HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 11 178 APPEAL (2)CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
Agenda Item: 7
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
December 11, 2012
Jason Smisko
APPROVAL OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE A 2.01 -ACRE RESIDENTIAL PARCEL INTO TWO
NEW RESIDENTIAL PARCELS IN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW
ZONE. AN OAK TREE PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW
FOR THE REMOVAL OF TWO NON -HERITAGE OAK TREES
Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council adopt a resolution approving appeal of Planning Commission denial and adopting a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving a request for Tentative Parcel Map 71806 to
subdivide a 2.01 acre residential parcel into two new residential parcels in the residential low
zone and approve associated Oak Tree Permit 11-040, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND
The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this project on November 27, 2012. The
City Council closed the public hearing, conducted Council discussion on the item including
required findings for approving the entitlements and directed staff to return with a resolution for
the City Council granting the appeal and approving the proposed project. As directed by the
Council, staff conferred with the neighboring property owner and Condition of Approval PL9
was added regarding landscaping screening between the proposed project and the neighboring
property line to the southwest at 24834 Meadview. Based on Council comments, Condition PL 10
was added regarding the inclusion of clearly noted surveyed engineering markings between the
two residential properties being established.
Ado pieuc IPSO ► 2-
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This is an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial where the applicant is requesting
Tentative Parcel Map 71806 to subdivide a 2.01 -acre parcel into two lots. Lot 1 would consist of
one acre (43,749 square feet gross, 36,812 square feet net) and Lot 2 would consist of 1.01 -acre
(44,151 square feet gross, 43,501 square feet net). The applicant also proposes to create a 4,000
square -foot building pad to accommodate a single-family home. The building pad would require
1,364 cubic yards of grading. The project would also allow for the removal of two non -heritage
oak trees and for eight oak tree encroachments. Impact from a single-family home was analyzed
as part of the project's Initial Study. A new residence on the subject property would require the
approval of the requested Tentative Parcel Map and Oak Tree Permit, and also the issuance of a
separate Administrative Permit.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this project.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Initial Study/MND/MMRP available in the City Clerk's Reading File
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
GRANTING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING MASTER CASE NUMBER 11-178
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 71806 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 11-040) FOR THE
SUBDIVISION OF ONE 2.01 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS ZONED
RESIDENTIAL LOW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24387 QUIGLEY CANYON
ROAD (APN 2834-028-034) IN THE PLACERITA CANYON COMMUNITY WITHIN THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
a. The subject property is located at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road and consists of Assessor
Parcel Number 2834-028-034, and is located in the Placerita Canyon neighborhood in the
community of Newhall in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, California;
b. On December 28, 2011, an entitlement application for Master Case No. 11-178, consisting of
a request for Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040, was filed by Mr.
Curtis Hairell, hereafter referred to as "the applicant;"
C. The application for Master Case 11-178 and its associated entitlement was deemed complete
on July 16, 2012;
d. The General Plan land use designation and zoning classification for the subject property is
Non -Urban 5 (NU5) which is a single-family detached category with a density of one unit per
gross acre;
e. The Zoning designation for the subject property is Residential Low (RL) which allows for a
maximum density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre with a minimum net lot size 20,000 square
feet (Unified Development Code (UDC) § 17.15.010);
f The surrounding land uses consist of residential parcels zoned RL and designated as NU5
under the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (General Plan);
g. The subject property is located within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District, is
subject to the development standards listed in UDC §17.16.080, and is served by all
applicable utilities for the Placerita Canyon community;
h. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on September 18,
2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Santa Clarita City Council Chambers located at 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. The Planning Commission closed the public
hearing and continued the item to October 16, 2012, and directed staff to prepare a resolution
to deny the project without prejudice based on the project site being physically unsuitable for
the type of development and proposed density of development;
9
Resolution 12 -
Master Case 11-178
December 11, 2012 - Page 2 of 7
At the hearing on October 16, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted the resolution of
denial for the proposed two lot subdivision;
The applicant filed a written appeal of the Planning Commission's action on October 17,
2012, to the City Clerk's Office;
k. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this project on November 27, 2012, at
6:00 p.m. in the Santa Clarita City Council Chambers located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Santa Clarita, California, 91355, The City Council closed the public hearing and directed
staff to return with a resolution for the City Council granting the appeal and approving the
proposed project;
1. The City Council held a duly noticed meeting on this issue on December 11, 2012. The City
Council adopted this resolution granting the appeal and approving the proposed project;
In. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391, and
65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed as well as the
public noticing requirements set forth in Section 17.01.100 of the UDC.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA)
FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council further finds and
determines as follows:
a. An Initial Study was prepared for the project that analyzed potential environmental impacts
associated with both the proposed two -lot residential subdivision as well as the construction
of a potential single-family home on the newly -created parcel;
b. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared that included mitigation measures
pertaining to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Noise;
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
reflect the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita;
d. The City Council, based on the findings as set forth above, hereby finds that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project has
been prepared in compliance with CEQA; and
e. The location of the documents and other materials, which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based on, is the Master Case 11-
178 (Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040) project file within the
Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community
Development.
Resolution 12 -
Master Case 11-178
December 11, 2012 - Page 3 of 7
SECTION 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and
findings (Section 17.03.030 of the UDC), the City Council hereby determines as follows:
a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the General Plan, the UDC, and any specific plan.
The applicant is requesting to subdivide a 2.01 -acre property into two new residential
parcels. Lot 1 would contain one acre (43,749 square feet) and Lot 2 would contain 1.01 acre
(44,151 square feet). The General Plan density for the NU5 designation is one dwelling unit
per one acre. The UDC allows for 2.2 dwelling units per acre with a required minimum net -
lot size of 20,000 square feet in the RL zone. The subject property is not located in a Specific
Plan area, but is located within the boundaries of the Placerita Canyon Special Standards
District. As proposed, the two lots created by this subdivision would be able to be developed
in accordance with the development standards listed in Section 17.16.080 of the UDC, and
would likewise be consistent with other sections of the UDC as well as the General Plan.
Although issues of "apparent density" greater than 1 unit per acre based upon considering the
subject property in conjunction with adjacent properties were raised at the appeal hearing for
the project, and based upon additional information provided at the hearing, the City Council
determined this property should be evaluated without regard to adjacent properties for
purposes of determining consistency with General Plan density. The division of this 2.01 -
acre property into two residential parcels each greater than 1 acre is consistent with the
General Plan density limit of one unit per acre.
b. The project site is physically suited for the type of development.
The subject property is currently developed as a residential property with equestrian
facilities. The project site is flat, has access to both Quigley Canyon Road and Meadview
Avenue, and is consistent with other residential lots in the immediate vicinity. The western
portion of the subject property is overlain by a flood hazard zone that also affects
surrounding properties. The parcel map identifies a potential building pad that is not located
within the flood hazard area and that would be viable as a location for a single-family
residence. The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that a home could be constructed on
the newly created parcel would meet development requirements of the RL zone, including
the placement of an on-site wastewater disposal (septic) system. Further, both resulting
parcels are sufficiently large to meet the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District
requirements for allowance of equestrian uses on the property—specifically, that horses can
be maintained on property greater than 5000 square feet. Accordingly, the subject property is
physically suited for the type of development that would be reasonably foreseen as a result of
the proposed subdivision.
C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The subject property is 2.01 acres. Under the General Plan, the property is designated as
NU5, which allows for a density of one dwelling unit per acre. The subject property is zoned
S
Resolution 12 -
Master Case 11-178
December 11, 2012 - Page 4 of 7
RL which permits a density of 2.2 units per acre with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square
feet. The subject property is currently developed with a single-family home and equestrian
facilities including a barn, stables, and corrals. A home could be built on the newly created
parcel. The site is suitable for the proposed density of the project because each lot would be
at least one acre in size, is flat, has adequate access for private and emergency vehicles, and
is served by all applicable utilities. The parcels created by this subdivision would meet the
density requirement listed in the General Plan and the UDC. The parcels would also be
substantially similar to other parcels in the immediate vicinity and would not require any
significant grading or other major site preparations to accommodate the proposed density of
one dwelling unit per acre.
d The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their
habitat.
There are no water bodies on or adjacent to the project site and the design of the subdivision
has taken into account the location of the existing oak trees. The subject property is not
considered to be in an environmentally sensitive area and the project would not cause
substantial environmental damage, nor would the project injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat.
The parcel map has been designed to preserve existing shrubs where possible, and the
building pad was situated in a location that is sensitive to the oak trees located on the site.
e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious health
problems.
The applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing residential lot into two new residential
lots. The subject property has an existing home that was built in 1978. The property also
contains a horse barn, stables, corrals, and other equestrian amenities. Upon recordation of
the parcel map, a single-family residence could be constructed on the new lot. Although
concerns were raised during the appeal hearing regarding flooding, as indicated by staff at the
appeal hearing, development of the property would be required to conform to all flood zone
regulations. Further, the anticipated residential structure proposed to be constructed is
approximately the same size as the barn that would be removed to accommodate such
structure, thus there would not be a materially greater amount of impermeable structure
square footage. Finally, information was provided at the appeal hearing advising that impacts
on drainage resulting from any development of the site would be addressed in conjunction
with grading permits required for any such development. Nothing in the subdivision process,
or in the normal construction methods of a single-family home, would be expected to create
serious health problems.
f The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, or for access through or use ofproperty within the proposed
subdivision.
The existing parcel takes its primary access from Quigley Canyon Road and has secondary
Resolution 12 -
Master Case II -178
December 11, 2012 - Page 5 of 7
access from Meadview Avenue. The two new parcels created by the subdivision would
continue to take access from Quigley Canyon Road. The design of the subdivision will not
conflict with any easements or public access in the Placerita Canyon neighborhood. The
project would be conditioned to offer an easement on Quigley Canyon Road for trail
purposes.
SECTION 4. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and
findings (Section 17.03.140 of the UDC), the City Council hereby determines as follows:
a. The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health,
balance, or structure.
b. The condition of the trees) with respect to disease, danger offalling, proximity to existing
lots, pedestrian walkways, or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or
remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices.
C. 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 ofthe tree and no reasonable alternative, can be accommodated due to the unique
physical development constraints of the property.
d. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose
and intent of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.
e. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one or more of the above findings are made
and the decision maker also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would
prevent any reasonable development ofthe property and that no reasonable alternative can
be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property. It shall further be
found that the removal ofsuch heritage oak tree will not be unreasonable(ly] detrimental to
the community and surrounding area. (Ordinance 08-13 ,¢2, 8126108).
All heritage -specimen oak trees will be preserved in place. The applicant would be allowed
to remove two non -heritage oak trees as part of this project. Each oak tree slated for removal
has experienced trunk failure or is situated in a manner that creates issues with existing
overhead utilities. Oak Tree No. 73 leans approximately 30 degrees to the south, indicating a
girdled root system. This tree is also located directly under a power line that traverses the
property. As a result, the Oak Tree No. 73 is required to be "topped" to stay clear of power
lines—a condition that results in a "pancaking" of the canopy that will only exacerbate the
lean and imbalance currently existing. Oak Tree No. 75 has significant borer damage and has
lost half of its canopy due to failure. Thus, the two trees have health concerns. Further,
although a driveway could be routed around Oak Tree No. 73, its continued horizontal
growth will ultimately conflict with such a driveway, and the need to maintain clear passage
for tall vehicles (such as emergency vehicles) will require further trimming which would
negatively impact the tree. City staff worked with the property owner to develop the project,
and based upon constraints of the minimum lot size, flood zone, sewer system, parcel shape
Resolution 12 -
Master Case 11-178
December 11, 2012 - Page 6 of 7
and access, as testified to by both proponents and opponents of the project at the appeal
hearing, the City Council determines that for purposes of the oak tree ordinance findings, no
reasonable alternative to removal of the two oaks exists. Oak Tree No. 73 and No. 75 would
be removed and 5 additional 24 -inch box trees would be planted to mitigate for the loss. In
keeping with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance and policies, should the applicant be unable to
find suitable areas on the property to plant five additional trees, the applicant would have the
option of planting larger specimens and/or making a payment into the City's Oak Tree
Preservation Fund. The Oak Tree Permit would also allow for encroachment into the
protected zone of eight oak trees to accommodate the proposed building pad and associated
driveway. All encroachments are subject to the Conditions of Approval and include
protective measures and methods to ensure that the oak trees remain healthy and viable.
Therefore, the project meets the burden for Findings 1-4 as listed above.
SECTION 4. Based upon the findings of fact, the staff report (including staff report and
materials from the Planning Commission hearings), written correspondence and oral
testimony presented at the appeal hearing, the City Council does hereby grant the appeal,
overturning the Planning Commission decision on the project and further does hereby adopt
Resolution 12- , adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and approving Master Case No. 1 1-178 and its associated entitlements,
including Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040, subject to the
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A).
SECTION 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption,
I
Resolution 12 -
Master Case 11-178
December 11, 2012 - Page 7 of 7
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December 2012.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
INTERIM CITY CLERK
UM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
1, Armine Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 11 th day of December 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
INTERIM CITY CLERK
I
EXHIBIT A
MASTER CASE 11-178
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 71806 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 11-040
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GC 1. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced within two
years from the date of conditional approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the
terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code (UDC).
GC2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date
of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to
expiration.
GC3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Director of Community Development, in
writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the status of
the developer, within 30 days of said change.
GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant
and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant
shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or
employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this project by the City, which
action is provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes
aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant,
or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this
condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or
proceeding, if both of the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorneys' fees and
costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to
pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant.
GC5. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the
City.
GC6. The applicant and property owner shall comply with all inspection requirements as deemed
necessary by the City of Santa Clarita.
►D
Master Case I1-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page 2 of 14
GC7. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval agrees to develop
the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the
Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical
Code, Zoning Ordinance, Under grounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and
Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Ordinance and Fire Code. '
GC8. The applicant must sign and notarize an affidavit (Acceptance Form) to confirm acceptance
of the conditions of this grant. The notarized affidavit must then be returned to the Planning
Division before approval is granted.
PLANNING DIVISION
PLI. The applicant shall be granted approval to subdivide subject parcel 2834-028-034 into two
lots, in accordance with Tentative Parcel Map 71806 as approved by the Planning
Commission. The applicant is also granted approval to remove two non -heritage oak trees
and to encroach into the protected zones of eight oak trees in accordance with Oak Tree
Permit 11-040.
PL2. The final map shall be in substantial conformance with Tentative Tract Map 71806 on file
with the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department.
PL3. The applicant shall be in conformance with the conditions of approval and all mitigation
measures as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Master Case No. 11-178.
PL4. Future uses shall be required to comply with the zoning requirements in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
PL5. Each lot created by this subdivision shall have a minimum net area measuring not less than
20,000 square feet.
PL6. The project site is within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District. As such, all
development shall be consistent with the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District as
stated in Section 17.16.080 (Placerita Canyon Special Standards) of the Unified
Development Code.
PL7. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall apply for an Administrative
Permit for the construction of a single family home.
PL8. All construction activities shall be limited to the allowable hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall not be
allowed at anytime on Sundays or on public holidays.
Master Case 11-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page 3 of 14
PL9. Landscaping shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development
to provide appropriate screening between the proposed project and the neighboring property
line to the southwest at 24834 Meadview Avenue.
PL10. To the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, surveyed engineering markings shall be
clearly noted on the property line being established between the two residences.
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 Parcel Map prepared by or under the direction of a
person licensed to practice land surveying in the State of California shall be filed in the
Office of the County Recorder, in compliance with applicable City of Santa Clarita, County
of Los Angeles, and State of California Codes.
EN3. Prior to Parcel Map approval, the applicant shall record a covenant for easement of all shared
driveways and drive isles, and common landscaping/slope maintenance areas, as directed by
the City Engineer.
EN4. Prior to Parcel Map approval, the applicant shall remove existing structures identified to be
removed on the Tentative Parcel Map.
EN5. At map check submittal, the applicant shall provide a preliminary Parcel Map guarantee. A
final Parcel Map guarantee is required prior to Parcel Map approval.
EN6. Prior to Parcel Map approval, the applicant shall provide a Will Serve Letter from all
necessary utilities stating that service will be provided to this property.
Grading, Drainage & Geology Requirements
ENT Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent with
the approved tentative map, 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.
Iv
Master Case 11-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page 4 of 14
EN8. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for
grading over all private or utility easements.
EN9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct all grading and drainage
facilities within the project site.
EN10. Should this project disturb one acre or more of land, 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 Prevehtion Plan (S WPPP).
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.
Flood Plain/Hazard Area Requirements
EN 11. A portion of the property is located in FEMA Flood Zone (AO) in accordance with the
Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs).
A. The applicant shall comply with requirements for construction of structures within a
flood plain/hazard area. All structures within the flood plain/hazard area shall have the
finish floor or non -flood protected materials elevated P-0" above the Base Flood
Elevation.
EN 12. Prior to Building Permit or Parcel Map approval, whichever comes first, the applicant shall
provide documentation identifying the purpose of the recorded flood hazard area. In addition,
any proposed structures need to comply with the requirements of this recorded flood hazard
area, unless vacated.
EN13. Prior to Parcel Map approval, the applicant shall place a note of flood hazard on the Parcel
Map, delineating the areas subject to flood hazard, and dedicating to the City the right to
restrict the erection of buildings and other structures in the flood hazard areas.
Street Improvement Requirements
EN 14. Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, curb and
gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public or private street right-of-way, the applicant
shall submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved tentative map, oak tree
report and conditions of approval and obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering
Division.
13
Master Case I1-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page 5 of 14
EN15. The design and improvement of any such private street shall be subject to all of the
requirements prescribed by this Title 16 for public streets.
ENI 6. Prior to Parcel Map approval, the applicant shall offer private and future street right-of-way
for a total of 30 feet from centerline on Meadview Avenue within the project site, as directed
by the City Engineer.
EN 17. Prior to the Parcel Map being filed with the County Recorder, the applicant shall not grant or
record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for
public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements;
unless subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the
date of tentative map approval, subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior
to the filing of the Parcel Map.
Sewer Improvement Requirements
EN 18. Prior to Parcel Map approval, the applicant shall obtain approval from the County of Los
Angeles Health Department for the location of the proposed septic system. Due to possible
site constraints (oak trees, water wells, floodplains, high ground water table), a viable
location for the septic system may be difficult to establish. The applicant shall comply with
FEMA Publication 348 for construction of a sewage system in a FEMA flood hazard area.
Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements
EN 19. Prior to Parcel Map approval, 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 Via Princessa B&T District. The current rate for this District is
$18,890. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment.
Standard B&T Fee Calculation:
Single Family = the number of units (1) x the district rate ($18,890) _ $18,890 until June
30, 2013.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FDI. Access shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access.
All weather access may require paving.
Master Case 11-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page 6 of 14
FD2. Fire Department Access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion
of all structures.
FD3. Where driveways extend further than 150 feet, and are of single access design, turnarounds
suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map.
Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to ensure their integrity for Fire
Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that
extend over 150 feet in length.
FD4. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane"
with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code.
All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction.
FD5. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all
required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and acceptedprior
to construction.
FD6. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as "Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone" (formerly Fire Zone 4). A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be
submitted and approved prior to final map clearance. For more details, place contact the Fuel
Modi fication Unit, Fire Station 932, 605 North Angeleno Avenue, Azusa, CA, 91702-2904,
Phone (626) 969-5205.
FD7. Provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to
occupancy.
FD8. Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles
Fire Department, for all land shown on the map which shall be recorded.
FD9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 5,000 gallons per minute at
20 psi for a duration for five hours, over and above maximum daily demand. Three hydrants
flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow.
FD10. Fire hydrant requirements are as follows: Verify/Upgrade two existing public fire hydrants.
FDI 1. All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA
standard C503 or approved equal. All on-site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25'
from a structure or protected by a two hour rated firewall. The location shall be as per the
map that is on file with the office.
j<
MasterCase II -178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page 7 of 14
FD 12. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted or bonded for, prior to Final
Map approval. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction.
FD13. Upgrade of the fire hydrant is not necessary if existing hydrants meet fire flow requirements.
FD 14. The applicant shall submit the original copy of the Fire Flow Availability Form (Form 195)
to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for review.
FD15. Two public fire hydrants are required to be flow tested. The fire hydrant located
approximately 75 feet south of the closest property line on Quigley Canyon Road and the
hydrant noted on the site plan on Meadview Avenue.
FD16. The applicant shall provide a minimum unobstructive driveway width of 20 feet, clear -to -
sky, to be posted "NO PARKING — FIRE LANE".
FD 17. The applicant shall provide a Fire Department turnaround as noted on the site plan. The Fire
Department turnaround shall be posted "NO PARKING — FIRE LANE".
FD18. The applicant shall provide the following information to reduce the fire flow:
a. Provide the total square -footage for each floor of the existing residential building and
the new residential building.
b, Verify the type and construction of each building.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
GENERAL COMMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS:
BSI. All structures shall comply with the detailed requirements of the 2007 California Building,
Mechanical, Plumbing Codes, and Electrical Code, 2007 California Energy Code, and the
2008 City of Santa Clarita amendments to the California codes. A copy of the City
amendments is available at the Building and Safety public counter and on the City's website.
BS2. Two complete sets of plans prepared by a licensed Architect or Engineer shall be submitted
to Building and Safety for a building permit(s). The submitted plans shall include
architectural and structural plans, structural and energy calculations, soil/geology report, truss
drawings and calculations (if used), etc.
BS3. A complete soils and geology report will be required for the project. The report shall be
fornially submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval.
ON
Master Case 1 1-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page 8 of 14
BS4. Prior to issuance of building permits: any rough grading and/or recompaction recommended
in the soil/geology report must be completed. A final compaction report and pad certification
shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division.
BSS. On-site drain, waste and sewer lines and laterals shall have a minimum 2% slope per
California Plumbing Code. Set your pad accordingly.
BS6. Prior to issuance of building permits, approvals from the following agencies will be required:
a. William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district,
b. Castaic Lake Water Agency,
c. L. A. County Sanitation District,
d. L. A. County Health Services, Water & Sewerage Control (for on-site sewers).
An agency referral list is available at the Building and Safety public counter.
BST Prior to submitting plans to Building and Safety, please contact Deanna Hamrick or Marie
Centeno, (661) 255-4935, for project addressing.
BSB. The Building and Safety Division is scanning plans for permanent storage. To facilitate this
effort, please incorporate the following information into the plans:
a. The Permit Number, Sheet Title, and the Sheet Number shall be located in the lower
right hand corner of each sheet of the drawings.
b. A copy of the Planning Conditions.
C. The Truss drawings.
d. ICBG, UL and other outside agency reports for products or materials, when those
reports contain information required by the contractor for construction or installation.
The Recommendation Section of the Soils Report.
BS9. These conditions are based on a review of conceptual plans submitted by the applicant. A
thorough review will be performed and specific comments will be generated when the final
plans are submitted to Building and Safety.
PARKS AND RECREATION
PRI. Prior to the recordation of an applicable final tract/parcel map, the applicant shall pay the
required Park Dedication Fee equal to the value of the amount of land established per the
City's General Plan, "Parks and Recreation Element." The estimated fee amount is $15,769.
The applicant may be required to provide a certified MAI real estate appraisal to establish the
I
Master Case I I-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page 9 of 14
Fair Market Value (FMV) of an acre of land within this project.
PR2. The applicant shall provide the City with an irrevocable offer of dedication for a 12' wide
multi -use trail along Quigley Canyon Road. The applicant shall keep the 12' wide area free
from permanent structures. The City's Master Plan of Trails designates this corridor as a
backbone trail connection.
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
SDI. The applicant shall annex the property into the City's Streetlight Maintenance District (SMD)
for the operations and maintenance of streetlighting and traffic signals. A minimum of 120
days is required to process the annexation, which shall be completed prior to final map
approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
When a single family home is constructed on the proposed new parcel, the following conditions shall
apply:
ES 1. New construction projects valuated greater than $500,000 shall comply with the City's
Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance.
ES2. C&D Materials Recycling Ordinance:
• 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 Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste must be recycled or reused
rather than disposing in a landfill.
A deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $25,000, whichever is less, is
required. The full deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50% of the
inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused.
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 at 661-286-4098 for a complete list of franchised haulers in the
City.
ES4. All single family residential dwellings shall be designed with space provided for three 90 -
gallon trash bins; one each for trash, recycling, and greenwaste.
Master Case I I-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page 10 of 14
TRANSIT DIVISION
TRI. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the Transit Impact Fee. The
current fee is $200 per residential unit, but the fee is under revision. The applicant shall pay
the fee that is in place at the time that building permits are pulled.
URBAN FORESTRY
UFl . The applicant and their contractors shall be in compliance with the City of Santa Clarita Oak
Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times throughout the said
project.
U172. The applicant and their contractors shall adhere to all recommendations issued by the
applicant's project arborist issued on site and those listed in the approved oak tree report as
submitted by Kerry Norman. Failure to comply shall be considered non compliant and may
result in a Stop All Work Notice until all non compliant issues have been properly addressed
to the satisfaction of the City Oak Tree Specialist.
UF3. The applicant shall post in a visible area on or near the construction site, a copy of the oak
tree permit and conditions of approval. The oak tree permit shall be immediately available
upon request by any City of Santa Clarita Official.
UF4. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall have all required protective fencing in
place. Protective fencing shall consist of standard 5' tall chain link material supported by
steel post driven directly into the ground and evenly spaced at eight (8') feet on center.
Orange vinyl fencing is not approved for this project. In some cases, the existing steel horse
rail fence may serve as protective fencing for only those oak trees approved by the City Oak
Tree Specialist.
UF5. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall arrange for a preconstruction meeting
that shall take place on site. The applicant, grading contractor, general contractor and project
arborist shall be present for this meeting along with the City Oak Tree Specialist. During the
preconstruction meeting the protective oak tree fencing will be reviewed by the City Oak
Tree Specialist. If the protective fencing meets the oak tree permit requirements, then the
City Oak Tree Specialist will approve and sign off on fencing.
UF6. All work performed within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be completed in the
presence of the applicant's project arborist. Daily monitoring reports including
documentation and photos of all work shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita Oak
Tree Specialist within 48 hours of each days work. All monitoring reports may be submitted
electronically (e-mail).
0
Master Case 11-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page I I of 14
UFT The applicant shall be required to give a minimum of 72 hours prior notice to the project
arborist in order to schedule required monitoring or as agreed upon by both parties. The
unavailability of the project arborist shall not be means to perform work within the protected
zone of an oak tree. The project arborist shall make every reasonable effort to be on site or
have a qualified associate (ISA Certified Arborist) be present.
UF8. The applicant and their contractors are permitted to encroach into the protected zone of eight
oak trees and to remove two non -heritage oak trees as submitted to the City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department (Planning) and Urban Forestry Division.
UF9. The applicant is permitted to remove the two oak trees identified as trees # 75 and #73 as
submitted and necessary for the proposed driveway and new residential structure. Mitigation
for the two removals shall be based upon the City Oak Tree Ordinance 05-4.
UF10. Mitigation shall be based upon the trunk diameter of each oak tree that is approved for
removal. Replacement oak trees shall be planted on site in an approved area that will allow
for the trec(s) to grow without any future impacts. As mitigation trees, the replacement oak
trees may not be removed for future projects.
UF11. Oak tree number 75 listed at 28 inches in diameter shall require the planting five 24 box
Coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) on site. Oak tree number 73 listed at 15 inches shall
require three, 24 inch box Coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) to be planted on site. In
the event that the applicant does not have the appropriate amount of space for all required
mitigation trees, the applicant may choose to donate a monetary payment equivalent to the
value of all 24 inch box oak trees to the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Preservation Fund, or
plant a larger size oak tree equivalent to the dollar value of the replacement oak trees or a
combination of both. Current cost / value of a 24 inch box oak tree is at $250.00 per tree.
OF 12. All wood chips generated from the removal of oak trees number 75 and 73 shall be recycled
and used as mulch for any remaining on site oak trees. Mulch shall be evenly spread
throughout the entire area located below the canopy.
UF13. Any oak tree that requires trimming to allow for the proposed structures shall be approved by
the City Oak Tree Specialist. Oak trees shall not be pruned to accommodate the structures.
The height and pitch of any structure proposed near an oak tree shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Oak Tree Specialist prior to submitting to Building & Safety.
UF14. All work completed within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be completed by hand
only. -At no time shall the use of heavy equipment including but not limited to graders,
excavators, backhoes, bobcat (or similar type equipment), loaders, trenchers or augers be
permitted unless waived by the City Oak Tree Specialist.
ZD
Master Case I1-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page 12 of 14
UF15. Any root that measures two inches in diameter or larger that is encountered during
excavation or trenching shall be preserved at all times by immediately wrapping moistened
layers of burlap around the root until it has been properly back filled. For any root that is
approved for removal, the root shall be cut cleanly with a proper pruning device either by or
in the presence of the Project Arborist.
OF 16. The applicant shall be required to have an approved concrete / hazardous material clean out
station on site. The clean out station shall be placed in an area that is a minimum of 50 feet
from and on the downbill side of any protected oak tree. Clean out station shall not be
permitted in areas where new mitigation oak trees are proposed for planting.
UF17. At no time shall the applicant or their contractor's be permitted to park or store any form of
construction material, equipment or vehicles within the protected zone of an oak tree. At no
time shall the storage of any hazardous waste material (dry or liquid) be placed or stored
within the protected zone of an oak tree.
UF18. At no time shall the applicant or their contractor be permitted to set up any form of work
stations within the protected zone of an oak tree. Work stations include but are not limited to
wood, stone and tile saws.
UF19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to submit the final
landscape plan to the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist for review and approval. Only
drought tolerant plant material compatible with native oak trees shall be permitted within the
protected zone. The applicant may contact the City Oak Specialist for a list of compatible
material.
UF20. The applicant shall be required to notify the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist 48
hours prior to the start of construction.
UF21. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall have completed and/or
submitted all required mitigation.
UF22. The applicant shall be required to complete a two year mandatory post construction
mitigation monitoring for all oak trees that were impacted by the construction and for all oak
trees that were planted for mitigation. Post construction mitigation shall begin the day of the
final inspection. Post construction mitigation reports shall be submitted tri -annually for a
total of six reports to the City Oak Tree Specialist.
UF23. Neither the applicant nor their contractor shall deviate from the approved construction plans.
Any changes to the project shall be submitted in writing and must be approved by the City of
Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division (Oak "free Specialist).
YI
Master Case 11-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December H, 2012
Page 13 of 14
UF24. Upon completion of said project and prior to final sign off, the applicant shall be required to
notify the City Oak Tree Specialist for a final walk through to verify compliance.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Parcel 1
HD 1. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the existing Onsite Wastewater Treatment
System (OWTS) shall be upgraded to conform with the requirements for a 5 bedroom
residence (1,500 gallons septic tank and a total of either 83 linear feet of leach line with 2.5
feet of gravel below the perforated pipe or 72 linear feet of leach line with 3 feet of gravel
below the perforate pipe, installed within the tested area).
HD2. Prior to the construction and installation of the OWTS, a feasibility report that has been
completed in accordance with the Department's "A Professional Guide to Requirements and
Procedures for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS)", to include the present and
100% future expansion dispersal systems shall be submitted to the Land Use Program for
review and approval. Additional groundwater exploration maybe required since the
groundwater hole was not monitored in accordance with the Department's procedures and
requirements.
Parcel 2
HD3. Prior to the construction and installation of the OWTS, a feasibility report shall be completed
in accordance with the Department's "A Profession Guide to Requirements and Procedures
for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS)", shall be submitted to the Land Use
Program for review and approval. Both present and 100% future expansion dispersal systems
shall be equipped with supplemental treatment component that has been accepted by the
Land Use Program. Additional groundwater exploration maybe required since the
groundwater hole was not monitored in accordance with the Department's procedures and
requirements.
General
HD4. If the area is known to have high ground/subsurface waters, the groundwater monitoring shall
be conducted during the months of March, April, and May by a California Registered
Geologist within the immediate area of the proposed dispersal field and at a depth that
ensures that required vertical set back to the ground/subsurface water can be achieved.
HD5. If due to the development, unforeseen geological limitations, required setbacks and flood or
surface/ground water related concerns or for any other related reasons, conformance with all
applicable requirements cannot be achieved, this conceptual approval shall be deemed void.
2v
Master Case 11-178
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
December 11, 2012
Page 14 of 14
Any future grading in the area where test borings are located may nullify the data that
provided the basis for this approval.
HD6. The installation of OWTS within flood plain/hazard area shall be avoided. Where suitable
sites outside of flood hazard areas are not available, wastewater dispersal systems may be
located in flood hazard areas on sites where the effects of inundation, under conditions of the
design, are minimized. Applicants are advised to contact the local Building and Safety office
to inquired about additional requirements that apply.
HD7. All proposed locations for OWTS shall meet the required horizontal setbacks to oak and
other trees, structures, wells, floodways, drainage courses, etc.
BJ:ms
S:\CD\CURREMI\!2011\I 1-178 (Quigley Cyn TPM)\Planning Commission\ I I-178 Conditions of Approval.doc
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO:
Master Case 11-178
PERMIT/PROJECT
NAME:
Master Case 11-178: Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040
APPLICANT:
Curtis Hairell
24837 Quigley Canyon Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91321
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT:
24837 Quigley Canyon Road, Assessor Parcel No. 2834-028-034,
DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT: The tentative parcel map would subdivide an existing residential parcel into two
residential parcels. Parcel No. 1 would be 43,749 gross sq. ft (36,812 sq. ft. net) and Parcel No. 2 would be
44,151 sq. ft. gross (43,501 sq. ft. net). The subject property is zoned Residential Low (RL) and contains ten
oak trees, including four heritage specimens. The project consists of the minor subdivision of land, the
removal of two non -heritage trees, and limited grading in the amount of 1,364 cubic yards to create an
approximate 4,000 sq. ft. building pad. Residential construction is not included in this project.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the
requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[ ] City Council [X] Planning Commission [ ] Director of 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
Jeff Hogan, AICP
PLANNING MANAGER
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Ben Jarvis, AICP. Associate Planner
(Name/Title)
Jason Smisko, Senior Planner
(Name/Title)
Public Review Period From August 28. 2,012 To September 18, 2012
Public Notice Given On August 28, 2012
[X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
5.\CD\CURRENTU2011\l1-178 (Quigley Cyn TPM)\Planning Conuniss6\11-178 MND.doc
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title and Master Case Number:
Lead Agency Name & Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Applicant/Owner Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation(s):
Hairell Subdivision/Residence
Master Case 11-178
Oak Tree Permit I 1-040
Tentative Parcel Map 71806
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner
City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department
(661)255-4330
The proposed project is located at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road
in the City of Santa Clarita, Assessor Parcel No. 2834-028-034.
Cutis Hairell
24837 Quigley Canyon Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91321
Non -Urban 5 (NU5)
Residential Low (RL)
Proiect Setting/Existing Conditions:
This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The subject property is located at
24837 Quigley Canyon Road in the Placerita Canyon neighborhood within the City of Santa Clarita's Newhall
community. The subject property is located within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and any development
is required to adhere to the development standards listed in Section 17.16.080 of the Unified Development Code in
addition to the City's regular codes and regulations. The project site is a flat, residential property that contains a single
family home, horse corrals, barns, and riding facilities. While the property has equestrian facilities, no horses are
currently boarded on-site. The property contains ten oak trees, including four heritage -status specimens. Four additional
oak trees are located off-site but are close enough to the subject property to be included in the project's Oak Tree Report.
The subject property is located in the high fire severity zone and portions of the property are encumbered by a flood
hazard zone. The General Plan Land Use designation ofthe subject property is Non -Urban 5 (one dwelling unit per one
acre) and the zoning designation is Residential Low (2.2 dwelling units per acre).
The project is located approximately two miles west ofthe Antelope Valley Freeway in a low density, semi -rural area that
is comprised of larger -lot homes and equestrian facilities. While the neighborhood is equestrian friendly, contains
numerous oak trees, and is served mainly by private lanes, the neighborhood is urbanized and largely developed. Lots are
served by all public and private utilities with the notable exception of sanitary sewer service. Properties in the immediate
vicinity of the project site, including homes and churches, use private sewer disposal (septic) systems as the
neighborhood is not connected to the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts' sewer facilities.
The subject property has direct access to Quigley Canyon Road thatconnects to Placerita Canyon Road, Placerita Canyon
Road connects to the regional arterial highway network at Railroad Avenue via the 130' Street railroad crossing. The
property can also access Placerita Canyon Road from Meadview Avenue to the west. Placerita Canyon Road also has a
private connection to the regional highway network through a gated entryjust west of Sierra Highway in the vicinity of
the Placerita Canyon Road onramp to the Antelope Valley Freeway,
Proiect Description
This project involves two entitlements: a Tentative Parcel Map to allow for the subdivision of one lot into two, and an
Oak Tree Permit to allow for the removal of two non -heritage oak trees and to encroach into the protected area of eight
oak trees. The construction of a residential home on the new parcel would require a separate, non -discretionary
Administrative Permit that is not included as part of the Tentative Parcel Map or Oak Tree Permit. The project would
also involve 1,364 cubic yards of grading to accommodate a4,000 sq. ft. building pad (approximate) for a future single-
family residence. Impacts for this grading have been included as part of the Initial Study along with other impacts that
would reasonably be expected to occur due to the construction of a single-family home. Additional details are discussed
below in the parcel map description. Primary access to the new parcel would be from Quigley Canyon Road with
secondary access from Meadview Avenue.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 71806
A Tentative Parcel Map is required to subdivide the 2.01 (87,900 square feet) acre parcel into two new residential
parcels. Lot 1 would contain one acre (43,749 square feet) and Lot 2 would contain 1.01 acre (44,151 square feet). Upon
recordation of the tentative parcel map, the applicant would be able to construct a new home on the property. The new
home would require a non -discretionary, separate, Administrative Permit. Building pad preparation would require 1,364
cubic yards of grading, all of which would be balanced on-site. The new parcel would be served by all utilities except for
septic service, and would be similar in nature to other residential properties in the vicinity.
Oak Tree Permit 11-040
An Oak Tree Permit is required because the subject property contains 10 oak trees, including four heritage trees. An
additional four oak trees are located offsite but are located close enough to the project site that they are included in the
oak tree report and were analyzed for impacts as part of the Initial Study. The project would permit the removal of two
non -heritage oak trees. One of the oak trees has suffered limb failure and has significant borer damage. The other tree is
leaning 30 degrees and is located below a power line. In addition to the two removals, the Oak Tree Permit would also
allow encroachment into the protected zones of eight (8) other oak trees, including four heritage specimens. The
encroachments are related to driveway and building pad placement, as well as minor trenching for utilities. Oak tree
preservation measures and requirements are listed in Section 17.17.090 of the UDC.
Surroundin¢ Land Uses: .
The subject property is surrounded on all sides by other residential properties that carry the same zoning and General
Plan land use designations as the subject property: NU5 and RL. These properties consist primarily of single-family
homes, some of which include equestrian facilities. Two institutional uses are located on nearby blocks, including a
church at the comer of Quigley Canyon Road and Cleardale Street, and the Master's College at the comer of Quigley
Canyon Road and Placeritos Boulevard. The following matrix summarizes the land uses for the project site and
surrounding properties:
Surrounding Land Uses:
North:
Single-family home with equestrian facilities in the Residential Low zone
South:
Single family homes in the Residential Low zone.
East:
Single family homes in the Residential Low zone.
West:
Single homes in the Residential. Low zone.
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Approval from the Los Angeles County Fire Department's Fuel Modification Unit will be required because the subject
property is located in a high fire severity zone. Approval from the Los Angeles County Health Department will be
required for a private, on-site, sewer disposal system that would be required to serve the new residence that could be
constructed as a result of the project. Prior to final map approval, the Newhall County Water District must issue a "will
serve" letter to ensure that the new parcel would have public water service.
_fY
ID
.. ..
... r AV
t"4
f
1
O
YJ
0 0
m
y.,
X2
ZS"
5, 1
00
09
i ->_r l< .C1 poLL
ce)
00 m
nv cn C4 a
M
< 00 <1
C14
97
2 bli 79lp
ID
.. ..
... r AV
f
as yap d
O
YJ
12;
y.,
X2
ZS"
5, 1
00
09
i ->_r l< .C1 poLL
ce)
00 m
nv cn C4 a
M
< 00 <1
C14
97
2 bli 79lp
ID
.. ..
... r AV
f
as yap d
O
YJ
y.,
X2
ZS"
5, 1
00
09
i ->_r l< .C1 poLL
ce)
00 m
nv cn C4 a
M
< 00 <1
C14
97
2 bli 79lp
ID
.. ..
... r AV
f
llkO
O
YJ
y.,
X2
ZS"
5, 1
00
09
i ->_r l< .C1 poLL
ce)
00 m
nv cn C4 a
M
< 00 <1
C14
97
2 bli 79lp
ID
rl
y.,
X2
ZS"
5, 1
00
09
i ->_r l< .C1 poLL
ce)
00 m
nv cn C4 a
M
< 00 <1
C14
97
2 bli 79lp
..........
5 I'M I
...............
0
........... ..........
. . . . . . . . . . . .
C) 9
...... . . . . . .
C-4
z
01
co
As
O
man
0
C) 9
C-4
z
01
co
O
s:
S 1 P a O.
is
rum,7
p O
Sse,
!r1 jt, g
, N C
(n�
r
C
.r
Y'i •,j , ! 8 fyi,i uFrl f�.
_, ✓'!'�� l' .!l .*.1 -i "$ya fir} */l_ r tt �r�tiy 4,
41
sj
el
!
1 tr J,37`JlfyO#1 yn fin.
A,, W.
raw rEY
t rIs
h r,, i er4#- a' ,nt / �` `' C i,Z. uta r •`' t e Re
G 4+ a 53 X
�^ t it; „� ...... CO ci �1
ip is
.,,r,CN
�+ C sn oda 3
'LZ
lVJ 9
OCR M OLL
t i) tico
All z
�Z if,
1
q 5 N7 yl72N/y O
it y
A ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
[ ] Aesthetics
[X] Biological Resources
[ ] Greenhouse Gas Emissions
[ ] Land Use & Planning
[ ] Population and Housing
[ ] Traffic & Transportation
B. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[ J Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
[X] Cultural Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Geology/Soils
[ ] Hydrology & Water
Quality
Mineral Resources [X] Noise
Public Services
[ ] Utilities & Service Systems
[ ] Recreation
[ ] Mandatory Findings of
Significance
[ ] I find thatthe proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
[X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect l)
has been mitigated adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
7120I l 7i
Date
Date
7
C EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
e) Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to Information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project: _
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ E,
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to die Farland .
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California .
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, ❑ ❑ ❑
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or Timberland -
Production (as defined by Government Code section .
51104(8))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversation of ❑ ❑ El
forestland to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
10
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
No
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑
❑
❑
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
❑
❑
®
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that
❑
❑
®
❑
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
e) Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to Information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project: _
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ E,
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to die Farland .
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California .
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, ❑ ❑ ❑
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or Timberland -
Production (as defined by Government Code section .
51104(8))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversation of ❑ ❑ El
forestland to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
10
11
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than .
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact No -
Mitigation
Impact
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
f)
Other
❑
❑
❑ ❑
III.
AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the following
determinations.
Would the project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
❑
❑
® ❑
applicable air quality plan?
b)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
0
❑
® ❑
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
❑
❑
® ❑
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone .
precursors)?
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
❑
❑
® ❑
concentrations?
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
❑
❑
® ❑
number of people?
f)
Other:
❑
❑
❑ ❑
IV.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
❑
®
❑ ❑
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
❑
❑
® ❑
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
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
11
12
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
No
Mitigation
Impact
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
❑
❑
❑
ED
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
g)
Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or
❑
.❑ -
❑
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the
City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
❑
®
❑
❑
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
❑
®
❑
❑
of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique
❑
❑
®
❑
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
❑
❑
❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
❑
❑
®
❑
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
❑
❑
❑
on the most recent Alquist-Priclo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
®
❑
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
❑
❑
®
❑
liquefaction?
'
iv) Landslides?
E
❑
❑
b)
Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the
❑
❑
®
❑
12
13
Potentially Less Than Less Than
significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact No
Mitigation Impact
loss of topsoil, either on or off site?
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
El ❑
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral .
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-
E ❑ ® ',
B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
❑ ❑ ® ❑
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
-
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of wastewater?
f)
Change in topography of a primary or secondary
.
ridgeline?
g)
Move or generate grading of earth exceeding 100,000
E
cubic yards?
VII.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project:
a)
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
❑ 11 ® ❑
indirectly, that may have significant impact on the
environment??
b)
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy orregulation
El ® EJ
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases)?
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
D E 0
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
El ❑ ❑
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving explosion or the release
of hazardous materials into the environment (including,
but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or
radiation)?
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
El
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as result,
13
14
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact No
Mitigation Impact
would it create a significant hazard to the public or to
the environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
El 13 ❑ 21
-
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,
1:1 ❑
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
❑ El 0
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
❑ ® 0
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)?
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
11 El EJ 19
requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
❑ ❑ 0
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
'
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the.
® ❑
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
❑ ❑ ® ❑
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
❑ ® ❑
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
14
15
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
No
Mitigation
Impact
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
t)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
11
❑
®
❑
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
❑
El
®
❑
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
0
0
®
El
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
❑
❑
0
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
E
❑
k)
Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and.
❑
®
❑
directions of surface water and/or groundwater?
1)
Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river?
1
❑
m)
Impact Stormwater Management in any of the
1
❑
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
❑
- ❑
®
El
flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases
❑
El
®
❑
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
Potentially
Significant
Impact
16
Loss Than
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for
❑
Significant
the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both
Impact . No
Mitigation
during construction and after project occupancy?
❑
X. LAND
USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a)
Disrupt or physically divide an established community?
❑
b)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
❑
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?
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project:
a)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
❑
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
❑
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
c)
Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and
❑
inefficient manner?
XII.
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a)
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
❑
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b)
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
❑
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c)
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
❑
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d)
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
❑
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
❑
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
16
Loss Than
Less Than
Significant
Significant
With
Impact . No
Mitigation
Impact
❑
® ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑
® ❑
■ /1
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING = Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
Necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
XV. RECREATION- Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
17
Potentially Less Than Less Than
significant Significant Significant
Impact With Impact No
Mitigation Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
19
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Impact With Impact No
Mitigation Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC —Would the project:
a)
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
❑ ® ❑
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non -motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b)
Conflict with an applicable congestion management
El 1 ❑
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standard and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
E ❑ ❑
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
❑ El ❑
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
El El 11
f)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
El El 1
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
g)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
El 11 ❑
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
0 El ® ❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction of new water or
❑ ❑ ® ❑
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c)
Require or result in the construction of new storm
11 ❑ ® ❑
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?
19
19
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Impact With Impact No
Mitigation Impact
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
0 - E ❑
regulations related to solid waste?
.'
XVIII.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
❑ ❑
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining'
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b)
Does the project have impacts that are individually
❑
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
El EK
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XIX. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `DE
MINIMUS'
FINDING:
a)
Will the project have an adverse effect either
0 El
individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife
resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of
this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities,
including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends .
for it's continued viability."
19
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS
I a. No Impact.
The project site is located in a developed area, surrounded by large -lot, single
family homes. The site is fully graded and contains a residence, horse barn,
corrals, and other equestrian facilities. The subject property is flat, is not located
within a scenic vista, and neither the proposed subdivision nor a single-family
residence that could be constructed on the newly -created parcel would have the
potential to affect or change a scenic vista. Therefore, there would be no impact.
I b. Less Than Significant Impact.
The subject property is not located near a state scenic highway and is not located
on or near a ridgeline. The nearest ridgeline is located a quarter mile east of the
subject property. The project site does not contain any rock outcroppings or
historic buildings. Two oak trees would be removed under the project's oak tree
permit, and the removal of the trees would change ground -level views on the
property due to reduced shade from the oak tree canopies; however, these
changes would not substantially alter the character or nature of the property
because other, larger trees, including the four heritage specimens, would be
preserved. Additional oak trees would be planted to replace the two oak trees
slated for removal, negating or significantly diminishing any visual impact.
Therefore, any impact would be less than significant.
I c. No Impact.
The project would subdivide an existing residential parcel into two residential
lots. The fast lot contains the existing residence and a new home is expected to
be constructed on the second lot. Neither the proposed subdivision nor the
construction of a future single family residence would substantially degrade the.
existing visual character or quality of the site. The property is fully developed
with the existing residence and equestrian facilities, including a 2,400 square -
foot bam. Any future residential construction would require the removal of the
bam and would be developed in accordance with the Unified Development
Code. The project would not preclude future corrals or equestrian amenities
from being constructed on the property as permitted by Section 17.16.080 of the
Unified Development Code (Placerita Canyon Special Standards District). The
subdivision itself would not change the visual or physical character of the
property. Future development that maybe reasonably envisioned as a result of
the newly created parcel would not degrade the visual character of the
surrounding because an existing structure would be removed and replaced by
another structure that conforms to the City's development requirements as well
as the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District. Furthermore, the proposed
driveway from Quigley Canyon Road has been situated to preserve as much of
the existing vegetation as possible in an effort to preserve the existing character
of the property. Therefore, the project would not degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings and there would be no
impact.
I d. Less Than Significant Impact.
Neither the project nor the potential development of a single family home would
be expected to create a substantial new source of light, glare, or adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area. The subject property is fully developed with
a home and equestrian facilities, including a bam, stables, corrals, lights, and
other amenities. A residential use on the newly -created parcel would be
consistent with residential uses on surrounding parcels. As such, any light or
glare from the new home would be similar in nature to the light that is currently
generated. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
II a. No Impact.
Based on information from the California Department of Conservation, the
project site is considered to be "Urban and Built -Up Land" that contains no
fanning resources. There are no agricultural operations located on the project
site. The property is in the Residential Low zone and is not within an area of
Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the
California Department of Conservation (Los Angeles Important Farmland
2008). The site currently contains a single-family home, equestrian amenities, is
fully developed/disturbed, and is not used for agricultural purposes. Given that
the proposed subdivision has no potential to convert existing farmland to non-
agricultural use, the project would have no impact.
III. AIR QUALITY
II b. No Impact. -
The subject property is not located on land subject to a Williamson Act contract
nor would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses. The
property is located in a residential area, and is designated as residential land
under both the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
II c. No Impact.
The subject property is located in a non -forested area, in a developed residential
neighborhood, and has no potential to cause the rezoning/reduction of forest
land, timberland, or timberland production. Therefore, the project would have no
impact.
II d. No Impact.
The project would subdivide an existing, developed, residential parcel into two
new residential lots. The subject property does not contain any forest land nor
would the project cause the conversion of forest land to non -forest uses,
Therefore, there would be no impact.
II e. No Impact.
The project would subdivide an existing, developed, residential parcel into two
new residential lots. Neither the subdivision nor the potential single-family
residence that could be built on the newly -created parcel would have the
potential to result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use because
no such lands or resources exist on the property. Likewise, the project could not
cause the conversion of forest lands to non -forest use. Therefore, there would be
no impact.
III a. Less Than Significant Impact.
The City of Santa Clarita is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB),
which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto
Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west.
The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD).
The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where
both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded: Because of the
.violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the
California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality
21
Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level
and identifies region -wide attenuation methods to achieve compliance with au
quality standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations
for stationary -source polluters, facilitation of new transportation technologies
such as low -emission vehicles, and capital improvements such as park-and-ride
facilities and public transit improvements. The most recently adopted AQMP is
the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). .
The SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency
with the AQMP:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of
existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or
delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission
reductions specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4
for relocating CO hot spots).
(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or
increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.
In regards to criterion 1, the consistency criterion pertains to long-term local air
quality impacts, rather than regional emissions, as defined by the SCAQMD.
The SCAQMD has identified carbon monoxide (CO) as the best indicator
pollutant for determining whether air quality violations would occur, as a CO
hot -spot is most directly related to increase in traffic. Nevertheless, the air basin
is now in attainment for the CO standards and exceedances of the CO standards
ate not expected. Consequently, local air quality impact modeling is no longer
performed. Local air pollutant concentrations would not be expected to exceed
the ambient air quality concentration standards due to local traffic, with or
without the project. Because the project is not projected to impact the local air
quality, the project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first
criterion.
In regard to criterion #2, the assumptions used to develop the AQMP are based
upon projections from local general plans. Consequently, conformity with the
AQMP of land development projects is measured by the project's consistency
with adopted land use plans, growth forecasts, and programs relative to
population, housing, employment, and land use. The proposed project is
consistent with the zoning and General Plan Land Use designations for the site.
As a result, the project is consistent with the growth expectations for the region.
The proposed project is therefore consistent with the AQMP, and any associated
impacts would be less than significant.
III b. Less Than Significant Impact.
The City of Santa Clarita is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is
an airshed that regularly exceeds ambient air quality standards (AAQS), and
therefore is a non -attainment area. The SCAB is designated a non -attainment
area for respirable particulate matter (PMio), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and
ozone (Oa)• The SCAB is currently a designated attainment area for the
remaining criteria pollutants, which include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). While the proposed subdivision would
not generate any air pollutants, the project would create a legal, buildable, parcel
where a single-family residence could be constructed. Construction and site
preparation would have the potential to generate air pollutants from demolition,
grading, construction, painting, and other routine activities that are associated
with typical building methods. For example, the preparation of the 4,000 sq. ft.
22
building pad is estimated to require 1,364 cubic yards of grading, with the cut
and fill balanced on-site. Habitation of a residence likewise would have the
potential to generate air pollutants, albeit at an extremely low level. The
emissions would be' largely from vehicles arriving and departing the site,
landscape maintenance equipment exhaust, natural gas combustion, and other
routine residential sources.
Any potential future air quality impact from the construction and habitation of a
single family home would be offset or reduced by the elimination of existing
structures or uses, including a horse barn that is substantially similar in size to
the footprint of the proposed residence. Existing dirt areas used for equestrian
uses would be paved or landscaped, potentially reducing the amount of dust and
particulates currently generated from the site. Furthermore, the project is
consistent with General Plan densities and growth projections on which air
quality models are based. Therefore, it is anticipated that any impact would be
less than significant.
III c. Less Than Significant Impact.
As stated in III b, the project site is located in a non -attainment air basin. While
the proposed subdivision would not create any air pollution, the buildable lot
created by the project is proposed to contain a single-family home. The
construction and habitation of the home could generate small amounts of
pollution; however, any potential air quality impacts from the construction of a
single family home would not be expected to result in a cumulative net increase
of any criteria pollutant. It is anticipated that any impact would be less than
significant.
III d. Less than Significant Impact.
The project site is surrounded by single-family homes which are considered
sensitive receptors. The proposed subdivision would not generate any air
pollutants although the new residential parcel created by the project could be
used as a residential property, including the construction of a single-family
home. Construction, site preparation, and residential habitation could generate
small amounts of pollutants. These amounts would not be expected to be
significant nor would routine construction activities be expected to generate or
contribute to a substantial concentration of pollutants in the local area. Any
impact would be less than significant.
III e. Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed subdivision would neither create nor expose people to
objectionable odors. The project would create an addition residential parcel. In
the future, should the parcel be developed with a single family home, the new
home would be constructed in an area that currently contains a horse barn. The
house would replace the barn. As such, a single family home would likely
improve the existing condition in terms of odors given that the potential for
manure generation would be reduced. A single family home would not generate
noxious or objectionable odors under normal circumstances. Therefore, any
impact would be less than significant.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
General Biological Characteristics of the Site
The subject property was graded and developed when the original home was
built in 1978. The site has a large amount of flat land with structures, an oak
grove, ornamental landscaping, and large dirt areas that are used for equestrian
purposes. There are no water courses on the site and the most significant
23
biological resource is the collective habitat contained in the canopies of the oak
trees. Under the project's Oak Tree Permit, the applicant would be permitted to
remove two oak trees. Oak Tree No. 73 leans to the south at approximately 30
degrees, is located under power lines, and would likely require removal
regardless if the project is approved or not. Oak Tree No. 75 has significant
borer damage and has previously suffered limb failure. This tree is located
adjacent to the proposed building pad. The oak tree permit would also allow for
encroachment into the protected area of eight oak trees. The encroachments are
related to the location of the building pad, driveway, and minor trenching for
utilities. The preserved oak trees would be protected from construction impacts
by fencing and other oak tree protection measures that are listed in the
Conditions of Approval for Master Case No. 11.178, and in Oak Tree Permit
No. 11-040.
IV a. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation.
The project site lies within a developed area in the Placerita Canyon community
of the City of Santa Clarita. The project site currently consists of a single-family
residence, corrals, a horse barn, and other equestrian facilities and structures.
Vegetation onsite is limited to maintained non-native grasses and weeds,
ornamental landscaping, and trees. The property contains ten oak trees, four of
which qualify as heritage specimens. Two non -heritage oak trees would be
removed, and the remaining trees would be preserved in place.
The project site is not within an ecologically sensitive area or an area of
importance for the California gnatcatcher, as shown on the City's mapping
system, and isnot within an adopted Critical Habitat area for the Least Bell's
Vireo. The site is not known or expected to contain any species identified as
candidate, sensitive, rare, threatened, or endangered in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
While the project itself, the subdivision. of one residential property into two
parcels, would not have the potential to impact biological resources, the
construction of a single family home on the new parcel would involve the
removal of ornamental landscaping from the project site. While no impacts to
migratory birds are anticipated from either the project or the single-family home
that could result from the project, Mitigation Measure BIO -1 is included to
protect migratory birds in the unlikely event that they happen to nest on the
project site. Migratory birds are given special status in California due to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503-3517 of the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code. Mitigation Measure BIO -1 restricts clearing,
grubbing and/or removal of vegetation during the nesting season, which ensures
the proposed project would not affect any active bird nests and, thereby, result in
a take of a bird or its young or eggs.
Mitigation Measure BIO -1: Clearing, grubbing, and/or removal of
vegetation—particularly removal of mature trees—shall be conducted
outside the nesting bird season which typically occurs from February 16 to
August 31. Any grubbing and/or removal of vegetation during the nesting
bird season (February 16 to August 31) shall require a nesting survey
performed by a qualified biologist at least one (1) week,prior to the activity
and weekly thereafter. If discovered, all active nests shall be avoided and
provided with an adequate buffer zone to protect nest/individuals as
determined by the biologist (typically a minimum buffer of 300 feet for
most species and 500 feet for raptors). Once buffer zones are established,
work shall not commence/resume within the buffer until a qualified
24
biologist confirms that all fledglings have left the nest, which would likely
not occur until the end of the nesting season.
By being conservative and incorporating Mitigation Measure BIO.1 that
restricts tree and vegetation removal to the non -nesting season, any impact
would be less than significant.
IV b. Less Than Significant Impact.
Neither the proposed subdivision nor the single-family residence that could
potentially be constructed on the new residential parcel could significantly
impact biological resources because the subject property does not contain any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Vegetation on-site is limited to non-
native and maintained grasses and ornamental landscaping/trees, and also native
oak trees. Any impact would be less than significant.
IV c. No Impact.
The subject property does not contain any federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). The site is devoid of natural hydrology,
hydrophytic vegetation or soils. Therefore, the proposed project would not have
adverse effects on protected wetlands.
IV d. No Impact.
The site is located within'a developed area, contains structures, and has been in
active use since the residence was constructed in 1978. The project site does not
contribute to a wildlife corridor. Furthermore, since the site would not install
any new physical barriers, neither the proposed subdivision nor the single-
family home that could be potentially constructed on the newly -created parcel
would restrict wildlife migration or movement. Therefore, the proposed project
would have no impact on the movement of fish or wildlife, wildlife corridors, or
the use of wildlife nursery sites.
IV. e. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation.
The City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance is the only local policy or
ordinance that protects biological resources. This ordinance establishes
regulatory measures that mandate the manner in which oak trees may be
removed, pruned, cut, or encroached upon. Oak trees subject to this ordinance
include any tree of the oak genus Quercus, which includes, valley oaks,
California live oaks, canyon oaks, interior live oaks, and scrub oaks, regardless
of size.
The subject property contains ten on-site oak trees. Another four off-site oak
trees were included in the project's oak tree report. All trees identified are of the
Quercus agrifolia variety and are summarized in the Table IV -1.
The Oak Tree Permit associated with the project would permit the applicant to
remove two oak trees on the subject property. Oak Tree No. 73 leans to the
south indicating a defective or girdled root system. The tree is also located
directly below a power line. Oak Tree No. 75 has substantial borer damage and
has previously suffered structural failure. All other oak trees will be preserved in
place with various levels of encroachment due to grading for the building pad,
the proposed driveway, and utility placement. The most significant
encroachment would occur near Oak Tree No. 76, where trenching for new
utilities would be located. Mitigation Measure BIO -2 is intended to preserve the
25
oak trees that will remain on the project site. With the incorporation of this
mitigation measure, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts
related to conflicts with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological
resources.
Mitigation Measure BI0-2: The applicant shall retain a certified arborist
to assist and ensure the following techniques are implemented to protect and
conserve the oak trees onsite:
1. Thoroughly irrigate all preserved trees one week prior to any
excavation that takes place within the protected zone.
2. Install and maintain protective fencing around trees as illustrated on the
plan.
3. There must be a three-foot opening in the protective fencing places
around trees to allow for inspection and maintenance. Position the
opening every 50'-75'.
4. Any work taking place in the ground, grading, trenching, drilling, etc.,
within the protected zone shall be supervised buy the arborist on record
and be performed using hand tools only.
5. Any tree roots encountered measuring 2 -inches or greater, must be
preserved in place.
6. Preserved tree roots that are left exposed shall be wrapped in burlap or
other moisture retentive material and must be kept moist.
7. Construction materials or debris shall not be stored or disposed of
within the protected zone of any tree.
8. No irrigation shall be installed within the drip line of any oak tree.
9. Any planting within the protected zone shall maintain a minimum
distance of 15' from the trunk, and shall consist of drought tolerant or
native plant species. The plant pallet must be approved by the City of
26
TABILE
IV -1: OAK TREES�
ewes., :;,Hal
inQuercus
agrifolia
lCoast
71
live oak
18
30
Preserve
Quercus agrifolia
72
Coast live oak
5
15
Preserve
Quercus agnfolia
73
Coast live oak
15
25
Remove
Quercus agrifolia
74
Coast live oak
26
30
Preserve
Quercus agrifolia
75
Coast live oak
28
50
Remove
Quercus agrifolia
76
Coast live oak
17
30
Preserve
Quercus agnfolia
77'
Coast live oak
51
60
Preserve
Quercus agrifolia
78'
Coast live oak
44 .
60
Preserve
Quercus agnfolia
79`
Coast live oak
43
50
Preserve
Quercus agrl£olla
80'
Coast live oak
42
50
Preserve
Quercus egnfolis
OS -1
Coast live oak
30
Preserve
Quercus agnfolia
0S.2
Coast live oak
16118
Preserve
Quercus agrifolia
OS -3
Coast live oak
24
Preserve
Quercus agrifolia
08-4
Coast live oak
28136
Preserve
-Tree rated by arbodst as meeting the standards for classification
as a'Herita
e' oak
Mitigation Measure BI0-2: The applicant shall retain a certified arborist
to assist and ensure the following techniques are implemented to protect and
conserve the oak trees onsite:
1. Thoroughly irrigate all preserved trees one week prior to any
excavation that takes place within the protected zone.
2. Install and maintain protective fencing around trees as illustrated on the
plan.
3. There must be a three-foot opening in the protective fencing places
around trees to allow for inspection and maintenance. Position the
opening every 50'-75'.
4. Any work taking place in the ground, grading, trenching, drilling, etc.,
within the protected zone shall be supervised buy the arborist on record
and be performed using hand tools only.
5. Any tree roots encountered measuring 2 -inches or greater, must be
preserved in place.
6. Preserved tree roots that are left exposed shall be wrapped in burlap or
other moisture retentive material and must be kept moist.
7. Construction materials or debris shall not be stored or disposed of
within the protected zone of any tree.
8. No irrigation shall be installed within the drip line of any oak tree.
9. Any planting within the protected zone shall maintain a minimum
distance of 15' from the trunk, and shall consist of drought tolerant or
native plant species. The plant pallet must be approved by the City of
26
Santa Clarita.
10. No changes in soil grade shall be made within the tree protection zone
other than in the permitted work area.
11. All drainage shall be directed away from the root zone of all oak tress.
To mitigate for the removals of Oak Tree Nos. 73 and 75, the applicant shall be
subject to the following:
Mitigation Measure BIO -3:
1. As mitigation for the removal of Oak Tree No. 73, the applicant shall
be required to plant three (3) 24 -inch box Coast live oak trees on-site.
2. As mitigation for the removal of Oak Tree No. 75, the applicant shall
be required to plant five (5) 24" box Coast live oak trees on-site.
3. In the event that the applicant does not have the appropriate amount of
space for all required mitigation trees, the applicant may choose to
donate a monetary payment equivalent to the value of all 24" box trees
to City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Preservation Fund, or plant a larger
size oak tree equivalent to the dollar value of the replacement oak trees,
or a combination of both.
As mitigation trees, the replacement oak trees may not be removed for future
projects.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO -2 and BIO.3, and by
following the conditions of approval, any impact to oak trees or conflicts to local
policies and ordinances that protect biological resources would be less than
significant.
IV f. No Impact
The project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact.
IV g. No Impact
The project site is not located within a Significant Ecological Area identified on
either Exhibit CO -5 of the City's General Plan or the Los Angeles County
Significant Ecological Area map. The project site is also not within a Significant
Natural Area identified by the California Department of Fish and Game. The
nearest such area is the Santa Clara River Corridor Significant Ecological Area
to the north and the Santa Susana/Simi Hills Significant Ecological Area which
is located to the south. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to
Significant Ecological Areas or Significant Natural Areas.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
V a. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation.
The project site was developed as a single-family residence in 1978 and has
been in continuous use since that time. The project site was disturbed during the
construction of the home and horse facilities, the construction of a swimming
pool, and trenching for utilities. There are no records to indicate that any
historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 were found. While no historic
resources are expected to be encountered on the site, and while the proposed
subdivision would not impact any historic resources, the potential construction
of a single-family home on the new parcel would require trenching and limited
grading. In the event that cultural resources are found on the site, all work
should be suspended until a qualified archeologist can be retained to evaluate the
find(s) in accordance with acceptable professional standards. With the
27
incorporation of this requirement, any impact to historic resources would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure CULT -1: If archaeological resources are discovered
during project grading or construction, development of the project shall halt
until a qualified professional archeologist assesses the find, determines the
importance of the site, and recommends a corresponding course of action, If
halted by the discovery of archaeological resources, development of the
project shall not resume until a new determination has been made by the
California State Office of Historic Perseveration.
V b. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation.
Similar to the response to Section Va. listed above, there are no known
prehistoric or historic resources on the site. Given that the project would create
the potential for a new home to be constructed on the property, and that the
construction of the home would require trenching and minor grading, it cannot
be said with certainty that archaeological resources would not be encountered. In
the unlikely event that an archeological resource is found during construction
activities on the project site, Mitigation Measure CULT -1 requires that all
grading and construction activities be halted until an archeologist examines the
site, identifies the archaeological significant of the find, and recommends a
course of action in consultation with the California State office of Historic
Preservation. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CULT -1 would ensure that
the proposed project would not significantly impact archaeological resources.
Any impact would be less than significant.
V C. Less Than Significant Impact.
No paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to exist on
the site. Neither the proposed. subdivision nor the potential home that could
potentially be constructed as a result of the project would impact paleontological
resources. Any grading or trenching for a single-family home would be for site
preparation and utility installation. This grading and trenching would be minor,
and would occur in the surface earth materials and would notextendinto deep,
older earth materials or bedrock where paleontological resources may be found.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project or the single family
home that may be built on the newly -created lot would encounter any
paleontological resources. Any impact would be less than significant. .
V d. No Impact.
There are no known human remains on the project site. The project site is not
part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of
historic or prehistoric human remains; thus, human remains are not expected to
be encountered on the property. While the proposed subdivision would not have
any potential to impact unknown human remains on-site, the construction of a
single-family home that would be allowed on the new lot as a result of the
project would involve limited grading and trenching. In the unlikely event that
human remains are found on site during construction of a home or other
structure, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that the
construction or grading be halted until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with State regulations
would ensure that there would be no impact to human remains.
28
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
VI a. No Impact/Less Than Significant Impact.
The site is located in Placerita Canyon, one of the many canyons that comprise
the southern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley and the northern slopes of the
San Gabriel Mountains. The San Gabriel Mountains are comprised of plutonic
and metamorphic rocks that are slowly being thrust over the San Fernando
Valley to the south. The Santa Clarita Valley is an east -trending trough within
the Traverse Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Traverse Ranges Province is
composed' of parallel, east/west-trending mountain ranges and intervening
sediment filled valleys.
The Traverse Ranges Province is one of the most active tectonic/seismic areas of
the United States. The distinctive geologic structure of the Traverse Ranges is
dominated by the effects of north -south compressive deformation that results in
thrust faulting, strike -slip faulting, and bedrock folding. These active geologic
features are attributable to convergence between the `Big Bend" of the San
Andreas Fault and northwestern motion of the Pacific Plate, and have caused
thrust fault related earthquakes such as the 1971 San Fernando, the 1987
Whittier Narrows, and the 1994 Northridge earthquakes.
The San Fernando -Sierra Madre fault zone is a recently active portion of the
larger fault system that stretches from Ventura to San Bernardino along the
south side of a series of large mountain ranges. Other major east -west trending
faults associated with the Traverse Ranges of Southern California include the
Malibu—Santa Monica—Hollywood, Santa Susana, Oak Ridge, and the
Raymond fault systems. A short segment of the potentially active San Gabriel
fault has recently been shown to offset Holocene alluvial materials and therefore
has been designated as being active by the State Geologist, The San Fernando—
Sierra Madre—Cucamonga fault system is associated with the most devastating
temblors in the Los Angeles area in historic times, specifically the 1971 San
Fernando earthquake and the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Within the City of Santa Clarita, the San Andreas Fault is of major concern as it
makes development in the City subject to more stringent building codes. With
the incorporation of standard building codes, any proposed structures would not
expose people to potential substantial adverse effects related to seismic activity.
Specific analysis is listed below:
(i) No Impact.
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone or within any other fault zones identified on Exhibit S-1 of the City of
Santa Clarita's General Plan. Therefore, neither the proposed subdivision
nor the single-family home that could potentially be built on the parcel
created by the subdivision would expose people or structures to potential
adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore,
there would be no impact.
(ii) Less Than Significant Impact.
As stated in Section VIa, the project'site is located in one of the most
seismically active regions of the United States. The subject property would
likely be subject to strong seismic shaking at some point in time. However,
the risks of structural damage due to earthquakes can be minimized through
proper engineering, design, and construction methods. The project would
create a new, buildable lot that could accommodate a single-family
residence. Any future construction on the site would require structures to be
built according to the Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes,
29
and are subject to building inspection during and after construction.
Structures for human habitation must be designed to meet or exceed
California Uniform Building Code standards. Conforming to these required
standards will ensure the proposed project would not result in significant
impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking. Any impact would be less
than significant.
(iii) Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is not located within a liquefaction hazard area as shown on
Exhibit S-3 of the Santa Clarita General Plan or on the appended Seismic
Hazard Zones Map of the Newhall Quadrangle. A Soils Report was
prepared for the property dated May 10, 2012, and is included in the master.
project file located in the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division. The
report states that the subject property is not located within a potentially
liquefiable area, and that the historic groundwater levels are below a depth
where liquefaction is likely to affect the site. Given the conclusion of the
project's Soils Report and that any future structures would be required to
comply with the latest building codes, the project would not result in
significant impacts related to liquefaction or other seismic -related ground
failures. Any impact would be less than significant.
(iv) No Impact.
Based on Exhibit S-3 in the Safety Element of the City of Santa Clarita
General Plan, the project site is not located in an area that is subject to
landslides. The existing home has been in place since 1978, has weathered
several seismic events without landslide damage, and the proposed project
would not radically alter or change the existing condition on the property.
The project site contains no slopes and would not expose people or
structures to potential adverse effects from landslides or associated impacts
from seismic events. Therefore, there would be no impact.
VI b. Less Than Significant Impact.
The building site was previously graded and the existing home was built in
1978. The project itself, the subdivision of one residential parcel into two lots,
would have no impact on wind, water, or soil erosion. However, a new,
buildable, parcel would be created to accommodate a single-family home. In the
future, when a single-family home is constructed, the soils on-site may become
exposed, and thus, subject to erosion. Any future construction and grading,
however, would be required to comply with existing regulations that reduce
erosion potential. Regulations from the South Coast Air Quality Management
. District would reduce the potential for wind erosion. The potential for water
erosion would be substantially reduced by complying with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which requires Best
Management Practices to reduce erosion and to prevent eroded soils from
washing offsite. Compliance with these regulations and methods would ensure
that neither the proposed subdivision of land nor the potential single-family
residence that would result from the subdivision, would result in a substantial
impact to soil, water, or wind erosion. Any impact would be less than
significant. .
VI c. Less Than Significant Impact.
The project site is a flat parcel that is not located on a cliff, mountainside, bluff,
or other geographic feature with stability concerns. The site and vicinity are not
susceptible to landslide, subsidence, or collapse. Section VI.a)iii discusses the
potential for liquefaction hazards, which were concluded to be less than
significant for the project. Therefore, any impact created by either the proposed
30
project or a single-family residence that could be constructed as a result of the
project, would be less than significant.
VI d. Less Than Significant Impact.
As stated in the project's soils report, the project site contains granular, sandy,
soils, that are not considered to be expansive, Therefore, any impact related to
expansive soils would be less than significant.
VI e. Less Than Significant Impact.
The property was developed with a single-family residence and septic system in
1978. A Percolation Testing and Limited Evaluation of Groundwater Levels
Report (Report) was prepared for the project. The Report was reviewed by the
Los Angeles County Department of Health which issued Conditions of Approval
for the project and concurred with the Report's finding that both of the lots
created by the proposed subdivision would be capable of supporting individual
septic systems. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant.
VI f. No Impact.
The project site was previously graded when the original home was built in
1978. The flat parcel contains various equestrian structures that would be
replaced by a single-family home. Grading would be required to prepare the
building pad for the home (1,364 cubic yards of cut and fill, balanced on-site),
and incidental trenching for utility installation. This grading and trenching is
minor and would not substantially change the surface topography of the site nor
alter ground or surface relief features. Furthermore, no ridgelines are contained
on the property. Therefore, the project would have no impact.
VI g. No Impact.
The property was previously graded when the existing home was constructed in
1978, and is effectively flat. Grading and trenching to prepare the building site
and for the installation of utilities is estimated to be 1,364 cubic yards, which is
less than 100,000 cubic yards. Therefore, there would be no impact.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
VII a -b. Less Than Significant Impact.
"Greenhouse gases," so called because of their role in trapping heat near the
surface of the earth, are emitted by human activity and are implicated in global
climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse
'gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by
transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing
terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases
(GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide. Collectively
GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles,
off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG
emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally.
Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG
emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three
executive orders regarding greenhouse gases, GHG statues and executive orders
(EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order
(EO) S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32, the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one of the most significant pieces of
31
environmental legislation that California has adopted. Most notably AB 32
mandates California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
The proposed project, and more specifically, the home that would be potentially
constructed as a result of this project, would have the potential to produce some
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions through normal construction activities, and
normal residential activities, including electrical and gas use. These impacts
would not be expected to be significant to the region as a whole because a new
home would replace an existing horse barn on a similar footprint, as well as
other equestrian structures on the property. The project is likewise consistent
with the zoning code and General Plan densities for the subject property.
Therefore, any impact would be anticipated to be less than significant.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
VHI a. No Impact.
The proposed project would not involve the use or storage of hazardous
substances nor would the subdivision or the single-family home that could be
potentially constructed on the newly -created parcel create the need for routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, there would be no
impact.
VIII b. No Impact.
The project would not create any hazards to the public due to accidents or
conditions involving an explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the
environment (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or
radiation). The site is not known or expected to contain any underground
storage tanks, aboveground storage tanks, gas lines, or other hazardous material
conduits or storage facilities. Furthermore, the project does not propose any
industrial uses, waste treatment or storage facilities, power plants, or other land
uses that are typically associated with hazardous material accidents. Therefore,
there would be no impact.
VHI c. Less Than Significant Impact.
The Master's College, a four-year college, is located approximately one quarter -
mile south of the project site. As discussed in sections VIII a. and b., neither the
proposed subdivision nor a single-family home that could be constructed as a
result of the project, would be anticipated to store, use, or generate substantial
amounts of hazardous materials. Any impact would be less than significant.
VIII d. No Impact.
The proposed project is not located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 35962.5. As a
result, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
VIII e. No Impact.
The subject property is not located within an airport land use plan or located
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project would not
create an aviation -related safety hazard for people who live around the subject
property. Therefore, there would be no impact.
VIII f. No Impact.
The subject property is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The
project would not create an aviation -related safety hazard for people who live
around the subject property. Therefore, there would be no impact.
32
VIII g. No Impact.
The project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on
any existing public streets. The project site is not utilized by any emergency
response agencies, and no emergency response facilities existing in the project
vicinity. Therefore, any impact to emergency response or evacuation plans
would.be.less than significant.
VIII h. Less Than Significant Impact.
As shown on the City's Fire Hazards Zone map (Exhibit S-6 in the City of Santa
Clarita General Plan), the subject property is located within a fire hazard area.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department describes the subject property as
being located within the "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone." This was
formerly known as "Fire Zone 4."
The Los Angeles County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed project
and has provided conditions of approval. These conditions. generally include
requirements concerning access, water delivery systems, and various other
requirements that reduce the risk of fire damage to life and property. All
proposed structures would be reviewed by both the City's Building and Safety
Division as well as the Los Angeles County Fire Department to ensure that the
building plans are consistent with the latest building and fire codes, including
sprinkler installation and landscape approval by the Fire Department's Fuel
Modification Program. Therefore, any impacts or exposure to wild fires would
be less than significant.
VIII I. Less Than Significant Impact.
The site contains an existing electrical line. No other gas, oil, or other material
conduits are known to exist on the site. The home that may be constructed as a
result of the project would not be located under the existing power line and
would replace an existing bam structure. Therefore, any impact would be less
than significant.
LX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IX a. No Impact.
The project consists of subdividing an existing parcel into two residential lots. A
residence could be built on the newly -create parcel, Neither the new or existing
home would be a point source generator of water pollutants, and thus, no
quantifiable water quality standards apply to the 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). Compliance with
the SWPPP would ensure that the proposed project would not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and would not have any
impacts associated with the project or the new single-family home that could
reasonably be expected to be constructed as a result of the project. Therefore,
there would be no impact.
IX b. No Impact.
The project would not install any groundwater wells and would not otherwise
directly withdraw any groundwater. In addition, there are no known aquifer
conditions at the project site or in the surrounding area which could be
intercepted by excavation or development of the project. The Santa Clara River
and its tributaries are the primary groundwater recharge areas for the Santa
Clarita Valley. Neither the proposed subdivision nor the single-family home that
could be built on the newly -created parcel would substantially change the
drainage pattern of the site or redirect stormwater flows to drainages other than
33
the Santa Clara River via Placerita Creek. This is the same drainage pattern and
groundwater recharge method that currently exists. Therefore, the proposed
project would not physically interfere with any groundwater supplies and there
would be no impact. -
IX c. Less Than Significant Impact.
Development projects that increase the volume or velocity of surface water can
result in an increase in erosion and siltation. Increased surface water volume and
velocity causes an increase in siltation and sedimentation by increasing both
soil/water interaction time and the sediment load potential of water.
Drainage on the site currently flows as surface water and is collected in the
swales that run along Meadview Avenue and Quigley Canyon Road. The
proposed subdivision would have no impact on drainage; however, the single-
family home that could be constructed as a result of the project would involve
limited grading for site preparation and utility installation. The resulting
drainage of such construction and preparation activities would largely mimic the
existing drainage, with stormwater flowing into the same swales along
Meadview Avenue and Quigley Canyon Road as it does currently.
The proposed project does not include the channelization of any drainage
courses and would not focus surface water flows onto areas of exposed soil. In
addition, the on-site drainage system, in accordance with the NPDES
requirements discussed above in Section VIII(a)Js 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 not result
in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and the project would have no
related significant impacts. Any impact would be less than significant.
IX d. Less Than Significant Impact.
As discussed in section IX c. above, the proposed project—specifically a single-
family residence that could potentially be constructed as a result of this
project—would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the subject
property. Given that the property is currently developed with a single family
home and equestrian structures, the project would not be expected to measurably
increase the stormwater flows generated on-site. The drainage swales on
Meadview Avenue and Quigley Canyon Road would continue to convey
stormwater flows as they do currently, transporting the water into Placerita
Creek and then into the Santa Clara River. Therefore, the project would not
result in flooding on- or off-site, and the project would have no related impacts.
Any impact would be less than significant.
IX e. Less Than Significant Impact.
As discussed in section IX d., the project would not have a significant impact on
stormwater runoff. The project is required to comply with the City's engineering
standards for volume of water discharged, and would be required to file
stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Neither the subdivision nor the
proposed building pad would not be anticipated to substantially change the
amount of runoff generated on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would,
not affect the capacity of the stormwater drainage system and would not create
any source of polluted runoff. Any impact would be less than significant.
IX f. Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed project would not measurably degrade water quality and would
not be a point -source generator of water pollutants. While the project itself
34
would not have the potential to generate pollutants, the construction of a single
family home that would be allowed on the newly -created parcel would have the
potential to generate short-term water pollutants, including sediment, trash,
construction materials, and equipment fluids. Any future development on the
project site would be required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to reduce the potential for construction -induced water pollutant impacts. These
BMPs include methods to prevent contaminated construction site stormwater
from entering the drainage system and preventing construction -induced
contaminates from entering the drainage system. Best Management Practices
include:
1. Sediments generated on the project site shall be retained using
adequate Treatment Control or Structural BMPs;
2. Construction -related materials, wastes, spills or residues shall be
retained at the project site to avoid discharge to streets, drainage
facilities, receiving waters, or adjacent properties by wind or runoff;
3. Non -storm water runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and
any other activity shall be contained at the project site; and
4. Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by
implementing an effective combination of BMPs (as approved in
Regional Board Resolution No. 99-03), such as the limiting of
grading scheduled during the wet season; inspecting graded areas
during rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on
slopes; and covering erosion susceptible slopes.
In addition, since the project is greater than one acre in size, construction of the
project is subject to additional stormwater pollution requirements. The State
Water Resources Control Board (S WRCB) 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.
Implementing a SWPPP and complying with all applicable stormwater
regulations and requirements will ensure that future construction activity on the
project site would not significantly impact water quality. Any impact would be
less than significant.
IX g. Less Than Significant Impact.
A portion of the subject property is located within the AO zone, a flood zone
designation used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
location of the building pad for a future home on the newly created parcel would
be located outside of the designated flood hazard area and would be elevated
above the highest flood elevation to ensure that any habitable structure is not
susceptible to flood damage, and would not be located within a 100 year flood
plain. Any impact would be less than significant.
35
IX h. Less Than Significant Impact.
The project would create a new parcel that could accommodate anew single-
family residence. The potential building pad would not be located in an area
with flood potential. Furthermore, the pad would be built up to ensure that any
future structure would be above any maximum flood elevation. As the building
site is not located within a flood hazard area, the building pad would not
substantially redirect or impede flood flows. Therefore, and impact would be
less than significant.
IX i.. No Impact
The subject property is not located in an area down stream from a levee or dam
and would not subject people or structures to flood risk due to dam or levee
failure. Therefore, there would be no impact.
IX j. No Impact.
There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the subject property that are
capable of producing seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, there would be
no impact.
IX k. Less Than Significant Impact.
The project would not change the rate of flow, current, or the course or direction
of either surface or ground water. The construction of a single-family home on
the parcel created by the subdivision could not modify surface or sub -surface
water flows. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant.
IX 1. No Impact.
The project would not would not cause any other impacts due to the
modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river. Therefore, there would be no
impact.
1X in. Less Than Significant Impact/No Impact.
As discussed in other subsections of Section IX, any construction that results
from the project would be required to comply with applicable local and state
ordinances that regulate stormwater runoff, Best Management Practices, and
water quality. Compliance with these requirements will ensure that the project
would not significantly impact stormwater management. A detailed discussion is
listed below:
(i) Less Than Significant Impact.
The construction of a single-family home on the new parcel created by the
project would incorporate the latest standard practices in erosion control
during the construction process and would be typical of routine residential
construction. Nothing about the project would suggest, or would be
expected to create, an impact on stormwater runoff either during the
construction stage or after the single family home is built. Any impact
would be less than significant:
(ii) No Impact.
The construction of a single-family home on the new parcel created by the
project would not require materials storage other than short-term building
materials that would be used during construction. Upon completion, the
home would not be used for equipment or vehicle fueling or equipment
maintenance as such activities are prohibited in residential zones. Waste
handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage are not uses that would
be permitted and are not proposed. A home constructed on the new parcel
would not have outdoor loading docks or work areas. Therefore, there
36
would be no impact
(iii) Less Than Significant Impact.
The project would not substantially alter the grading or topography of the
project site. The proposed building pad would be similar to the pad of the
existing horse bam that would be removed to accommodate future
construction of a residence. No aspect of the proposed project or potential
single-family residence would be expected to change the flow or velocity of
runoff. Any impact would be less than significant.
(iv) Less Than Significant Impact.
The project does not have the potential to significantly increase erosion on
the project site or surrounding properties. The property was graded flat
when the original home was constructed in 1978, and any home that would
be constructed on the new parcel created by the subdivision would replace
an existing horse bam and/or other structures. Any impact would be less
. than significant. '
(v) Less Than Significant Impact.
The project.would not change, alter, impact, impair (or contribute to the
impairment) of beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide
water quality benefits. Any impact would be less than significant.
(vi) Less Than Significant Impact.
The project or the potential single-family home that could be constructed as
a result of the subdivision, would not change existing discharges from the
site. The project would not harm the biological integrity of drainage
systems, watersheds, or water bodies because the subject property does not
contain any water bodies and the scope of activities proposed would not
alter the watershed or drainage patterns. Any impact would be less than
significant.
(vii) Less Than Significant Impact.
The construction of a single-family home that could reasonably be expected
as a result of the project would be subject to applicable City ordinances that
govem construction, demolition, and materials recycling. Upon completion,
the new home would have City trash service which includes full recycling
services. Any impact would be less than significant.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
X a. No Impact.
The project would subdivide an existing residential parcel into two new lots.
The project would not physically divide an existing community as the two new
lots would be created out of an existing lot and would not change the street
pattern or the shapes of other existing lots that surround the subject property.
The project would not disrupt or divide an established community. Therefore,
the project would have no impact.
X b. Less Than Significant Impact.
The project subdivide an existing residential parcel into two new lots. The
subdivision would create a new lot that could accommodate a new single-family
home, The project meets density requirements under the Non -Urban 5 (NU 5)
General Plan designation (one dwelling unit per acre) and also the density under
the Residential Low (RL) zone (2.2 units per acre). Under the proposed
subdivision, Lot 1 would contain 43,749 square feet (1.00 acre). Lot 2 would
contain 44,151 square feet (1.01 acre). As each proposed parcel meets the
37
General Plan density for the NU5 land use category, the project would therefore
be consistent with the General Plan. The project would likewise comply with the
density requirement for the RL zone. Furthermore, the project would be
consistent with the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District as listed in
Section 17.16.080 of the Unified Development Code which calls for the
preservation of the community's rural character and that allows for equestrian
uses and trails. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant.
X c. No Impact.
The subject property is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES
XI a. No Impact.
The subject property is not located within a mineral area as identified on Exhibit
CO -2 "Mineral Resources" of the City's General Plan. Based on information
from the Division of Oil Gas, and Geothermal Resources' Online Mapping
System (htto://maos.conservation.ca.gov/doms/doms-app.html'), there are no
active oil wells within 1,000' of the project site. The project would not displace
nor result in the loss of any mineral resource (oil extraction, mineral mining
activities, etc.). Therefore, there would be no impact.
XI b. No Impact.
The subject property is not located within a mineral area as identified on Exhibit
CO -2 "Mineral Resources" of the City's General Plan. The project would not
result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery
site as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan
because no such site exists on the subject property, nor would the project restrict
or block access to any such site beyond the subject property. Therefore, there
would be no impact.
XI c. Less Than Significant Impact.
The project itself, the subdivision of one residential parcel into two new
residential lots, would not result in the wasteful or inefficient uses of
nonrenewable resources. However, a new home would be able to be built on the
newly -created parcel and the construction of a single-family home would utilize
building materials and human resources. Many of the resources utilized for
construction are nonrenewable, including manpower, sand, gravel, earth, iron,
steel, and hardscape materials. Other construction resources, such as lumber, are
slowly renewable. in addition, a single-family home that could logically result
from the project (the land subdivision) would commit energy and water
resources as a result of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the
home. Much of the energy that will be utilized on-site would be generated off-
site through the 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 a single-family home would be supplied by regional utility purveyors
which participate in various conservation programs. Furthermore, there are no
unique conditions that would require excessive use of nonrenewable resources
on-site and a home that could conceivably result from the project would be
expected to utilize energy and water resources in the same manner as the typical
residential uses that surround the subject property. Therefore, the proposed
project would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner. Any impact would be less than significant.
38
XII. NOISE
XII a. Less Than Significant Impact.
The subject property is located in a residential area that is outside of the 60 dBA
noise contour as shown on Exhibit N-6 of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan.
The project consists of the subdivision of one residential parcel into two new
residential lots, one of which is already developed, the other of which could
accommodate a new single-family residence. The new single-family residence
that could be constructed as a result of the project would not expose persons to
levels of noise in excess of the standards established in the General Plan or noise
ordinance. The home would be constructed in accordance with City
development standards and would replace existing equestrian facilities and a
horse barn. Given that any home that could be built as a result of the project
would be in keeping with the character and nature of surrounding properties,
that any such home would not be expected to contain noise sources or sound
levels beyond those which are expected as part of low density residential
development, and that the property would be subject to the City's noise
ordinance, any impact would be less than significant.
XII b. Less Than Significant Impact.
While there are no established vibration standards in the City of Santa Clarita,
neither the proposed project nor a single-family home that could be constructed
as a reasonable result of the project would generate or expose people to
excessive groundboume vibrations or groundboume noise levels. Construction
of a single-family home may temporarily generate vibrations; however, such
construction would not involve practices or methods that are typically associated
with vibrations, such as pile driving and large-scale demolition activities.
Therefore, any impacts to or exposure of persons to noise or vibration would be
less than significant.
XII c. Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed project would subdivide one residential parcel into two new
residential lots, one of which is already developed, and the other which could
accommodate a new single-family residence. A new home would generate daily
vehicle trips and would have the potential to generate noise commonly
associated with single-family properties. A new home would not be expected to
generate any permanent, substantial noise beyond which is already generated or
potentially generated on the project site. Any impact would be expected to be
less than significant. "
XII d. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
Should the project be approved and a new home constructed on the new
residential parcel, construction of the home would generate short-term noise
impacts. Noise would be generated from the use of construction equipment such
as trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, portable generators, or other
machinery. Given this, the following mitigation measure shall apply to any
future construction on the project site:
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: All construction activities shall be limited to
the allowable hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall not be allowed at
anytime on Sundays or on public holidays.
As long as construction activities are conducted in accordance to the hours listed
above, and conducted in accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance, any short-
term noise construction impacts would be less than significant.
39
XH a -f. No Impact,
The subject property is not located within an airport land use plan or within two
miles of a public airport, nor is the property located within the vicinity of a
private air strip. The closest commercial and general aviation airports are located
well south of the subject property in the San Fernando Valley. These include
Bob Hope Airport in the City of Burbank, Van Nuys Airport, and the Whitman
Airpark which are both located in the City of Los Angeles. The Ague Dulce
Airpark is a private landing strip located in the Agua Dulce community
northeast of the Santa Clarita Valley. All of these airports are located more than
ten miles from the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
XIII a. Less Than Significant Impact.
Growth -inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that
foster or encourage population and/or economic growth. These characteristics
include adding residential units or businesses, expanding infrastructure, and
generating employment opportunities. The proposed project would create a
legal, buildable parcel that could accommodate a new single-family home.
Based on the City's average household size of 2.95 persons (as reported in the
US Census 2000), the project would be expected to add three people to the
City's population. This equates to a population increase of less than a hundredth
of one percent. This direct increase to the City's population is negligible, and is
not a significant impact. The additional home would accommodate a portion of
the growth that is being experienced across the Southern California region,
growth that is planned for by both the Southern California Association of
Governments and also the City of Santa Clarita. Existing utilities to serve the
potential new home are already in place or have been planned for in conceptual
site plans that demonstrate where the utilities could be placed. Existing utilities
and a future new septic system would not encourage new offsite development.
Therefore, any impact would be less than significant.
XIII b. No Impact.
The project would create a new residential parcel and would not include the
removal or demolition of any existing dwelling units. Therefore, there would be
no impact. -
XIII c.. No Impact.
The project would create a new residential parcel and would not necessitate the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere because no housing units would
be demolished and no permanent employment needs would be created that
would require housing for workers. Therefore, there would be no impact.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
XIV a.
(i) Less Than Significant Impact.
The project is located within a "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone"
(formerly known as Fire Zone 4). As such, the project is subject to Fire
Department requirements regarding the location and number of fire
hydrants, fire flow, street access, turn-arounds, and signage.
Compliance with Fire Department requirements would be included as a
condition of approval for any new home or structure constructed on the
property. The proposed project will not result in the need for additional
new or altered fire protection services and will not alter acceptable
service ratios or response times because the project would create a new
residential lot from an existing parcel that is adequately served by the
Los Angeles County Fire Department, Furthermore, the subject
40
property is currently developed with structures that already are
protected by the Fire Department. Replacing existing structures with a
new home would not create an impact large enough to warrant the
construction of new fire protection facilities. Also, any construction
would require the payment of impact fees which are established to
offset incremental increases to fire service demand. Therefore, any
impact would be less than significant,
Less Than Significant 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 because the project would create a new
residential lot from an existing parcel that is already served by the Los
Angeles County Sheriffs Department. Replacing existing structures
with a new home would not create an impact large enough to warrant
the construction of new police protection facilities. Therefore, any
impact would be less than significant.
Less Than Significant Impact.
The site is located within the Newhall Union. Elementary School
District and also the William S. Hart Union High School District. The
single-family residence.that could be built as a result of the project, the
subdivision of one residential parcel into two new lots, could
potentially increase the number of students in each school district.
To compensate for population growth, the school districts impose
development fees for new residential units constructed within the
district boundaries. As specified by Section 65995(h) of the
Government Code, the payment of the school impact fee "in the
amount specified in Section 65995 and, if applicable, any amounts
specified in Section 65995.5 or 65995.7, are hereby deemed to be full
and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or
adjudicative act, or both; involving, but not limited to, the planning,
use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental
organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073. on
the provision of adequate school facilities." Thus, the payment of the
school impact fee fully .mitigates any impacts of new residential
development on schools. Therefore, with the payment of the
appropriate school development fees, the proposed project would not
significantly impact the public school system. Any impactwould be
less than significant.
(iv) Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed project would potentially add a single-family residence to
the City of Santa Clarita which would likely increase the use of the
local and regional parks system. The City's General Plan establishes
park standards to ensure adequate community and neighborhood parks
are provided for its residents. To maintain these park standards, and in
accordance with the Quimby Act, the City collects impact fees to offset
the increased use of parks created by new development. Payment of
these fees mitigates the project's potential to increase the use of parks.
With the payment of the City's park impact fees any impact would be
less than significant.
41
XV. RECREATION
XV a. Less Than Significant Impact.
As discussed in Section XIV a.(iv), the proposed project would likely increase
the use of neighborhood and regional parks. The City collects a park impact fee
for each residential unit. This fee is used to fund the City's park maintenance
and improvement program. Therefore, the project would not lead to substantial
physical deterioration of any recreations facilities. Any impact would be less
than significant.
XV b. Less Than Significant Impact.
The project would create a new residential parcel that could accommodate a new
single-family home. As part of the conditions of approval for the project, the
applicant would be required to offer land on Quigley Canyon Road for a multi-
use trail. A multi -use trail would not be expected to have a significant impact on
the environment because trails are an integral part of the Placerita Canyon
community and would provide access to open space for pedestrians and
equestrians alike, in keeping with the Placerita Special Standards District. Any
impact would be less than significant.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
XVI a. Less Than Significant Impact.
The project would create a new residential lot in an existing residential
neighborhood that could accommodate a new single-family home. The new
home would be typical of other uses surrounding the property and would not
substantially increase traffic load, create any impact to the capacity or volume of
local streets or regional highways, or conflict with any applicable transportation
plan, ordinance, or policy. Therefore, there would be no impact.
XVI b. No Impact.
The subject property is not located on or near a Congestion Management
Roadway and would not conflict with any congestion management program.
The project is in keeping with the densities listed under both the City's General`
Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and is consistent with the other types of
development in the vicinity. Therefore, there would be no impact.
XVI c. No Impact.
The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of
public airport or public use airport. Consequently, the proposed project would
not affect any airport facilities and would not cause a change in the directional
patterns of aircraft. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to air
traffic patterns.
XVI d. No Impact.
The project would create a new residential parcel from an existing parcel, in an
existing residential area. The project would not alter or change the surrounding
street network, would not increase hazards due to design features including
sharp curves or dangerous intersections, or create the potential for incompatible
uses. Therefore, there would be no impact.
XVI e. No Impact.
The new lot created by the project is required to meet the Los Angeles County
Fire Department's standards for ingress, egress, access to structures,
turnarounds, etc. The new parcel would have two points of access, one each to
Quigley Canyon Road and Meadview Avenue. A hammerhead turnaround will
be provided for any residential construction on the new parcel as shown on the
approved parcel map. The proposed project has been reviewed by the Los
42
Angeles County Fire Department and is compliance with all Fire Department
ordinances and policies. Therefore, there would be no impact.
XVI f, g. No Impact.
The project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on
any existing public streets. Furthermore, a singlesfamily residence, the building
type most likely to result from the subdivision, would be located entirely on the
new parcel, precluding the potential to impose any physical barriers on any
existing pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle travel routes. The project would dedicate
a strip of land on Quigley Canyon Road for a multi -use trail and would not
restrict bicycle travel in any way. The proposed project would not create hazards
or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Therefore, there would be no impact.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
XVII a. Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed project would subdivide an existing residential parcel into two
new lots, and could conceivably result in the construction of a new single-family
home. The project complies with the existing zoning and General Plan land use
designations. Neither the subdivision nor the potential single-family home that
could be constructed as a result of the subdivision, would generate atypical
wastewater such as industrial or agricultural effluent. All wastewater generated
by the residential structure would be expected to be domestic sewage. A private,
on-site wastewater treatment system (a septic system) would be required for any
future residence. Such a system would be capable of treating domestic sewage.
Thus, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Since
the project or the potential single-family home that may result from the project
would not generate atypical wastewater, and because the project would also be
consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, any impact
would be less than significant.
XVII b. Less Than Significant Impact.
The project would create a new residential parcel that could accommodate a new
home that would result in increased water demand. One new residence,
however, is not considered to be significant, and any impact would be negligible
in comparison to the service area of the water purveyor. A "will serve" letter is
required prior to final map recordation ensuring that the project will have
adequate water service for the potential new home. The only water service
improvement required for the project would be on-site water lines which are
subject to connection fees. The project would have no impact to wastewater
treatment service since sewage will be treated and disposed of on-site.
Therefore, any impact would be less than significant.
XVII c. Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed project and the potential home that could be conceivably built as a
result of the project, would not substantially alter the site's drainage patterns.
Water would continue to flow in swales along Quigley Canyon Road and
Meadview Avenue, making its way into Placerita Creek and then into the South
Fork of the Santa Clarita River. Therefore, the proposed project would not
require or result in the construction of new off-site stormwater drainage facilities
nor would the project require expansion of existing facilities. Any impact would
be less than significant.
XVII d. Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. Newhall County Water District (NCWD) provides water service to
the project site. The NCWD's water sources are derived from the State Water
43
Project and local ground water resources generated primarily from the Santa
Clara River. These existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the proposed
development. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or
expanded water entitlements. Any impact would be less than significant.
XVII e. No Impact.
The project site is located in an area that is not served by the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts. Domestic sewage that is generated in the area is
treated and disposed of on-site via private sewage treatment (septic) systems.
Neither the project nor the single-family home that would be potentially built as
a result of the subdivision would generate effluent that would be treated by the
municipal wastewater utility (the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts).
Therefore, there would be no impact.
XVII L Less Than Significant Impact
The existing home is served by a landfill (Chiquita Canyon Landfill) which has
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs. Chiquita Canyon Landfill is not expected to reach capacity for
approximately 14-16 years. Therefore, any impact would be less than
significant.
XVII g. No Impact.
The California Integrated Waste Management Act requires that jurisdictions
maintain a 50% or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City implements this
requirement through the City's franchised Solid Waste Management Services.
Per the agreements between the City and the franchised trash disposal
companies, each franchisee is responsible for meeting the minimum recycling
diversion rate of 50% on a quarterly basis. Franchisees are further encouraged to
meet the City's overall diversion rate goal of 75%. The proposed project is
require 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.
The project and any subsequent construction that may occur as a result of the
subdivision, would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
relating to solid waste. Therefore, there would be no impact.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
XVIII a. No Impact.
The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause .
a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, 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. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in a Mandatory Finding of Significant due to impacts to
biological or cultural resources.
XVIII b. No Impact.
The proposed project would not cause impacts that are cumulatively
considerable. While no.aspect of the project would cause impacts, nonetheless,
mitigation measures have been included to doubly ensure that the local
community would not be subjected to impacts associated with Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, and Noise. The project does not have the
potential to create cumulative significant impacts. Therefore, the project would
not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts.
44
XVIII c. No Impact.
The project would not create any environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly and
would not result in adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, there would be
no impact.
XIX. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `DE MINIMUS' FINDING:
XVIII a. Less Than Significant Impact.
The project would not cause any significant impact on biological resources.
Nonetheless, the project does not qualify for a Department of Fish and Game
`De Minimus' or `No Effect' finding, Any impacts would be less than
significant.
45
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring
I. AESTHETICS
No mitigation measure are required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No mitigation measure are required.
III. AIR QUALITY
No mitigation measure are required.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following mitigation measures are required:
Mitigation Measure BIO -1: Clearing, grubbing, and/or removal of vegetation—particularly removal of .
mature trees—shall be conducted outside the nesting bird season, which
Typically occurs from February 16 to August 31. Any grubbing and/or removal
of vegetation during the nesting bird season (February 16 to August 31) shall
require a nesting survey performed by a qualified biologist at least one (1)
week prior to the activity and weekly thereafter. If discovered, all active nests
shall be avoided and provided with an adequate buffer zone to protect
nest/individuals as determined by the biologist (typically a minimum buffer of
300 feet for most species and 500 feet for raptors). Once buffer zones are
established, work shall not commence/resume within the buffer until a
qualified biologist confirms that all fledglings have left the nest, which would
likely not occur until the end of the nesting season.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and prior to the removal of any on-site trees, the monitor
shall coordinate with the project applicant to ensure the appropriate nesting
bird measures are implemented.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
Miti¢ation Measure BI0-2: The applicant shall retain a certified arborist to assist and ensure the following
techniques are implemented to protect and conserve the oak trees onsite:
I. Thoroughly irrigate all preserved trees one week prior to any excavation
that takes place within the protected zone.
2. Install and maintain protective fencing around trees as illustrated on the
plana
3. There must be a three-foot opening in the protective fencing places
around trees to allow for inspection and maintenance. Position the
opening every 50'-75'.
4. Any work taking place in the ground, grading, trenching; drilling, etc.,
within the protected zone shall be supervised buy the arborist on record
and be performed using hand tools only. .
46
5. Any tree roots encountered measuring 2 -inches or greater, must be
preserved in place.
6. Preserved tree roots that are left exposed shall be wrapped in burlap or
other moisture retentive material and must be kept moist.
7. Construction materials or debris shall not be stored or disposed of within
the protected zone of any tree.
8. No irrigation shall be installed within the drip line of any oak tree.
9. Any planting within the protected zone shall maintain a minimum
distance of 15' from the trunk, and shall consist of drought tolerant or
native plant species. The plant pallet must be approved by the City of
Santa Clarita.
10. No changes in soil grade shall be made within the tree protection zone
other than in the permitted work area.
11. All drainage shall be directed away from the root zone of all oak tress.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to
ensure compliance with this measure.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
Mitigation Measure 13I0-3: To mitigate for the removals of Oak Tree Nos. 73 and 75, the applicant shall
be subject to the following:
1. As mitigation for the removal of Oak Tree No. 73, the applicant shall be
required to plant three (3) 24 -inch box Coast live oak trees on-site.
2. As mitigation for the removal of Oak Tree No. 75, the applicant shall be
required to plant five (5) 24" box Coast live oak trees on-site.
3. In the event that the applicant does not have the appropriate amount of
space for all required mitigation trees, the applicant may choose to donate
a monetary payment equivalent to the value of all 24" box trees to City of .
Santa Clarita Oak Tree Preservation Fund, or plant a larger size oak tree
equivalent to the dollar value of the replacement oak trees, or a
combination of both.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the monitor shall verify required tree
plantings, fee payment, or a combination of both to ensure compliance with
this measure.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following mitigation measures are required
Mitigation Measure CULT-1_If archaeological resources are discovered during project grading or
construction, development.of the project shall halt until a qualified
professional archeologist assesses the find, determines the importance of the
47
site, and recommends a corresponding course of action, If halted by the
discovery of archaeological resources, development of the project shall not
resume until a new determination has been made by the California State
Office of Historic Perseveration.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall periodically coordinate with the contractor during
construction to ensure compliance with this measure..
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
No mitigation measure are required.
VTI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
No mitigation measure are required.
VIII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No mitigation measure are required.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No mitigation measure are required.
X. LAND USE PLANNING
No mitigation measure are required.
XL MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES
No mitigation measure are required.
XII.NOISE
No mitigation measure are required.
XUI. POPULATION AND HOUSING
No mitigation measure are required.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
No mitigation measure are required.
XV.RECREATION
No mitigation measure are required.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION
No mitigation measure are required.
48
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
No mitigation measure are required.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
No mitigation measure are required.
XIX. DEPARTMENT OFFISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" FINDING
No mitigation measure are required.
49