associated with previous site development. All of the impacted
oak trees are in landscape situations,, not natural settings. They are placed along the
roadways and parking areas. Given the fact these trees were planted by the church, located
near adjacent roadways and are easily accessible,.. some of the impacted trees are good
candidates for relocation within the. campus. Other oak trees are not candidates for
relocation due to their stressed and poor condition. These trees will be replaced with new
specimens.
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.
Although the project requires the completion of improvements to Copper Hill Drive
including curbs, gutters, sidewalks and a raised,median, the alignment of Copper Hill Drive
will not be affected and no additional streets will be designed or constructed with this
project. The slopes adjacent to Copper Hill Drive have been designed to emulate and
compliment the existing slopes and hillsides in the area. Structures proposed as part of the
project would be built into the hillside and would emulate the character of the existing
Resolution PIO-06
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 5 of 10
sloped,areas.
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.
The project is located within the City of Santa Clarita's Ridgeline Preservation Overlay and
requires a Ridgeline Alteration Permit. The grading for the structure closest to the ridgeline
will not extend to the top of the slope and will not alter. the existing silhouette of the
ridgeline. The project would require the removal of 23 oak trees on the site, all of which
would be either relocated or replaced. Given that the proposed grading would not disrupt
the existing ridgeline, that landscaping would be used to screen the parking decks, and that
any oak trees that would be impacted would be replaced, any disruption of view corridors
or scenic vistas would be minimal.
SECTION 4. RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the
foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
a. The proposed use is in conformance with the various goals and policies of the General
Plan;
The proposed use is. in conformance with the various goals and policies of the General
Plan, specifically with regard to Community Design Element Goal 5: To preserve. and
integrate,the prominent and distinctive � natural, features of the community as,openspace for
the use and visual enjoyment of all City residents. In addition, Policy 5.1 requires the
retention of designated major landforms, such as ridgelines, espescially when they
contribute to the overall community identity. The proposed project .has: a Ridgeline located
on the project site and runs generally north to south bisecting the subject property. The
proposed project only impacts portions of the site that were previously disturbed as part of
the original church development and does not alter the sillouhette of the ridgline.
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;
The project proposes to add surface parking and three, two-level parking structures to the
existing church site. Two parking structures will not be. visible from either Copper Hill
Drive or the single family residences south of Copper Hill Drive because the structures will
be located on the northern portion of the church campus in the existing parking area and
will be screened by the existing- buildings on the site. The applicant has prepared a photo
simulation showing that the proposed parking structure on the southern portion of the
campus will be partially visible from existing single family residences located
Resolution P10-06:,
Master Case 08-199 F'
September 7, 2010
Page 6 of 10
approximately 300 feet south of the property, across. Copper Hill Drive. Proposed
landscaping would screen the structure and the use of colored concrete would help the
structure to'blend into the surrounding area."
C. The appearance of the use or development will not be .different than the appearance' of
adjoiningridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the
vicinity;
A ridgeline is located on the project site and runs generally north to south bisecting the
subject.property. The church buildings are located approximately 500 feet east of the
ridgeline which reaches an elevation of approximately 1,520 feet above mean sea level.
The base of the slope is at an elevation of approximately 1,430 feet. As such, the upper
two-thirds of the slope begins at an elevation of 1,460 feet. The existing church buildings
are approximately 70 feet lower than the ridgeline at an elevation of 1,448 feet. This
project requires a Ridgeline Alteration .Permit because grading is proposed above the
elevation of 1,460 feet. Neither the grading activity nor the structures will reach the top of
the ridgeline and therefore will not affect this ridgeline's silhouette. The ridgeline has
previously been graded and disturbed by the construction of two. water tanks located in' the
center of the subject property. The proposed project would would be located at a lower
elevation than the water tanks. .
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;
The proposed project includes.a request to allow for the construction of additional surface
parking and three, two-level parking structures to accommodate: the existing patronage of
Grace Baptist Church. The proposed project does not include a request for new
construction of assembly areas; classrooms 'or administrative offices. In addition, the
subject property is bordered by existing residential development on all sides and will not
impede the normal and orderly development 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;
As shown in the ridgeline location exhibit provided by the applicant, the required grading
and structures will not reach the top of the ridgeline and therefore will not affect the
ridgeline's silhouette. The church campus is located approximately 500 feet east of the
ridgeline which reaches an elevation of approximately 1,520 feet above mean sea level.
The base of the slope is at an elevation of approximately 1,430 feet. As such, the upper
Resolution PIO-06 i
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 7 of 10
two-thirds of the. slope.begins at an elevation of 1,460 feet. The existing church buildings
are -approximately 70 .fee.t:lower: than the ridgeline a an elevation of 1,448 feet. While
grading limits will occur above the 1,460. feet' elevation, grading and construction
activities will remain well below the existing ridgeline and will not violate the visual
integrity of the ridge.
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;
The project proposes the addition of new surface parking and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously developed. One. of the new parking
structures is located north of the existing church buildings in the existing parking area. The
other two parking structures have been located in areas that have previously been graded
flat as part of the original development of the church. Any slopes that are proposed to. be
impacted are manufactured slopes that were created as part of the original project. The
proposed parking areas have been located on . portions of the site that are intended to
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;
The proposed project includes a request to allow for the construction of additional surface
parking and three, two-level parking structures to accommodate the existing patronage of
Grace Baptist Church. The proposed project does not include. a request for new
construction of assembly areas, classrooms or administrative officesand therefore, does not
change the existing density on the site. The proposed project makes use of native
landscaping material intended to protect the slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to
minimize the visual effect of the grading on the subject property.
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;
The project proposes the addition of new surface parking and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously developed. One of the new parking
structures is located north of the existing church buildings in the existing parking area. The
other two parking structures have been located in areas that have previously been graded
flat as part of the original development of the church. Any slopes that are proposed to be
impacted are manufactured slopes that were created as part of the original project. The
proposed parking areas have been located on portions of the site that are intended to
Resolution P10-06
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 8 of 10
minimize the effects. of grading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character
of the ridgeliiie is, preserved.; The applicant.has avoided grading on any natural slopes that
have not been previously disturbed, thus exceeding 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;
The project proposes the addition of new surface parking and three, two-level parking
structures on a project site that was previously developed. The project proposes 32,000
cubic yards of cut and 32,000 cubic yards of fill. The existing. slopes have been disturbed
during prior'projects. Where possible, the natural topographic features and appearances are
being conserved by means of constructing the parking structures into the existing hillsides
in an effert to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural
topography.
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;
The proposed development demonstrates creative and imaginative site design by limiting
the project to areas of the site that have previously been disturbed as.part of the original
project. In addition, two of the three parking structures will not be visible from
surrounding residences or streets due to their .location on the north side of the church
campus. Although the parking structure closest to Copper Hill Drive will be partially
visible to residents on Tupelo Ridge Drive, the structure will be screened by landscaping
on the south side .of the parking structure to the maximum extent allowable by the Los
Angeles County Fired Department Fuel Modification Unit. Colored concrete will also be
used to help the structure blend into the surrounding hillside..
k. The proposed use or development does not alter natural landmarks and prominent natural
features of the ridgelines; and
Any slopes that are proposed to be impacted aremanufactured slopes that were created as
part of the original project. The proposed parking areas have been located on portions of
the site that are intended to minimize the effects of grading to the extent practicable and
ensure that the natural landmarks and prominent natural features of the ridgeline are
preserved.
The provisions and implementation of this section does not create an undue economic
hardship or deny the minimal use of the land.
Resolution P10-06
Master Case 08-199
September 7, 2010
Page 9 of 10
r
: The ;implement�itioa o llthe- R,idgeline Preservation Ordinance has .not created an undo
economic hardship on Grace Bdp'tisf Church, nor has the ordinance denied the minimal use
of the subject property in that the applicant will be able to make better use of the site
through the provision of adequate parking.
SECTION 5. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and
findings, the Planning Commission 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:
The site contains 126 oak trees, none of which are designated as Heritage, based on their
size. All of the oak trees impacted by proposed grading were planted by Grace Baptist
Church, installed as part of a planned landscape associated with previous site development
and are in landscape situations, not natural settings. They are placed along the roadways
and parking areas. Given the fact these trees were planted by thechurch; located near
adjacent roadways and are easily accessible, some of the impacted trees are 'good
candidates . for relocation within the campus. The other oaks are .not good relocation
specimens due to their poor or stressed condition. The project will impact 25 non-native
oak trees on the project site. The project will encroach into the protected zone of two trees;
seven trees will be boxed and relocated on the site; and 16 trees will be removed and
replaced with 16 new trees. The trees recommended for replacement with new trees are
rated in fair to poor condition and are not likely to perform well if transplanted. 'It is
necessary to remove, relocate, and 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. No reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to' the'. unique physical
development constraints of the property. Therefore, the project complies with all required
findings.
SECTION 6. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council hereby adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the following entitlements requested under Master
,`Case 08-199 (Hillside Development 08-005, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 08-003 and Oak Tree
°ermit 08-026).
ResolutionPI0-06;
faster Case 08-199 .._...
September 7, 2010:
Page 10 of 10
PASSEI),.APPRQVED;AND, ADOPTED this 7`h day of September, 2010.
CHAIIfPERSON
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
i
IS,A . WEBBER
ECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) .
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Lisa M. Webber; Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was. duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Santa Clarita ata regular meeting, thereof, held on the 7t1i day of September, 2010, by the
following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BURKHART, JACOBSON,, KENNEDY, OSTROM
NOES: . COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: EICHM.AN
21N -(G COMMISSION SECRETARY
SACD\CURRENT\12008\08-199 (HIR, RLA)\Planning Commission\08-199 Resolution.doe .
�A�e=lr
-
����\�/��:��\
./§+�}
\i
-
��/
�A�e=lr
./§+�}
\i
-
��/
April 20, 2009
Attn: David Armstrong
Grace Baptist Church
22833 Copper Hill Drive
Santa Clarita, CA 91321
Tel 310 600-6682
CRAIG CROTTY
ARBOR CULTURE
P.O. Box 246
Verdugo City, CA 91046
Tel. 818 957-8824
Cell 818 636-4917
craigcrotty@arborconsultant.com
GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH
OAK TREE REPORT
The Grace Baptist Church is proposing site improvements involving earthwork
leading to the relocation or replacement of 25 City -regulated oak trees. There are 126
oak trees on the site in totality, leaving 101 oak trees untouched by the proposal.
The purpose of this report is to:
• Identify and field tag all oak trees per City Ordinance (inventory all 126 oaks on
plan).
• Rate the 25 impacted oak trees for size, defect, condition and levels of risk.
• Discuss proposed impacts and make mitigation recommendations.
• Provide appraised values for the 25 impacted and encroached oak trees.
SumrnM of Observations and Recommendations
• 2- encroached by grading or site work, but will be retained and protected.
• 7- impacted by grading- recommended to be boxed and relocated on site.
• 16- impacted by grading- recommended to be replaced with 13 new trees.
Note: Trees recommended for replacement with new trees are rated in fair to poor
condition and not likely to perform well in a transplant.
Background:
The oak trees impacted by proposed grading were planted by grace Baptist
Church, installed as part of a planned landscape associated with previous site
development. All the oak trees are in landscape situations, not natural settings. They are
placed along the roadways and parking areas. Given the fact these trees were planted by
the church, located near adjacent roadways and are easily accessible, some of the
impacted trees are good candidates for relocation within the campus. The other oaks are
not good relocation specimens due to poor or stressed condition.
Grace Baptist
page 2
Report Method:
This oak tree report identifies all the oak trees on the site with a numbering tag
affixed to the trunk corresponding to their location on the site plan. All oaks are located
on the plan and listed with a trunk diameter. Trunk diameters are measured at 4.5 ft
above grade; to convert to trunk circumference multiply by a factor of 3.14.
All the site oak trees are included in this inventory, but only the 25 impacted trees
are given a full evaluation, per a verbal communication with Wayne Smith, City of Santa
Clarita Oak Tree Specialist.
The 25 oak trees to be impacted by the proposal are evaluated and rated for health
and structural condition, estimated for crown spread and height, and appraised for value.
The 25 impacted oaks are further identified and recorded with photographs. An
assessment of suitability for relocation is made and noted on the photographs and
physical data sheets.
Description:
All site oaks are Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia, with the lone exception of a
single Holly Oak, Quercus ilex. These trees are relatively young and of small enough
stature to consider relocation, if the condition is good enough. There are no heritage trees
on the site. There are some oaks showing signs of disease or severe drought stress.
These should not be considered for relocation, but might best be replaced with smaller,
healthy oaks within the new landscape. Refer to the attached Field Data Sheets for tree
sizes, condition, and recommendation. Tree Appraisal forms list the individual values.
The relocation procedure is to excavate and box the trees in place. Transport,
store and maintain on site until such time trees can be replanted in the new landscape
setting. It is generally recommended to excavate and box trees for relocation in autumn
and winter, ideally letting trees acclimate in the box before removing roots for the bottom
of the box and moving the trees to the storage site. The tree mover should follow
optimum procedures for tree survival wherever possible.
Maintenance of relocated trees is critical to survival. It is recommended the
selected tree moving company be retained to maintain the trees during storage, especially
watering, and for a five year establishment period after replanting. Arborist monitoring
of the oak trees under maintenance may also increase survival rates.
Two trees may remain but are encroached by grading or trenching. These oaks
should be temporarily fenced off to exclude harmful construction activity. Root pruning
maybe necessary, especially at Oaks #40 and #41, adjacent a storm drain and outlet.
Exposed roots may need to be covered and wetted. Arborist monitoring is recommended
for work near these four trees.
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 20, 2009
Grace Baptist
Mitigation Recommendations:
Note: Replacement/mitigation recommendations are on a one for one basis.
The above listed arborist recommendations are subject to final approval by City
representatives and may be amended by the City of Santa Clarita at will.
page 3
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 20, 2009
Tree #
Recommendation
•
Oaks #40, #41
retain and protect
•
Oak #42, #43, & #44
relocate on site
•
Oak #45
replace with one 36 inch box tree
•
Oak #46, #47, #48, & #49
relocate on site
•
Oak #50
replace with one 36 inch box tree
•
Oak #109
replace with one 48 inch box tree
•
Oak #110 (drought stress)
replace with one 24 inch box tree
•
Oak #111 -(drought stress)
replace with one 24 inch box tree
•
Oak #112 -(drought stress)
replace with one 36 inch box tree
•
Oak #113 -(drought stress)
replace with one 36 inch. box tree
•
Oak #114 -(drought stress)
replace with one 36 inch box tree
•
Oak #115 -(drought stress)
replace with one 24 inch box tree
•
Oak #116 -(drought stress)
replace with one 36 inch box tree
•
Oak #117 -(drought stress)
replace with one 48 inch box tree
•
Oak #118 -(drought stress)
replace with one 36 inch box tree
•
Oak #119 -(drought stress)
replace with one 36 inch box tree
•
Oak #120 -(drought stress)
replace with one 36 inch box tree.
•
. Oak #121 -(drought stress)
replace with one 24 inch box tree
•
Oak #122
replace with one 48 inch box tree
Note: Replacement/mitigation recommendations are on a one for one basis.
The above listed arborist recommendations are subject to final approval by City
representatives and may be amended by the City of Santa Clarita at will.
page 3
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 20, 2009
Grace Baptist
page 4
Explanation of Appraisal Method:
Oak tree values are provided as a matter of record since the great majority of the
site trees are recommended for relocation on site. Appraised values are determined by
use of the `Trunk Formula Method' of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition,
copyright 2000 by the International Society of Arboriculture and the companion booklet,
Species Classification and Group Assignment, copyright 2004 by the Western Chapter of
the International Society of Arboriculture.
. The appraised values are determined by evaluating and rating the tree species,
size, condition, and location. These values are expressed in percentages, then depreciated
from an ideal, defect -free, prototypical tree.
The species ratings are determined by a committee from the Western Chapter of
the International Society of Arboriculture, Southern California Sub Region. The species
Quercus agrifolia and Quercus ilex are determined to be 90% by the regional committee.
Tree size is measured on the trunk at four and a half feet (4.5 ft.) above grade.
Most of the oaks on this site are multi -trunk trees. Multi -trunk diameters are added to
yield a single cumulative total trunk diameter measurement. Unit prices per square inch
of trunk area are determined by the retail price of a replacement tree, delivered to the site,
and with added installation cost.
- The condition rating of the site trees to be appraised is based on observations of
tree vitality, stressing factors, and structural defects, including but not limited to various
diseases, insect damage, drought stress, wounding, cavities with decay, lean, trunk or
branch attachment type, previous failure history, weight distribution, surrounding
environmental conditions, dead wood, foliage density, branch tip vitality, leaf color, and
pruning history.
The location rating is based on the appraiser's judgement of practical and
aesthetic contribution, placement Within the property, and the neighborhood in which it is
situated, leading to an opinion expressed as a percentage. The location rating is taken
from an average of site factors, contribution factors, and placement within the site.
Craig Crotty, Arborist Consultant
Supplemental Information:
• Field Data Sheets (Oaks #40450 and #109-#122)
• Photos (Oaks #40450 and #1094122)
• Trunk Formula Appraisals (Oaks #40450 and #1094122)
• Oak Diameters/Impact-Recommendation List (All)
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 20, 2009
Grace Baptist Church Oak Tree Inventory
Oak #
Trunk diameter Impact
41
3 in.
none
#2
14 in.
none
#3
7 in.
none
#4
10 in.
none
#5
14 in.
none
#6
12 in.
none
#7
3 in.
none
98
20 in.
none
#9
8 in.
none
#10
10 in.
none
#11
7 in.
none
#12
16 in.
none
#13
19 in.
none
#14
9 in.
none
#15
11 in.
none
#16
12 in.
none
#17
6 in.
none
#18
11 in.
none
#19
13 in.
none
#20
12 in,
none
#21
10 in.
none
422
14 in,
none
#23
11 in.
none
#24
16 in.
none
925
Din.
none
#26
18 in.
none
#27
19 in.
none
#28
6 in.
none
#29
6 in.
none
#30
5 in.
none
#31
7 in,
none
#32
9 in.
none
#33
6 in.
none
#34
10 in.
none
#35
5 in.
none
#36
21 in.
none
937
23 in.
none
#38
7 in.
none
#39
10 in.
none
#40
8 in.
retain/protect
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 20, 2009
Grace Baptist Church Oak Tree Inventory
_Oak #
Trunk diameter
Impact
941
13 in.
retain/protect
#42
13 in.
relocate
#43
19 in.
relocate
#44
13 in.
relocate
#45
6 in,
replace/mitigate
#46
11 in.
relocate
#47
14 in.
relocate
#48
13 in.
relocate
#49
17 in,
relocate
#50
4 in.
replace/mitigate
#51
10 in.
none
#52
8 in.
none
#53
4 in.
none
#54
3 in.
none
#55
6 in.
none
#56
5 in.
none
#57
6 in.
none
#58
8 in.
none
#59
5 in.
none
#60
10 in.
none
#61
15 in.
none
#62
10 in.
none
#63
12 in.
none
#64
10 in.
none
#65
9 in.
none
#66
8 in.
none
#67
20 in.
none
#68
19 in.
none
#69
15 in.
none
#70
17 in.
none
#71
11 in.
none
#72
10 in.
none
#73
7 in.
none
#74
12 in.
none
#75
5 in.
none
#76
4 in.
none
#77
14 in.
none
#78
21 in.
none
#79
25 in.
none
#80
22 in.
none
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 20,2009
Grace Baptist Church Oak Tree Inventory
Oak #
Trunk diameter Impact
#81
22 in.
none
#82
11 in.
none
#83
Din.
none
#84
Ain.
none
#85
16 in.
none
#86
Min. in.
none
#87
21 in.
none
#88
8 in.
none
#89
10 in.
none
#90
14 in.
none
#91
11 in.
none
#92
22 in.
none
#93
19 in.
none
#94
Din.
none
#95
14 in.
none
#96
8 in.
none
#97
9 in.
none
#98
l4 in.
none
#99
9 in.
none
#100
10 in.
none
#101
16 in.
none
#102
20 in.
none
#103
14 in.
none
#104
14 in.
none
#105
8 in.
none
#106
12 in.
none
#107
9 in.
none
#108
11 in.
none
9109
6 in.
replace/mitigate
#110
2 in.
replace/mitigate
#111
2 in.
replace/mitigate
#112
3 in.
replace/mitigate
#113
3 in.
replace/mitigate
#114
3 in.
replace/mitigate
#115
2 in.
replace/mitigate
#116
3 in.
replace/mitigate
#117
4 in.
replace/mitigate
#118
3 in.
replace/mitigate
#119
3 in.
replace/mitigate
#120
3 in.
replace/mitigate
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 20, 2009
Grace Baptist Church Oak Tree Inventory
Oak #
Trunk diameter Impact
#121
2 in.
replace/mitigate
#122
5 in.
replace/mitigate
#123
6 in.
none
#124
8 in.
none
#125
8 in.
none
#126
15 in.
none
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 20, 2009
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
TREE APPRAISAL
40
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty
February 18.2OUQ -
(Quercus a
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
IBASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED VALUE
TREE NUMBER 41
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
SPECIES Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
8 81TE CONT. PLACE
LOCATION
75%
SPECIES RATING
90%
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
5.50 23.75
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
$1,482.00
INSTALLED TREE COST
$2,964.00
UNIT TREE COST
$62.40
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA 50.24
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
26
,BASIC TREE COST
$4,602.00
APPRAISED VALUE
$2,019.13
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
TREE APPRAISAL
42
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty
February 18, 2009
Live
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED VALUE
TREE NUMBER 43
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
DATE February 18, 2009
Coast Live Oak (Quercus
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
75%
--- 1.3 ...--- ...... .SITE
75%
90% _
5.50 23.75
$1,482:00 --
$1,482.00
$2,964.00
$62.40
133_J
109
$9,781.20
951.73
CONT. PLACE
75% �75%
75%
90%
17 SITE CONT. PLACE
- - ---- 75% 75% 75% j 75%
5.50 23.75 ^I
$1,482.00
$1,482.00
$2,964.00
$62.40
226.87';-2-27 �]
---.._..........._.-
203
$15,646.80
APPRAISED VALUE $9,505.43
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
TREE APPRAISAL
44
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty
February 18, 2009
ercus
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED VALUE
90%
13 SITE
75%
5.50 23.75
$1,482.00
$1,482.00 J
$2,964.00
_$62.40 _
109
$9,781.20
$5,942.08
CONT. PLACE
75% 75% 1 75%
.r.., ,...... :.Fr: ,; :f';x�� :�rf��:^v... :..r�. a .:t.!4'° .t+ .s._�; . ` ',•' `,� .`�}' _ .5;, :•,,..., �z. Vic.: „��i1 •:orf+ . i,..� .�,,:.:
TREE NUMBER 45
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
DATE February 18, 2009
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
6 SITE CONT. PLACE
75% 75% 75% 75%
90% _
5.50 23.75
$1,482.00
_$1,482.00 _
$2,964.00
$62.40
28.26 -..---.-.. - 28-----,
---4--
$3,229.20
APPRAISED VALUE $1,525.80
TREE APPRAISAL
TREE NUMBER 46
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
DATE February 18, 2009
SPECIES Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
CONDITION
75%
TRUNK DIAMETER
11 SITE CONT. PLACE
LOCATION
75% 75% 75% 75%
SPECIES RATING
90%
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
_
5.50 23.757
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
$1,482.00
INSTALLATION COST
$1,482.00
INSTALLED TREE COST
$2,964.00
UNIT TREE COST
$62.40
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
95
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
�—
71
BASIC TREE COST
$7,410.00
APPRAISED VALUE
$3,751.31
f .:" , .;; S'-'^: :'��""_T`7"�st ✓k FA.-i�( S�1 ��+A`.. �'YTS� Nl'�. :�y'�� � -tee n -.,M 4r ✓ is ll i-�t�rj4t l 1 � -r.� .,ar. '�, Jt �.{ �R �•r ,
,?
TREE NUMBER 47
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
DATE February 18, 2009
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
I 14 SITE CONT. PLACE
90%
5.50
$1,482.00
$1,482.00
$2,964.00
$62.40
153.86::'-154 j
-------- ---
130
$11,091.60
APPRAISED VALUE $6,738.15
75%
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
TREE APPRAISAL
48
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty -
February 18, 2009
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED VALUE
TREE NUMBER 49
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
DATE February 18, 2009
(Quercus
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED
70%
13 SITE CONT. PLACE
75% 75%
90%
5.50 23.75
$1,482.00
$1,482.00
$2,964.00
--$62.40
109
$9,781.20
4,621.62
80%
17 SITE CONT. PLACE
75% 75% 75%
4,75 17.71
$1,482.00
$1,482.00
$2,964.00
$83.68
226.87; 2-27
209
$20,477.71
11.057.96
75%
75%
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
TREE APPRAISAL
50
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty
February 18, 2009
SPECIES Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
CONDITION
70%
TRUNK DIAMETER
4SITE CONT_. PLACE
LOCATION ---------
--_____. ----'1--- 7b /o _...__.._.__-`-- 75 -
0 75% 0 0/o 75%
SPECIES RATING
90%
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
5.50 23.75 i
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
$1,482.00
INSTALLATION COST$1,482.0
`
0
INSTALLED TREE COST
$2,964.00
UNIT TREE COST
$6.2.4__0_
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
_
13
_
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
-11
BASIC TREE COST
$2,293.20
APPRAISED VALUE
$1,083.54
jj-�-'-.'7�+' J, ..�'"�f�"t' k. .uI Gam. � �. �. � --'•rs;r,� }� �F' }EF
Sr . �'3�a�nC:" S.. ��� �• �.. !-,is . 5'�i��34� YR�i g s g,r t �1%ii? .�9 ��.a „nr . r..:t R7�`i�d,ti�. 9``�*'+� ; s{ .. r sa••`,:;5:��'a�� �`' v •! a�!�St�<.
TREE NUMBER 109
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
DATE February 18, 2009
Live
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED VALUE
75%-----i
6 SITE CONT. PLACE
------- - - I -- 75% ---75% --- 75% 75%
5.50 23._75
$1,482.00 _
$1,482.00
$2,964.00
$62.40
28
$3,229.20
S1 _AAA 7R
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
TREE APPRAISAL
110
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty
February 18, 2009
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED VALUE
50%
2 SITE CONT.PLACE
-.._.._. .......... ..._..... -....._...-..,
75% 10% 75% 53%
5.50 - 23.75
$1,482.00
$1,482.0
$2,964.00
$62.40
3.14 --.3...__—
-21
$1,669.20
$400.61
,. n.<,i 1 �FY �l t: s �� � �v'i.J ,�.:Qf^y e }��4 �Ah�i.E'�,.°.'_^—.-..,z- ' .•fi lr•�.^..L .P` r a 4 7 �?
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
111
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty
February 18, 2009
Coast Live
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED VALUE
Quercus
50%
2 SITE CONT. PLACE
75% 10% 75% —
90%
5.50
$1,482.00
L $1,482.00 J
$2,964.00
$62.40
-21
$1,669.20
$400.61
23.75
53%
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
TREE APPRAISAL
112
Grace Baptist
Craig. Crotty
February 18, 2009
�rtUtlli coast Live vaK (uuercus agntona)
CONDITION
70%
TRUNK DIAMETER
3 ! SITE CONT. PLACE
=--
LOCATION
-- -.__._......75% - - �.0% 75% - 53%
SPECIES RATING
---
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
5.50
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
_23.75
$1,482.00
INSTALLATION COST_
$1,482_0 J
INSTALLED TREE COST
$2,964.00
UNIT TREE COST
$62.40
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA 7.07
__-_- 7
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
-17
BASIC TREE COST
$1,918.80
APPRAISED VALUE
$644.72
�+.,...dyO ���li�$:1
,� MR35
TREE NUMBER 113
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
DATE February 18, 2009
(Quercus agrifo
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
I_1»;7_\R-y:111BITM" 2
50%
3
j SITE CONT.
—
_PLACE
75% 10% 756/.
90%
5.50
_
$1,482.00
—23.75
j
$1,482.00
J
$2,964.00
$62.40
Y
-17 --
$1,918.80
-tdFn -s;l
53%
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
TREE APPRAISAL
114
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty
February 18, 2009
SPECIES Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
_
CONDITION
40%
TRUNK DIAMETER
3 SITE CONT. PLACE
LOCATION
---.... -- �I_.....-75% 10%._...._._......75% 53%
SPECIES RATING
90%
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
5.50
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
$1,482.00
INSTALLATION COST
$1,482.00
INSTALLED TREE COST .
$2,964.00
UNIT TREE COST
$62.4.0__
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA 7.077
_$62.40
__
7
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
-17
BASIC TREE COST
$1,918.80
APPRAISED VALUE
$368.41
_a� ra �.1 �cyjj'� z.z .lA,'u�,.fiS. r.$., :.: ry
TREE NUMBER 115
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
DATE February 18, 2009
SPECIES Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
_
CONDITION
50%
TRUNK DIAMETER
2 ':. SITE CONT. PLACE
LOCATION
75% 10% 75% 1 53%
SPECIES RATING.
_ _
90%
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
5.50 23_.75
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
$1,482.00
INSTALLATION COST
$1,482.00
INSTALLED TREE COST
$21964.00
UNIT TREE COST
$62.4.0__
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA3
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
.
-21 J
BASIC TREE COST
$1,669.20
APPRAISED VALUE
$400.61
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
TREE APPRAISAL
116
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty
February 18, 2009
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED VALUE
TREE NUMBER 117
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
DATE February 18, 2009
Coast Live Oak
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED VALUE
3 SITE CONT. PLACE
75% 10% 75%
90%
5.50 23.75
$1,482.00
$1,482.00
$2,964.00
$62.40
-17
$1,918.80
$598.67
53%
70%
----CONT. PLACE
75% 10% 75% 53%
,love
5.50 23.75
$1,482.00 ^'
$1,482.00
$2,964.00
$62.40
13
-11
$2,293.20
$770.52
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
TREE APPRAISAL
118
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty
February 18, 2009
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED VALUE
TREE NUMBER 119
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
DATE February 18, 2009
50%
3 SITE CONT. PLACE
75% 10% 75%
5.50 23.75
$1,482.00
L$1,482.00
$2,964.00
$62.40
7.07:-----..7-_.—�
-17
$1,918.80
$460.51
53%
SPECIES Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
–
CONDITION
70%
TRUNK DIAMETER
3 !
SITE CONT. PLACE
LOCATION_
_ _
7_5% 10% 75%� 1 53%
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
5.50
23.75
REPLACEMENT TREE COST i
$1.,482.00
INSTALLATION COST '_
$1,48_2.00
INSTALLED TREE COST
$2,964.00
UNIT TREE COST
$62.40
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
7 _ _J
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
-17
BASIC TREE COST
$1,918.80
APPRAISED VALUE
$644.72
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
TREE APPRAISAL.
120
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty
February 18, 2009
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED VALUE
TREE NUMBER 121
PROPERTY Grace Baptist
APPRAISER (ARBORIST) Craig Crotty
DATE February 18, 2009
Coast Live Oak
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
ag
- - .........70% -_....._..I
3J SITE CONT. PLACE
75% 10% 75% 53%
90%
5.50 23.75
$1,482.00
_$1,482_.00_
$2,964.00
$62.40
7.07 _7
-17
$1,918.80
72
2
SITE CONT. PLACE
-- - --- 75% 10% 75% 53%
90%
5.50 23.75
$1,482.00 !^
`_$1,482.00-
$2,964.00
$62.40
-21
$1,669.20
APPRAISED VALUE $560.85
TREE NUMBER
PROPERTY.
APPRAISER (ARBORIST)
DATE
TREE APPRAISAL
122
Grace Baptist
Craig Crotty
February 18, 2009
CONDITION
TRUNK DIAMETER
LOCATION
SPECIES RATING
REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE
REPLACEMENT TREE COST
INSTALLATION COST
INSTALLED TREE COST
UNIT TREE COST
APPRAISED TRUNK AREA
APPRAISED TREE TRUNK INCREASE
BASIC TREE COST
APPRAISED V,
5 SITE CONT. PLACE
5.50 23.75
$1,482.00
`$1,482.00
$2,964.00
_$62.40
19.63; 20
-4
$2.730.00
$1,474.
75%
Field Data Sheet: Visual Inspection From Grade
Tile, e`Numberr,.4 t
40.
41
Trunk Diameter (inches)
10
8
Height estimate in feet
11
10
P,b seal Corid�hon' :u
Potential storm drain impact Multi dia (in): 3-2-2-1-1
Retain/protect
Trunk Lean
Potential storm drain impact Multi dia (in): 3-3-2
Retain/protect
Trunk Cavi /Wound
X
Fire Damage
Damaged/Dead Structural Roots
Fill soil at Root Crown
Weak Trunk/Branch Attachments
Previous Failures
Branch Cavi /Wound
X
Disease Damage
Excessive End Weight
Dead & Broken Branches/Hangers
Thin Foliage
Drought Stressed
X
Branch Tip Decline
X
Leaf Color
Pruning Damage
X
Insect Damage in Crown
Borers/Termites
Mushrooms/Conks
Cankers/Trunk Bleeding/Oozing
Observations; ,
Remove
Construction Encroached
X
X
Relocate On Site
Unsuitable for Relocation
Pest/Disease Treatment
Restore Original Grade
Adjust Irri ation/Understo Plan
Aerate/ApplyAerate/Apply Mulch
Maintenance Pruning
Risk Level Az
Moderate Risk
X
X
Severe Risk
Critical Risk
5
Ratii
ry
"
Health
C
C
Structure
C
C
Aesthetics
C
C
Overall Rating
C
C
A -Excellent B -Good C -Fair D-Poor/Declinin F -Dead
Grace Baptist, Santa Clarita
Crown Spread
Tree #
N
Tree #
N
Tree #40 8
N
7 10
5 8
6 7
8
Tree #41 7
N
5 8
6 8
8 7
7
S
:en
k'
Tree No. 40 Quercus a rifolia
Tree
Potential storm drain impact Multi dia (in): 3-2-2-1-1
Retain/protect
Tree No. 41 Quercus agrifolia
Potential storm drain impact Multi dia (in): 3-3-2
Retain/protect
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 16, 2009
Field Data Sheet: Visual Inspection From Grade Grace Baptist, Santa Clarita
Tree Number:~
h 42 '`
43
Trunk Diameter (inches)
13
17
13
6
Height estimate in feet
16
16
12
8
Ph s�ca1 Cond�hon. :. r
Tree No.
44 Quercus a rifolia
Grading
impact
Trunk Lean
Box (in): 72
Tree No.
45 Quercus agrifolia
Grading
Trunk Cavi /Wound
Multi dia (in): 3-3
Replace w/new 36 in. box
Fire Damage
Damaged/Dead Structural Roots
Fill soil at Root Crown
Weak Trunk/Branch Attachments
Previous Failures
Branch Cavi /Wound
Disease Damage
Excessive End Weight
Dead & Broken Branches/Hangers
Thin Foliage
X
Drought Stressed
X
Branch Tip Decline
Leaf Color
Pruning Damage
Insect Damage in Crown
Borers/Termites
Mushrooms/Conks
Cankers/Trunk Bleeding/Oozing
Olzservations=kx
Remove
X
X
X
Construction Encroached
X
X
X
X
Relocate On Site
X
X
X
Unsuitable for Relocation
Pest/Disease Treatment
Restore Original Grade
Adjust Irrigation/Un derstoPlan
Aerate/ApplyAerate/Apply Mulch
Maintenance Pruning
Risk Tevel tEna x' s�
Y
Moderate Risk
Severe Risk
Critical Risk
Health
C
B
B
C
Structure
C
B
B
C
Aesthetics
B
B
B
C
Overall Rating
C
B
B
C
A-F.xrellent R-(rnnci C -Fair D-Pnnr/T)eclinin¢ F -Dead
Grown Spread
Tree #42 11
N
12 11
12 11
12 12
12
Tree #43 10
N
12 11
13 12
13 13
13
Tree #44 10
N
12 12
13 13
12 12
13
Tree #45 6
N
6 7
7 9
7 6
9
S eves/Co'mirients`tR,
Tree No.
42 Quercus a rifolia
Grading
impact
Multi dia (in): 8-5
Box (in): 72
Tree No,
43 Quercus agrifolia
Grading
impact
Multi dia (in): 8-6-5
Box (in): 84
Tree No.
44 Quercus a rifolia
Grading
impact
Multi dia in): 6-4-3
Box (in): 72
Tree No.
45 Quercus agrifolia
Grading
impact
Multi dia (in): 3-3
Replace w/new 36 in. box
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist
April 16, 2009
Field Data Sheet: Visual Inspection From Grade Grace Baptist, Santa Clarita
Tree Number 46
47
48
Trunk Diameter inches
11
14
13
17
Height estimate in feet
12
16
14
24
Eh"seal Condition. °'
Box (in): 84
Tree No,
48 Quercus a rifolia
Grading
Trunk Lean
Multi dia (in): 4-3-2-2-2
Box (in): 72
Tree No.
49 Quercus ilex
Tnuik Cavi /Wound
im act
Multi dia (in): 5-4-4-2-2
Box (in): 72
Fire Damage
Damaged/Dead Structural Roots
Fill soil at Root Crown
Weak Trunk/Branch Attachments
Previous Failures
Branch Cavi /Wound
Disease Damage
Excessive End Weight
Dead & Broken Branches/Hangers
Thin Foliage
X
X
Drought Stressed
X
X
X
Branch Tip Decline
Leaf Color
Pruning Damage
Insect Damage in Crown
Borers/Termites
Mushrooms/Conks
Cankers/Tnmk Bleeding/Oozing
Observations
Remove
X
X
X
X
Construction Encroached
X
X
X
X
Relocate On Site
X
X
X
X
Unsuitable for Relocation
Pest/Disease Treatment
Restore Original Grade
Adjust Irri ation/Understo Plan
Aerate/ApplyAerate/Apply Mulch
Maintenance Pruning
Risk,'Leuel, ,_
Moderate Risk
Severe Risk
Critical Risk
Health
C
B
C
C
Structure
C
B
C
B
Aesthetics
B
B
C
B
Overall Rating
C
B
C
B
A-PvCP11Pnt R-(tnnri ('-Fair I)-Nnor/1)Pr.hninP, h -Dead
grown a reao_
Tree #46 g
N
10 8
12 10
12 10
10
Tree #47 10
N
10 10
8 10
10 10
10
Tree #48 8
N
11 10
12 10
10 10
10
Tree #49 8
N
10 8
12 8
12 11
10
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 16, 2009
Tree No.
46 Quercus agrifolia
Gradin
impact
Multi dia (in): 5-3-3
Box (in): 60
Tree No.
47 Quercus a rifolia
Grading
impact
Multi dia (in): 4-3-3-2-2
Box (in): 84
Tree No,
48 Quercus a rifolia
Grading
impact
Multi dia (in): 4-3-2-2-2
Box (in): 72
Tree No.
49 Quercus ilex
Gradin
im act
Multi dia (in): 5-4-4-2-2
Box (in): 72
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 16, 2009
Field Data Sheet: Visual Inspection From Grade
Tree.lYumbexs" l �''� `. X50
Trunk Diameter inches
4
Height estimate in feet
14
Replace w/new 36 in. box
Trunk Lean
Trunk Cavi /Wound
Fire Damage
Damaged/Dead Structural Roots
Fill soil at Root Crown
Weak Trunk/Branch Attachments
Previous Failures
Branch Cavi /Wound
Disease Damage
Excessive End Weight
Dead & Broken Branches/Hangers
Thin Foliage
Drought Stressed
Branch Tip Decline
Leaf Color
Pruning Damage
Insect Damage in Crown
Borers/Termites
Mushrooms/Conks
Cankers/Trunk Bleeding/Oozing
Observations:;
Remove
X
Construction Encroached
X
Relocate On Site
Unsuitable for Relocation
Pest/Disease Treatment
Restore Original Grade
Adjust Irri ation/Understo Plan
Aerate/ApplyAerate/Apply Mulch
Maintenance Pruning
Risk tievel3�Ffi .,
ti ... _... _ j .
Moderate Risk
Severe Risk
Critical Risk
Health
C
Structure
C
Aesthetics
C
Overall Ratio
C
A -Excellent B -Good C -Fair D-Poor/DeclininQ F -Dead
Grace Baptist, Santa Clarita
u town -)preaa
Tree #50 3
N
4 2
8 3
8 7
8
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 16, 2009
Tree No. 50 Quercus agrifolia
Grading impact
Replace w/new 36 in. box
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 16, 2009
Field Data Sheet: Visual Inspection From Grade Grace Baptist, Santa Clarita
Tree`Nurribe'r`-t fir- :..: '.? ..::..
1'09
Trunk Diameter (inches)
6
2
2
Height (estimate in feet)
15
9
9
Ph sical�Condihont4..
Multi dia in): 2
Replace w/new 24 in box
Trunk Lean
Trunk Cavi /Wound
X
Fire Damage
Damaged/Dead Structural Roots
Fill soil at Root Crown
Weak Trunk/Branch Attachments
Previous Failures
Branch Cavi /Wound
X
Disease Damage
Excessive End Weight
Dead & Broken Branches/Hangers
Thin Foliage
X
Drought Stressed
X
X
Branch Tip Decline
Leaf Color
Pruning Damage
Insect Damage in Crown
Borers/Termites
Mushrooms/Conks
Cankers/Trunk Bleeding/Oozing
..a J
. �
Remove
X
X
X
Construction Encroached
X
X
X
Relocate On Site
Unsuitable for Relocation
X
X
Pest/Disease Treatment
Restore Original Grade
Adjust Irri ation/Understo Plan
Aerate/ApplyAerate/Apply Mulch
Maintenance Pruning
Risk'Le�el.rY,`{
Moderate Risk
Severe Risk
Critical Risk
Health
C
D
D
Structure
C
C
C
Aesthetics
B
C
D
Overall Rating
C+
D
D
A -Excellent B -Good C -Fair D-Poor/Declinin2 F -Dead
crown apreaa
Tree #
N
e #109 10
N
8 8
7 8
7 7
9
e #110 3
N
3 3
4 3
4
4
e #111 3
N
3 4
3 4
3 6
6
r
S'.ecies/Comments., :r
.
Tree No. 109 Quercus agrifolia Grading impact
Multi dia (in): 6
Replace w/new 48 in box
Tree No, 110 Quercus agrifolia Grading impact
Multi dia (in): 2
Replace w/new 24 in box
Tree No. 111 Quercus agrifolia Grading impact
Multi dia in): 2
Replace w/new 24 in box
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 16, 2009
Field Data Sheet: Visual Inspection From Grade
Tree -Number
N
5
Tree No,
Trunk Diameter (inches)
3
3
3
2
Height (estimate in feet)
12
10
8
9
Ph seal Condition}' „7,1
Tree No,
114 Quercus agrifolia
Grading
impact
Trunk Lean
Replace w/36 in box
Tree No,
115 Quercus agrifolia
Grading
Trunk Cavi /Wound
Not recommended for transplant
Replace w/24 in box
Fire Damage
Damaged/Dead Structural Roots
Fill soil at Root Crown
Weak Trunk/Branch Attachments
Previous Failures
Branch Cavi /Wound
Disease Damage
Excessive End Weight
Dead & Broken Branches/Hangers
Thin Foliage
X
X
X
Drought Stressed
X
X
X
X
Branch Tip Decline
Leaf Color
Pruning Damage
Insect Damage in Crown
Borers/Termites
Mushrooms/Conks
Cankers/Trunk Bleeding/Oozing
Obse �ahons
Remove
X
X
X
X
Construction Encroached
X
X
X
X
Relocate On Site
Unsuitable for Relocation
X
X
X
X
Pest/Disease Treatment
Restore Original Grade
Adjust Irri ation/Understo Plan
Aerate/ApplyAerate/Apply Mulch
Maintenance Pruning
Ris1c;I evel r —
Moderate Risk
Severe Risk
Critical Risk
Rahn"
Health
C
D
D
C
Structure
C
C
D
D
Aesthetics
C
D
D
D
Overall Rating
C
D
D
D
A-F.Yet-Hent R-C;nnd C -Fair D-Ponr/nenlininv F -bend
Grace Baptist, Santa Clarita
crown bDreaa
e #112 3
N
3 3
3 4
3 4
5
e #113 3
N
3 4
3 5
4 .5
5
#114
e #115 3
N
3 3
3 3
5 5
5
S ecies/ComMew ts .:
N
5
Tree No,
112 Quercus a rifolia
5
impact
Not recommended for transplant
5
Tree No.
113 Quercus agrifolia
6
impact
5
Replace w/ 36 in box
e #115 3
N
3 3
3 3
5 5
5
S ecies/ComMew ts .:
.., ..
Tree No,
112 Quercus a rifolia
Grading
impact
Not recommended for transplant
Replace w/ 36 in box
Tree No.
113 Quercus agrifolia
Grading
impact
Not recommended for transplant
Replace w/ 36 in box
Tree No,
114 Quercus agrifolia
Grading
impact
Not recommended for transplant
Replace w/36 in box
Tree No,
115 Quercus agrifolia
Grading
impact
Not recommended for transplant
Replace w/24 in box
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist
April 16, 2009
Field Data Sheet: Visual Inspection From Grade Grace Baptist, Santa Clarita
Tree:�Number-: . '. f::
116;:
11'7
=';118
119
Trunk Diameter (inches)
3
4
3
3
Height estimate in feet
10
12
10
10
P,h '.sical Con''d►t►on-
Grading
impact
Replace w/new 36 in box
Tree No.
Trunk Lean
Grading
impact
Replace w/new 36 in box
Trunk Cavi /Wound
Fire Damage
Damaged/Dead Structural Roots
Fill soil at Root Crown
Weak Trunk/Branch Attachments
Previous Failures
Branch Cavi /Wound
Disease Damage
Excessive End Weight
Dead & Broken Branches/Hangers
Thin Foliage
X
Drought Stressed
X
X
X
X
Branch Tip Decline
Leaf Color
Pruning Damage
Insect Damage in Crown
Borers/Termites
Mushrooms/Conks
Cankers/Trunk BIeedin Oozin
Observat►ons'�
`'
Remove
X
X
X
X
Construction Encroached
X
X
X
X
Relocate On Site
Unsuitable for Relocation
Pest/Disease Treatment
Restore Original Grade
Adjust Irri ation/Understo Plan
Aerate/ApplyAerate/Apply Mulch
Maintenance Prunin
R►sk;Level F �4x r F � ,� � a� � �� ,� � x s a
Moderate Risk
Severe Risk
Critical Risk
W,
Health
C-
C
D
C
Structure
C
C
C
C
Aesthetics
C
C
D
C
Overall Rating
C
C
D
C
A-Pvrallant R_(;nnri r -Fair Il-Pnnr/nPr.1inino F+'-I)eari
Lrown �weaa
e #116 6
N
5 5
3 4
4 3
4
Tree #117 6
N
6 7
7 6
6 6
6
49
e #118 5
N
3 5
6 5
6 5
7.
e #119 4
N
3 3
2 3
3 3
4
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 16, 2009
Tree No.
116 Quercus a rifolia
Grading
impact
Replace w/new 36 in box
Tree No.
117 Quercus a rifolia
Grading
impact
Replace w/new 48 in box
Tree No.
118 Quercus a rifolia
Grading
impact
Replace w/new 36 in box
Tree No.
119 Quercus a rifolia
Grading
impact
Replace w/new 36 in box
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 16, 2009
Field Data Sheet: Visual Inspection From Grade
U
T'M'N' - Mbe"Ir
Trunk Diameter (inches) 3 2 5
Height (estimate in feet) 12 10 14
kfiyi4 W31- idf
Trunklean
Damaged/Dead Structural Roots
Fill soil at Root Crown
Weak Trunk/Branch Attachments
Previous Failures
Branch Cavi /Wound
Disease Damage
Excessive End Weight
Dead & Broken Branches/Hangers
Thin Foliage
Drought Stressed
x
x
Branch Tip Decline
Leaf Color
Pruning Damage
Insect Damage in Crown
Borers/Termites
Mushrooms/Conks
Cankers/Trunk Bleeding/Oozing
Remove
x
x
x
Construction Encroached
x
x
x
Relocate On Site
Unsuitable for Relocation
Pest/Disease Treatment
Restore Original Grade
Adjust Irrigation/Understory Plan
Aerate/Apply Mulch
Maintenance Pruning
Moderate Risk
Severe Risk
Critical Risk
E't
Health
C
C
B
Structure
C
C
C
Aesthetics
C
C
B
Overall Rating
C
C
B
A -Excellent B -Good C -Fair D-Poor/Declining F -Dead
en.
8jW'69/c-6i M" m- -6 ,
Tree No. 120 Quercus agrifolia Grading impact Replace w/new 36 in box
Tree No. 121 Quercus agrifolia Grading impact Replace w/new 24 in box
Tree No. 122 Quercus aErifolia Grading impact Replace w/new 48 in, box
Grace Baptist, Santa Clarita
Crown Spread
Tree #120 4
N
5 4 6
4 4
4
Tree #121 2
N
2 3 3
3 2
3
Tree #122 5
N
\/— 5 6
6 6
6
Tree #
N
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist April 16, 2009
4A X
Grace Baptist Church Oaks #43 thru #50 Upper Dirt Parking Impact Area
These Oaks (#43 through #50) at the upper drive and parking area
may be relocated due to grading. Photo looks north.
Another view of Oaks that could be relocated, looking east.
Photo shows #46 at left to #43 at right.
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist February 18, 2009
H_ r �� i,.x t y r`w� � i �a n� x s�-•�, ;� `fir ��y �' �
+'�Q�''A-9-1 h Y..- td'`?�: xii $..iy�L "�"✓Y,p,,
N.`4 ,',i
c v •! -t 'ti ,rt '�/' 6k.�, i 'h. �+� 'ice y /V'�` "r?c
w
y3»ter rn Vie".
:
a
c •�'*`' tire- � r .5,��,,,0.1iC-y,.-.s T�'+.?{.
�.^� ems. .•!.'�. � �,i•F s
i"
{
X ,`E��i1�� � ix' � �j S 1 � Yp�Jia.?y � x' f ,�~ . �'^ `? � l } t �.K �
"�I. �'y„Elr�'�C i,�� �y.a �' 1 ' � 1 r5 � t y�n'r�(4 kl .
7wfbJ f i'. T 1.p1 xL. � .F:� a _ �� .f r
`�- 3=
� •, �'
S ,i
f
`}1.
a7'+,kf �•r'`G a211
41
Ir"
ti 2 K �.. th eFt up: is, r,^-3 rss�E'S Psfi�rp1'h, ^Fi'aasM1fA,n
�i�pi��r'k��'�N
.+.-tip sd2t!SrD1.-'4-�
h W�r��tra?K
+ I
t y
'w r
kt y,
�
f� 7Fµ ��
��, ,� ' ���t rye. ��§ �',;�.�oF rSa ` � �. •i '1{ Yom. -, 'r` �;
M'Yr
.44
3r �: tit.",` `^ �� �•I .� � r .
Krti
j",
,'1 arrk��"�i � �*�"YiY' s Fc- • Zo. s iV�,, l...x'�
r , .....: 4: �y.5.: � 1!J ."r�.�':S ���d.\'! &'s:;�7.fir.�'" a� �,>'✓,: f�i A�:... _: � a7_ r �3� . _.,rl' _ .- ..
/ `L•�. r�--�`\' a'1�%i yet t �t >✓f/r":t.�.��j«1�+J't+�,'f�.i�T't d �rY
' �,at dt"�i,x1y. sir 't � a '��r}r.(•�'is.3�.�����ri- °
,.r.=�-
�;
Grace Baptist Church
Oak #122
Oak #122 — Recommended to relocate.
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist February 18, 2009
Grace Baptist Church Oaks #40, #41, #42 Storm Drain/North Parkina Area
These two Oaks along the upper drive will have a storm drain installed at the curb.
They should be retained, protected with fencing and monitored. Photo looks east.
Oak #42 is at left, #41 and #40 are up to the light standard, looking south east.
These three trees may be retained, protected and monitored during close -by
storm drain excavation.
Craig Crotty, Consulting Arborist February 18, 2009
1
cn
C)0
x
F
W
O
O
d
E
N
ou
UO
a
x
Y
<
Q
O
O
N
0-
N
O Z x of ,--I
/ II
za:ooros�
!'i=G1
418p!
18e1`y
pggOe
9�$1
p:a,�ptD
Inti!€