The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-11-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - PLANNING CMSN APPEAL (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: fOINVIViINt"1I Agenda Item: 6 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by November 27, 2012 Jeff Hogan 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 ENCROACH INTO THE PROTECTED ZONES OF EIGHT OAK TREES AND TO ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL OF TWO NON -HERITAGE OAK TREES Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council conduct a public hearing and direct staff to return with a resolution for the City Council granting the appeal and approving the proposed project. BACKGROUND Planning Commission staff report packets for September 18 and October 16, 2012, are attached for reference. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Master Case 11-178 (project) on September 18, 2012, and considered the staff presentation, staff report, and public testimony on the proposal. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on it meeting the Unified Development Code's findings for approval for tentative subdivision maps and it being consistent with the General Plan. However, the Planning Commission determined that project was physically unsuitable for the type of development and proposed density of development. 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. APPEED Attached is an appeal of the Planning Commission's final action submitted by the applicant on October 17, 2012, citing that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan, meets the requirements of the City's Unified Development Code, and is consistent with the intent of the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District. The Planning Commission determined the proposed subdivision is not consistent with all of the findings as outlined in the City's Unified Development Code (Section 17.03.030) and the Subdivision Map Act (Section 67310). Specifically, the proposed subdivision is not consistent with Finding 2: The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The Site Plan is attached for reference. The Planning Commission took the following votes on motions for this project: September 18, 2012 - Motion to approve project based on staff recommendation failed 3-2. September 18, 2012 - Motion to direct 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 passed 5-0. October 16, 2012 - Motion to adopt Resolution P12-05, denying the project without prejudice was approved 4-1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial where the applicant is requesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 71806 to subdivide a 2.01 -acre parcel into two lots. Lot No. I would consist of one acre (43,749 square feet gross, 36,812 square feet net) and Lot No. 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 Council Appeal Letter Site Plan Planning Commission Staff Report Packet, October 16, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report Packet, September 18, 2012 Letter, Graham - Vaage LLP, September 18, 2012 Public Hearing Notice 2 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES LOS A N G E L,E 5, I N C. PLANNING October 17, 2012 ENGINEERING SURVEYING -Mr. Jeff Hogan GOVERNMENT Planning Manager RELATIONS g ' CITY OF SANTA CLARITA IRVINE 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 LOS ANGELES Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO Subject: Master Case Number 11-178, Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040 - 24837 Quigley Canyon Rd. Dear Jeff, On behalf of the Hairell family, we are authorized to request an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the above- mentioned cases. We feel that the project, as proposed, fully meets all the development standards of the current zoning code and general plan, and also meets all the burdens of proof required for a subdivision in the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District. We disagree that the site is not suitable for the type of development proposed, aswe have accommodated all the development standards required by the Unified Development Code and PRINCIPALS: staff. - JASON FUKUMITSU - JEANNINEGIEM Below I have provided a rebuttal to each of the three specific, reasons the Staff Report cites as to why the project is not physically suitable for the type' of development proposed; one of the required findings forproject approval: 1. This subdivision does not create a flag lot, but rather proposes an access easement over one of the parcels to provide access to a public street for the rear lot. The fact that we are not creating a flag lot is 26074 Avenue Hall just another reason to negate the finding for denial which cites the Sulie23 flag lot, design as a reason the site is unsuitable for the proposed Valencia, Caurornla development, 91355 (661) 294-2211 PH 2. The subdivision proposes an arced lot line rather than a straight lot (661) 294-9890 FK line. However, a straight lot line is not required by the Unified y=v.hunsakerla.com Development Code, and was not a request or a condition from the Planning staff. Contrary to what was stated at the Planning .Commission meeting, and the Resolution for denial,.the arced lot line 6:\24837 Quigley Cyn Rd VTPM - 0181-001-001 \Correspondence\Letters\0030-J.Hogan- Appeal-10-17-12.doc 3 Jeff Hogan October 17, 2012 Page 2 did not necessarily result from the location of the septic tank relative to the AO flood zone. The lot line shape primarily resulted from staffs recommendation that each lot total one acre, which is not required by the zone or the General Plan for this site. The project is merely required to average a density of one unit per gross acre (project proposes 2 lots/units on 2.01 acres), and to maintain a 20,000 -square foot minimum lot size, which could easily have been done with a straight lot line, and was initially proposed for this project. Due to staff's recommendation. that each lot total one acre, the arced lot line resulted. The two oak trees proposed for removal are in poor health, which was confirmed by the applicant's oak tree specialist, as well as the City's arborist. The project could have been designed to avoid these trees. However, since they were found to be in poor health, the applicant decided to remove them as part of the project proposal. The Commission routinely makes findings for oak tree removals to accommodate development projects, while also making the finding that such development projects are physically suitable for their development. In actuality, the Hairell property trees could be permitted for removal with approval of an oak tree permit in the absence of any future development of the property, solely based on the finding of their poor health. The applicant's family feels that the positive merits of the project were substantiated by the fact the City Planning Department staff made a recommendation to .the Commission for project approval, but that the Planning Commission allowed themselves to .be unduly influenced by certain neighboring property owners - one of whom is a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, along with the Cox, Castle lawyers she used to represent her on this minor lot split request. I met with the applicant, Curtis Hairell (deceased), judge Jones, and her lawyer from the Cox Castle law firm on May 9, 2012 at City staff's direction, Prior to the meeting, City staff had already told us Ms. Jones was a sitting judge and that we would likely meet with her and her lawyers. At that meeting, they made it clear to me and Mr. Hairell that Ms. Jones would make it an extremely expensive process for the applicant if he continued to pursue his request. Ms. Jones also made it clear she did not want Mr. Hairell to build the project under any circumstances and that the only alternative was to either sell the property to her or withdraw the application. I certainly felt intimated by the judge and her lawyer and I I(now'that Mr. Hairell felt the same way. W Jeff Hogan October 17, 2012 Page 3 In closing, we request the appeal so that the City Council can correct what occurred and approve the lot, split as recommended by City staff. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan, meets the requirements of the Unified Development Code, and is consistent with the intent and purpose of. the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District. The two new residential lots would share the same character as other lots in the neighborhood and would maintain the desirable quality of life in the. Placerita Canyon community. The applicant has also shown that the new lot'would be buildable and capable of sustaining a single-family home, which is physically suitable to the area and the surrounding density. The applicant has taken measures to ensure .that the project would not unreasonably or significantly impact the surrounding area. We would like'to be scheduled for the next available City Council meeting, hopefully before year's end. Please feel free to contact me should' you have any questions regarding this correspondence, 661-705-2228. Very truly yours, Hl LNSAKER & ASSOCIATES LA; IN.C, Jeni Giem, AICP, LEED AP Principal Jr O �A4 r--- I ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 1— P P " P P 7' . . ZO of RIS mal O > 00 P 0- 1 zz -2'-GAS- C. :z;g g. 7. 's Mz r e -i ........... ------ In :8 Z. DVI AVEN 9 �02,H M E w PR ITH cc -2"- GAS- >; 10 W 650 0 .��\ C) > i I - 0-. in 8, ---------------------- -Z -------------- > -cm A I S4 > �UF 71 2- z > 11 0 " -Z k: 'N > Z'q Iii M z F, it z vs TJ f*i z > OO OD '0 Z z M 0 All - 0 0 m m o m 0 mz k2 0 1> z M > c) V to - SA z m Z m zm� < ...... ..... m 5 rl > OZ V) 0:OMfI 0 ?n= >_ ON 0 > 4L -R -z< ca'! 0' 0 ..,p 0, . z mm > >Z r T C, > M > PV S12"00"I o 'o P > �Y ZO. . ........ . .. .............. . ... 0 T 7 MRo -0 1.- M 1 Z 0 3> 00 p R 0 W*' > > z 0 > 71 > Z JY -J"', jq?; X, Im V_ 0 z F� z z 4 > 7"" 9 C i 34- < 0 A 2 'm 0 1 .5 m.0 z rile x it M Clz V) z F7 001. C� C) 'M z 4L, P; Ln 0 z 0 -c-: Z. -6 A mo Z't0 5� m r Will. =10 bD C 0 00 M Ow q M $ 0 > 0 A M g H F" % ct > Z Z w Z. 01 > T 0 1 0 v ' R 48'18'W 141 5 M 'k M4, M, 0 81 i. 0 ZO L > ->< o' Xtz; Z1q e'R 1 'g- > mi 0 T 12, om> . .. .... . ... z A M Z i: V z 11. F0, F, 1p > Ln T.... . ..... it i CQ ............. L4 -r. 0, Q)) (A Z' _C6 (A -1 Z J „S12°00']0" W165.00' 1 q QUIGLEY a DIPCANYON-- _R .. .. . ........ . ............. . -------------- ---------- -------------------------------------------- ------- > .. ............ .......... M. > Z:I;. j 81 < > AX A - =z > > .. ............ .......... CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NUMBER 11-178 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 71806 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 11-040 DATE: October 16, 2012 TO: Chau Eichman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: J an, AICP, Planning Manager CASE PLANNER: Jason Smisko, Senior Planner APPLICANT: Curtis Hairell LOCATION: 24837 Quigley Canyon Road Assessor Parcel No. 2834-028-034 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the approval of 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 encroach into the protected zones of eight oak trees and also to allow for the removal of two non -heritage oak trees. BACKGROUND On December 28, 2011, Curtis Hairell (the applicant) submitted a proposal to subdivide one 2.01 - acre residential parcel into two new residential lots. The subject property contains an existing single- family residence that was built in 1978 as well as equestrian facilities including a 2,400 square -foot horse barn, stables, corrals, and outbuildings. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on September 18, 2012, and considered the staff presentation, staff report and public testimony on the proposal. 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. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 71806 to subdivide a 2.01 -acre parcel into two lots. Lot No. I would consist of one acre (43,749 square feet gross, 36,812 square feet net) and Lot No. 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 that could 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. Impacts for a single-family home were analyzed as part of the project's Initial Study. A new residence on the Master Case No. 11-178, TPM 71806 and OTP 11-040 October 16, 2012 2 of 3 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. ANALYSIS Inconsistency with Unified Development Code Findings At the Planning Commission meeting on September 18, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision and found the project to be physically unsuitable for the type of development and proposed density of development. Pursuant to Section 17.03.030 G. of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings of fact when considering action: 1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan, this code, and/or any specific plan; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development; 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; 4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat; 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems; and 6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with all of the above findings as outlined in the City's Unified Development Code (Section 17.03.030) and the Subdivision Map Act (Section67310). Specifically, the proposed subdivision is not consistent with finding 2. (The site is physically suitable for the type of development) for the following reasons: (1) The shape of the existing parcel. Specifically, the existing parcel consists of a rectangle with a "panhandle" extending to the west but over which no access to a public street is possible. Due to the required minimum lot size per the City's General Plan and other constraints described below, the proposed lots would share an arced lot line instead of a straight lot line, and due to the lack of access across the "panhandle," an easement for access purposes would have to be granted by the proposed easterly parcel to the proposed westerly parcel. This would result in the appearance of a flag lot, though a flag lot would not technically be created. Further, the "panhandle" portion of the westerly proposed lot would not provide a suitable site for many accessory uses, limiting the development and Master Case No. 11-178, TPM 71806 and OTP 11-040 October 16, 2012 3 of 3 use of the lot. For these reasons, the physical shape of the existing parcel is not suitable for the type of development. (2) The location of the AO flood zone, specifically in an arc across the westerly proposed lot. The AO flood zone both increases the requirements that must be met in order to build structures in the "panhandle" and the main portion of the westerly lot and limits the placement of septic tanks and leach fields in the westerly lot, which itself further constrains building on the lot and contributes to the need for the arced lot line between the westerly and easterly proposed parcels. This physical characteristic of the existing parcel, and the constraints it imposes on development of the proposed parcels, makes the parcel unsuitable for the type of development. (3) The location of the oak trees on the existing and proposed lots, in particular the location of heritage oaks and coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) on the proposed westerly lot limits the ability to build structures on that lot by constraining the buildable space to a very limited portion of the eastern part of the lot. The location of the oak trees reduces vehicular access options to the proposed westerly lot unless certain oaks were removed or encroached upon. This physical limitation restricts the future use of the proposed westerly lot and makes it unsuitable for the type of development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P12-05, denying, without prejudice, Master Case 11-178, Tentative Parcel Map 71806, Oak Tree Permit 11-040. Resolution P12-05 Site Plan SACMCURRENTN2011\11-178 (Quigley Cyn TPM)\Planning Commission\Staff Report MCI 1-178 101612.doc RESOLUTION NO. P 12-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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 (RL) 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 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. The subject property is located at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road and consists of Assessor Parcel Number 2834-028-034, and is located in the Placenta 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 21 -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; I The General Plan land use designation and zoning classification for the subject property is Non -Urban 5 (NU5) which is a single-family detached categorywith a density of one unit per gross acre; C. 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 of 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; 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 couununity; b. 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 proj ect site being physically unsuitable for the type of development and proposed density of development; Resolution P12-05 Master Case I1-178 Page 2 of 4 At the hearing on October 16, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted the resolution of denial for the proposed two lot subdivision; and 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 Unified Development Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission further finds and determines as follows: a. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 21080 b.5 which states, "This division does not apply to any of the following activities [including] projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." SECTION 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings (Section 17.03.030 of the Unified Development Code and Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act) for Tentative Tract Map 71806, a legislative body of the City of Santa Clarita shall deny approval of a tentative map, if it is inconsistent with any of the following findings. a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan, this Code, and/or any specific plan; b. The site is physically suitable for the type of development; C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; d. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat; e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems; and f The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: The proposed subdivision is not consistent with all of the above findings as outlined in the City's Unified Development Code (Section 17.03.030) and the Subdivision Map Act (Section 67310). Specifically, the proposed subdivision is not consistent with finding b. (The site is physically suitable for the type of development.) for the following reasons: (1) The shape of the existing parcel. Specifically, the existing parcel consists of a rectangle with a "panhandle" extending to the west but over which no access to a public street is possible. Due to the required minimum lot size per the City's General Plan and other 1A �. Resolution P12 -05 - Master Case 11-178 Page 3 of constraints described below, the proposed lots would share an arced lot line instead of a straight lot line, and due to the lack of access across the "panhandle," an easement for access purposes would have to be granted by the proposed easterly parcel to the proposed westerly parcel. This would result in the appearance of a flag lot, though a flag lot would not technically be created. Further, the "panhandle" portion of the westerly proposed lot would not provide a suitable site for many accessory uses, limiting the development and use of the lot. For these reasons, the physical shape of the existing parcel is not suitable for the type of development. (2) The location of the AO flood zone, specifically in an arc across the westerly proposed lot. The AO flood zone both increases the requirements that must be met in order to build structures in the "panhandle" and the main portion of the westerly lot and limits the placement of septic tanks and leach fields in the westerly lot, which itself further constrains building on the lot and contributes to the need for the arced lot line between the westerly and easterly proposed parcels. This physical characteristic of the existing parcel, and the constraints it imposes on development of the proposed parcels, makes the parcel unsuitable for the type of development. (3) The location of the oak trees on the existing and proposed lots, in particular the location of heritage oaks and coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) on the proposed westerly lot limits the ability to build structures on that lot by constraining the buildable space to a very limited portion of the eastern part of the lot. The location of the oak trees reduces vehicular access options to the proposed westerly lot unless certain oaks were removed or encroached upon. This physical limitation restricts the future use of the proposed westerly lot and makes it unsuitable for the type of development. j ?� Resolution P12-05 Master Case 11-178 Page 4 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, California: Adopt Resolution P12-05, denying, without prejudice, Master Case No. 11-178 and its associated entitlements, including Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of October, 2012. LISA EICHMAN, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION M ,SECRETARY STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Jeff Hogan, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BURKHART, EICHMAN, OSTROM,TR.AUTMAN NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HEFFERNAN ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SECRETARY S:\CD\CURREN7V20l l\I1-178 (Quigley Cyn TPW\Planning Commission\Denial Resolution MC 11-178.doc CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NUMBER 11-178 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 71806 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 11-040 DATE: TO: FROM: CASE PLANNER: PRESENTER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: September 18, 2012 Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission Jeff Hogan, AICP, Planning Manage i�� Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner Jason Smisko, Senior Planner Curtis Hairell 24837 Quigley Canyon Road Assessor Parcel No. 2834-028-034 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the approval of 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 encroach into the protected zones of eight oak trees and also to allow for the removal of two non -heritage oak trees. BACKGROUND l On December 28, 2011, Curtis Hairell (the applicant) submitted a proposal to subdivide one 2.01 - acre residential parcel into two new residential lots. The subject property contains an existing single- family residence that was built in 1978 as well as equestrian facilities including a 2,400 square -foot horse barn, stables, corrals, and outbuildings. In March 2012, the City was contacted by an attorney representing a neighboring property owner who had questions about the parcel snap. Staff met with the resident and her representatives on May 2, 2012, and directed the applicant to likewise meet with the neighbor to see how/if her concerns could be resolved. That meeting also took place in May. In an effort to create a buffer between the neighboring properties, the parcel map was revised and the proposed driveway from Quigley Canyon Road was shifted further south, creating a 5' planter strip to preserve as many of the existing shrubs and bushes as possible. The application was deemed complete on July 16, 2012, and apublic hearing was scheduled. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 7.1806 to subdivide a 2.01 -acre parcel into two lots. Lot No. 1 would consist of one acre (43,749 square feet gross, 36,812 square feet net) and Lot No. 2 would consist of 1.01 -acre (44,151 square feet gross, 43,501 square feet net). The applicant bC�2 Master Case No. 11-178, TPM 71806 and OTP 11-040 September 18, 2012 2of5 also proposes to create a 4,000 square -foot building pad that could 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. Impacts for a single-family home were 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. Property Description The subject property is located on the south side of Quigley Canyon Road, between Oak Orchard Road and Cleardale Street. The parcel extends through the block and has frontage on both Quigley Canyon Road, a publicly -owned road, and Meadview Avenue, a private street. The project is bounded on the north and south by other single-family properties, some of which contain equestrian uses. There are ten oak trees on the property including four heritage specimens. Four other oak trees are located on adjacent properties and were included in the project's Oak Tree Report due to their proximity to the project site. An existing home is located on the eastern portion of the site nearest to Quigley Canyon Road. The horse barn, stables, and other equestrian structures are located to the rear of the residence. The property has no significant natural or geologic features and does not contain any wilderness habitat. Vegetation consists of ornamental landscaping and trees, oak trees, lawns, and bare ground in the corrals and riding areas. Primary access is taken from Quigley Canyon Road and secondary access is available from Meadview Avenue. A flood hazard area associated with Placerita Creek encumbers the western portion of the site. ANALYSIS General Plan The subject property is designated as "Non Urban 5" (NU5) under the City's General Plan which allows for one residential unit per acre. The property is zoned "Residential Low" (RL). The City's Unified Development Code (UDC) describes the Residential Low zone as follows: "This zone is intended for single-family detached homes at a density of up to two and two-tenths (2.2) dwelling units per gross acre. The keeping of horses and related animals as an accessory use may be found in this zone" (UDC § 17.11.020.D). The proposed subdivision would have a residential density of 1.0 dwelling units per acre which complies with the General Plan density for the subject property, and also the residential density for the RL zone. The following table summarizes the land uses that abut the property or that are located across the street: Table I: General Plan and Zoning Summary General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Current Land Use Sub'ect Pro en Non -Urban 5 Residential Low Single -Family Home North Non -Urban 5 Residential Low Single -Family Home South Non -Urban 5 Residential Low Single -Family Homes East Non -Urban 5 Residentlal Low Sin le-Famil Homes West Non -Urban 5 Residential Low I Sin le-Famil Homes Master Case No, 11-178, TPM 71806 and OTP 11-040 September 18, 2012 3 of 5 The proposed parcel map supports the following objectives and policies of the General Plan's Land Use Element: Objectives 6.1 and 7.8; and Policies 1.1.2,1.1.6,1.2.6, and 7.6.4. These objectives and policies pertain to the preservation of rural lifestyles, oak trees, and maintaining the community character of Placerita Canyon. The project is consistent with these policies and objectives because the parcel map would create two new residential lots that are similar to surrounding properties in terms of scale, lot size, and density. The project preserves on-site heritage and non -heritage oak trees and provides mitigation for the two non -heritage trees that would be removed. The parcel map would not prohibit equestrian uses on the properties nor would the parcel map require the installation of curb, gutter, or sidewalk on Quigley Canyon Road or Meadview Avenue. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the General Plan. Zoning Residential development standards in the RL zone require a minimum net lot size of 20,000 square feet, with a residential density of 2.2 units per gross acre. The minimum lot width is 75'. The two lots that are proposed under this subdivision comply with these requirements. Lot No. 1 would have a lot area of 36,812 net square feet with a lot width of approximately 165'. Lot No. 2 would have a lot area of 43,501 net square feet and an approximate lot width of 165'. The density of the subdivision would be one unit per gross acre, which is lower than the density permitted in the RL zone. The parcel map would create a legal, buildable lot on which a single-family home could be constructed. The applicant has shown a conceptual footprint of a residence that would be compliant with the development standards for the RL zone as stated in Section 17.15.010 of the UDC. No adjustments or variances would be needed for either the proposed subdivision or for the future potential development of a single-family residence. Compatibility with the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District The subject property is located within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District, a district that was created in order to "maintain, preserve and enhance the rural and equestrian character of Placerita Canyon" (UDC § 17.16.OKA). The standards listed in the UDC pertain primarily to the keeping of animals, trails, streetlighting, and street design (for example, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are not required). The proposed subdivision complies with the Placerita Canyon development standards based on the following: streetlights are not required for this project as they would typically be for a subdivision elsewhere in the City; Quigley Canyon Road will remain in a rural state without sidewalk, curb, or gutter; and, as a condition of approval for this project, the applicant would be required to offer a dedication of land along the west side of Quigley Canyon Road for trail purposes. The two residential lots created by this subdivision would be similar to other lots in the area, and will not detract from the rural, equestrian character of the Placerita Canyon neighborhood. While the existing barn, stables, and corrals would be removed to accommodate a future home, the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District would continue to allow equestrian uses on the properties, permitted by right. Access/Easements Lot Nos. 1 and 2 would take their access from Quigley Canyon Road, maintaining the same access and traffic patterns that currently exist. Lot No. 2 would have a driveway with easement rights to access Quigley Canyon Road. Lot No. 1 would continue to have an easement across the parcel for the Master Case No. 11-178, TPM 71806 and OTP 11-040 September 18, 2012 4of5 existing power line that travels through the neighborhood in an northwesterly/southeasterly direction. Project Grading and Drainage A flood hazard zone associated with Placerita Creek encompasses a portion of the western -side of the subject property. The parcel map demonstrates that a single-family home could be constructed on Lot 2 outside of the flood hazard area. Site preparation for the building pad would require 1,364 cubic yards of cut and fill, all of which would be balanced on-site. This grading is minimal and would not change existing drainage patterns on the property. Oak Trees There are ten coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) on the subject property and four other oak trees off-site, adjacent to the project site. Four of the on-site oak trees are Heritage specimens. Oak Tree Permit 11-040 would allow the applicant to encroach into the protected zone of eight oak trees and to remove two non -heritage trees: Oak Tree Nos. 73 and 75. Oak Tree No. 73 leans to the south indicating a defective or girdled root system. The tree is also located directly below the power line that traverses Lot No. 1. If allowed to remain, the tree would require substantial pruning in the future. Oak Tree No. 75 has substantial borer damage and has previously suffered structural failure. The City's Oak Tree Ordinance allows for the removal of such trees, subject to mitigation. As listed in Condition of Approval UFl1,.the applicant shall be required to plant a total of eight (8) 24" box Coast live oak trees on the project site to mitigate for the loss of Oak Tree Nos. 73 and 75. If suitable sites. on the residential property cannot be found to accommodate the eight mitigation trees, the applicant has the opportunity to plant larger specimens equivalent to the dollar value of the mitigation oak trees, or may also make a monetary payment to the City's Oak Tree Preservation Fund . subject to the approval of the City's Oak Tree Specialist. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project. Based on the Initial Study, there were no environmental issues or impacts that were found to be potentially significant or that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant with mitigation measures. Mitigation measures were included in three areas: 1) Biological Resources for the oak tree encroachment and removals; 2) Cultural Resources in case historical, cultural, or paleontological resources are found; and 3) Noise, given that a home could be constructed on the newly -created parcel. Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance would mitigate any anticipated noise impacts. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review and comment. PUBLIC NOTICING As required under UDC §17.01.100, all property owners within a 1,000' radius of the subject property were notified of the public hearing by mail (101 notices). A notice was placed in The Signal newspaper on August 28, 2012, and a sign was posted on the property facing both Quigley Canyon Road and Meadview Avenue on September 4, 2012. Copies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration were available for public viewing at both Santa Clarita City Hall and the City of Santa Clarita Library, Valencia Branch. Copies were also available electronically. I6 Master Case No. 11-178, TPM 71806 and OTP 11-040 September 18, 2012 5 of 5 CONCLUSION The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with the City's General Plan, would meet the requirements of the Unified Development Code, and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District. The new residential lots created by this subdivision would share the same character as other parcels in the neighborhood and would maintain the desirable quality of life in the Placerita Canyon community. The applicant has demonstrated that the new, lot would be buildable and capable of sustaining a single-family home, including an on-site waste water treatment (septic) system, and has taken measures to ensure that the project would not unreasonably or significantly impact the surrounding area. RECOMMENDATION Based on the project's compliance with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and the Unified Development Code, staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Adopt Resolution P12-05, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case 11-178 and its associated entitlements, including Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040, subject to the conditions of approval (Exhibit "A"). ATTACHMENTS Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) Resolution P12-05 Vicinity Map General Plan Map Zoning Map Tentative Parcel Map 71806 Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study s9CMCURREN7112011\11-178 (Quigley Cyn TPM)\Planning Commisslon\$taffReport MCI i-178.doc RESOLUTION NO. P12-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 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 (RL) 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 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. 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; 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; i. At the September 18, 2012, Planning Commission meeting described above, the Planning Commission considered the staff presentation, the staff report, the applicant's presentation, ZO Resolution P12-05 Master Case I 1-]78 Page 4 of 6 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. Nothing in the subdivision process, nor 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 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 Unified Development Code), the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health, balance, or structure. 2. The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing lots, pedestrian walkways.or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices. It is necessary to remove, relocated, prune, curt or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is, otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property. 4. 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. 5. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one or more of the above findings are made and the decisionmaker also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would prevent any reasonable development of the property and that no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property. It shall further be found that the removal ofsuch heritage oak tree will not be unreasonable[ly] detrimental to Resolution P12-05 Master Case 11-176 Page 5 of 6 the community and surrounding area. (Ordinance 08-13 §2, 8/26/08). 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. Oak Tree No. 75 has significant borer damage and has lost half of its canopy due to failure. These trees would be removed and five (5) additional 24" 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 frees, 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 (8) 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, California: Adopt Resolution P 12-05, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case No. 11-178 and its associated entitlements, including Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). z� Resolution P 12-05 Master Case I1-178 Page 6 of 6 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of September, 2012. LISA EICHMAN, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: JEFF HOGAN, AICP, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA . COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Jeff Hogan, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of September, 2012 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY SACMCURRENT\12011\11-178 (Quigley Cyn TPM)\Planning Commission\Resolution MC I1-178.doo ki EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE 11-178 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 71806 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 11-040 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GCI. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of conditional approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than sixty (60) days prior to expiration. GC3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Director of Community Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the status of the developer, within thirty (30) days of said change. GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Project by the City, which action is provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. GCS. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. GC6. The applicant and property owner shall comply with all inspection requirements as deemed necessary by the City of Santa Clarita. M Master Case 11-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 September 18, 2012 Page 2 of 14 GCT 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 PL 1. 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 minilnutn 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 September 18, 2012 Page 3 of 14 General Requirements ENI. At issuance of permits or other grants of approval, the applicant agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance,, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. EN2. Prior to issuance of building permits, 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, ENS. 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 EN7. 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. 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. Lb Master Case 11-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 September 18, 2012 Page 4 of 14 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 Prevention Plan (S WPPP). The S WPPP 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 EN11. 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 1'-0" above the Base Flood Elevation. EN12. 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 lhnited 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. 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. EN 16.. 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. Master Case 11-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 September 18, 2012 Page 5 of 14 EN 17. Prior to the Parcel Map being filed with the County Recorder, the applicant,shall not grantor 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 EN19. 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: Sin le Family =the number of units (1) x the district rate ($18,890).= $18,890 until June 30,2013. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FD 1. Access shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving. FD2. Fire Department Access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. FD3. Where driveways extend further than 150 feet, and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to ensure their integrity for Fire 0 Master Case 11-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 September 18, 2012 Page 6 of 14 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 accepted prior 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 Modification Unit, Fire Station #32, 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 (5) 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 (2) existing public fire hydrants. Fl) 11. 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 (2) hour rated firewall. The location shall be as per the map that is on file with the office. FD 12. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted or bonded for, prior to Final Map approval. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. FD 13. Upgrade of the fire hydrant is not necessary if existing hydrants meet fire flow requirements. �bt 1 Master Case 11-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 September 18, 2012 Page 7 of 14 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. FD 16. 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". FD 18. 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, buss drawings and calculations (if used), etc. BS3. A complete soils and geology report will be required for the project. The report shall be formally submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. BS4. Prior to issuance of building permits: 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. BS5. On-site drain, waste and sewer lines and laterals shall have a minimum 2% slope per California Plumbing Code. Set your pad accordingly. .v,G Master Case 11-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 September 18, 2012 Page 8 of 14 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, I 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 comer of each sheet of the drawings. b. A copy of the Planning Conditions. C. The Truss drawings. d. ICBO, UL and other outside agency reports for products or materials, when those reports contain information required by the contractor for construction or installation. e. The Recommendation Section of the Soils Report. 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 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. /73 Master Case 1 1-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 September 18, 2012 Page 9 of 14 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: ESI. 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 Recycline Ordinance: • A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Enviromnental 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. 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 that is in place at the time that building permits are pulled. Master Case I 1-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 September 18, 2012 Page 10 of 14, URBAN FORESTRY OF 1. 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. UF2. 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. UFS. 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 (email). . 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 proj ect 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. F Master Case 11-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 September 18, 2012 Page 11 of 14 UF8. The applicant and their contractors are permitted to encroach into the protected zone of eight (8) oak trees and to remove two (2) 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. Replacementoak trees shall be planted on site in an approved area that will allow for the tree(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" 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. UF12. 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. OF 13. 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, UF 15. Any root that measures two (2") 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. N MR Master Case 11-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 September 18, 2012 Page 12 of 14 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 downhill side of any protected oak tree. Clean out station shall not be permitted in areas where new mitigation oak trees are proposed for planting. OF 17. 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. OF 19. 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 Tree Specialist). 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. Master Case 11-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 September 18, 2012 Page 13 of 14 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 Guideto 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. Any future grading in the area where test borings are located may nullify the data that provided the basis for this approval. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION [XJ 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. I 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: Ben Jarvis AICP, Associate Planner (lgnature) �f / (Name/Title) Approved by: 1 -.c�, Jason Smisko, Senior Planner t1 'gnaft re) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From August 28, 2012 To September 18, 2012 Public Notice Given On August 28, 2012 [XJ Legal Advertisement (XJ Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: S.\CD\CURREN7l!2011\11-178 (Quigley Cyn TPM)\Planning Commissian\l 1-178 XPi lD.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 11-040 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. Curtis Hairell 24837 Quigley Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Non -Urban 5 (NU5) Residential Low (RL) 1 41 Project 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 Districtand 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 of the 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 of the 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 that connects to Placerita Canyon Road. Placerita Canyon Road connects to the regional arterial highway network at Railroad Avenue via the 13"' 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 cubicyards 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 bees 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. Surrounding Land Uses: The subjectproperty 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 corner of Quigley Canyon Road and Cleardale Street, and the Master's College at the corner 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. i 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 Count)/ 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. IN Del CL I`.`rw•� v v 5�. I 1 = w m 9 ji co .1M it 1 Ir, Oil` ' CN p ZI'a'. � iJ�Wrt t' � I kre '6 { LY , %. 4fY .. t,�; •, .? Tp MA - CL r" -'Dip � IL 45, %,• ,J a Je+ �."`'v—` f;�� ex s �-i ri "k� r � f _ v ' ! h•.. •.: \ yl I t° Cr t )! S � ( i *� \'1 5 � � L4y1 � RT � f .�f� �F.B ��-02 � l'ti�4•(1�' h .i v r•l :,.�)}s ! a v+.,. rsay ( �( MIN �� 11 MI N'iw�'i` iS ANN .d; a cc �co vi 7 % E I L, �" Is 8t! 4 co N Cf 6CL z Q<1 I 3' 1 5 1 'j 4 t •d' , N 3 m �1 '0� I, A� No .."09 Fx 47c)jr)o Zt. D. fig Zvr N i! ~�. fir; ( ./ \ - # kt r:+Y Al a*M ><.v fN in}"�4 A q, x� ��&{{'�r, \ I �M � � a4xs+.2� to �.�, f F �r +� -ia i" Mli M 1�0 I!, tit", N'7 M al 4 -16 c 0 or frQ 4 10 oa '5 Z 0 M D N2, 0 9 d) J. 1 El - �ZWL�r'- j Ow YF 0*lo' LU 41 '0� I, A� No .."09 Fx 47c)jr)o Zt. D. fig Zvr N i! ~�. fir; ( ./ \ - # kt r:+Y Al a*M ><.v fN in}"�4 A q, x� ��&{{'�r, \ I �M � � a4xs+.2� to �.�, f F �r +� -ia i" Mli M 1�0 I!, tit", N'7 M al 4 -16 c 0 or frQ 10 oa '5 Z 0 M D N2, 0 9 d) '0� I, A� No .."09 Fx 47c)jr)o Zt. D. fig Zvr N i! ~�. fir; ( ./ \ - # kt r:+Y Al a*M ><.v fN in}"�4 A q, x� ��&{{'�r, \ I �M � � a4xs+.2� to �.�, f F �r +� -ia i" Mli M 1�0 I!, tit", N'7 M al 4 or frQ 10 1 - �ZWL�r'- 9r C + n �2iyA..,i2;a o C o a '; I•` a.,lq a a �F�' r dry _ � � � '1 rp q I � s, r•�r "5 o Pte; , : h :.. I -_ I 4 � R w out .ZPd D FiD FJI: ` a. W Ua. m m 9 x f per, I fi } a �B Yrt r' a 01 u ♦�-'� it �� I' CiN ] 6 I r ' � I I \ I . f p I Fc 4� #•..ki i n (Fd{ ate,. I '^� 11 I l !`^ �, - r 2v LLI c 7 i � � i i F- sl - �h�I : <Hli �r ki Yl�/ I •S ; .Y'i`1 In- fl b ' -. I�.lr �v t I "n i oil! too? r / Q! /Woo, 7F,!_ ' � �r—`pl I J� ,x y .� r •� 1 L\.a� I�i �,�. J ..f:�n' Y I� M C ped k IFF--�� -1 t I I / ^ K. V,I M i8 Hp iM2 S r .. C-4 y t q v z l i:'� J I4 Y \.'. VVI y co AV a f o Z n 00 j o ' I T ✓ 4 /' � i. N 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. [ J Aesthetics [ ] Agricultural and Forestry [ ] Air Quality Resources [X] Biological Resources [XJ Cultural Resources [ J Geology/Soils [ ] Greenhouse Gas Emissions [ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology & Water Materials Quality [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [X] Noise [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Traffic & Transportation [ ] Utilities & Service Systems, [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance B. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [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 1) 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. 712-01 1 Zi Date Date W im C EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: e) Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (7997) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ M Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland . Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California . Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ M Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, ❑ ❑ ❑ M forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code . section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public _ Resources Code section 4526), or Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversation of ❑ ❑ ❑ M forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ M 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ M 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ M quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that ❑ ❑ M ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? e) Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (7997) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ M Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland . Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California . Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ M Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, ❑ ❑ ❑ M forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code . section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public _ Resources Code section 4526), or Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversation of ❑ ❑ ❑ M forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ M which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or 10 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 I1 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 Califomia Deparhnent 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 I1 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 tree's? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or ❑ ❑ ❑ Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? 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-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? Q ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 12 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact b) loss of topsoil, either on or off site? ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ❑ ❑ that would become unstable as a result of the project, ❑ VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? environment through the routine transport, use, or d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-,1- ❑ ❑ B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating Create a significant hazard to the public or the - ❑ substantial risks to life or property? environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ❑ of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal of hazardous materials into the environment (including, systems where sewers are not available for the disposal but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or of wastewater? radiation)? f) Change in topography of a primary or secondary Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ridgeline? acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste g) Move or generate grading of earth exceeding 100,000 ❑ cubic yards? school? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project: Be located on a site which is included on a list of a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ❑ indirectly, that may have significant impact on the Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as result, environment?? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ® disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the - ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ❑ ❑ accident conditions involvingexplosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ hazardous materials sites 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, E ❑ N 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? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, El ❑ 11 N 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 ❑ 11 ❑ N an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, N 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 E 13 N 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 N requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ N 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. N ❑ 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 EJ ❑ N ❑ 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 E El N F� the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage 14 systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and. directions of surface water and/or groundwater? 1) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? m) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and project post -construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? v) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? vi) Cause Kann to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? 15 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact No Mitigation Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ o ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ t Potentially Significant Impact vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for ❑ the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both ❑ during construction and after project occupancy? ❑ X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other 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 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, ❑ natural community conservation plan, and/or policies without the project? by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? d) XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project: ❑ a) Result in the loss of availability of a ]mown 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 Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Impact No Mitigation Impact ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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? ❑ ❑ ® 0 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 18 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 El El M 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 ❑ E M 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 . M 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 M (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? El ❑ M f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs El . M 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 El 0. M XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the F ❑ M ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or - ❑ ❑ M 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 1:1 ❑ M ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ M ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 18 19 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact No Mitigation Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment El ❑ M 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 ❑ M ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) 'Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and E ❑ M regulations related to solid waste? .' XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the El M 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 ❑ El M 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 0 El ❑ M 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 ❑ E M 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. Ib. - 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 nee 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 first 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 barn. Any future residential construction would require the removal of the barn 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 barn, 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 20 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 Ila. 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 farming 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 iai 11 Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifies region -wide attenuation methods to achieve compliance with air quality standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for stationary -source polluters, facilitation of new transportation technologies such as low -emission vehicles, and capital improvements such as park-and-ride facilities and public transit improvements. The most recently adopted 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 are 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 fust 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 (PM,o), fine particulate matter (PM2,5), and ozone (03). 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 F/A 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 bam. 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 1975. 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 V0. 0 _ 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 is not within an adopted Critical Habitat area for the Least Bell's Vireo. The site is not known or expected to contain any species identified as candidate, sensitive, 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 birdnests and, thereby, result in a take of a bird or its young or eggs. Mideation 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 nestlindividuals 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 S 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 BI0-1 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.c. 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 tees 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. TABLE IV -11: OAK TREES 6.,reasGfry�,�3Fel�aht,"c1',rD'Isposlt or"'5,y ,raf Quercus agrifolia 71 Coast live oak 18 30 Preserve Quercus agrifolia 72 Coast live oak 5 15 Preserve Quercus agrifolia 73 Coast live oak 15 25 Remove Quercus agrifolia 74 Coast live oak 26 30 Preserve Quercus agrifolia, 75Coast live oak 28 50 Remove Quercus agrifolia 76 Coast live oak 17 30 Preserve Quercus agrifolia 77' Coast live oak 51 60 Preserve Quercus agrifofia 78' Coast live oak 44 60 Preserve Quercus agrifolia 79' Coast live oak 43 50 Preserve Quercus agrifolia 80' Coast live oak 42 50 Preserve Quercus agrifolie OS -1 Coast live oak 30 Preserve Quercus agrifolia OS -2 Coast live oak 16/18 Preserve Quercus agrifolia OS -3 Coast live oak 24 Preserve Quercus agrifolia OS -4 Coast live oak 28/36 Preserve 'Tree rated by arborist 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: 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 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 M 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 In. 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 not extend into 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 ma 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 Q. 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 EM 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 3-20-06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one of the most significant pieces of 31 -4l 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 VIII 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. VIII 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. IX. 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),.is also required to include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and siltation to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, with the application of standard engineering practices, NPDES requirements, and City standards, the project would 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 �t 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 (SWRCB) maintains a statewide NPDES permit for all construction activities within California that result in one (1) or more acres of land disturbance. This permit is known as the State's General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit or the State's General NPDES Permit. Since the proposed project involves greater than one (1) acre of land disturbance, the project is required to submit to the SWRCB a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the State's General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. This NOI must include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that outlines the BMPs that will be incorporated during construction. These BMPs will minimize construction -induced water pollutants by controlling erosion and sediment, establishing waste handling/disposal requirements, and providing non -storm water management procedures. 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 DO impact. IX L 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. IX an. 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 AV 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 I 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 (http•//maos conservation ca eov/doms/doms-aop 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 XIL 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 bam. 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 groundbourne 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 tite 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. E XII 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 Agua 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 10 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 Sheriff's 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 impact. would 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 single,family 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 f. 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. 11. 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 11I0-1: 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 Mitigation Measure BIO -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 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. 46 is 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 five 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 El 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: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS No mitigation measure are required. The monitor shall periodically coordinate with the contractor during construction to ensure compliance with this measure.. City of Santa Clarita Planning Division VII. 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. XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES No mitigation measure are required. XII.NOISE No mitigation measure are required. XHI. POPULATION AND HOUSING No mitigation measure are required. XIV. PUBLICSERVICES No mitigation measure are required. XV.RECREATION No mitigation measure are required. XVI. TRANSPORTATION No mitigation measure are required. 48 zoom XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS No mitigation measure are required. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE No mitigation measure are required. XIX. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" FINDING No mitigation measure are required. 49 September 6, 2012 Kenl-aneftevocable Trust 21550 Cleardale Street Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 140. Santa Clarita, CA 91321 RE: Master Case Number 11-178 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter in support of the proposed subdivision of Assessor Parcel No. 2834-028-034. The property at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road, Santa Clarita 91321 is in close proximity to my home. I received the attached notice of this proposed subdivision. I am familiar with other subdivisions of property in the neighborhood and believe that this proposed change will not adversely affect the neighborhood. For these reasons, I ask that the Community Development Department approve the proposed change. Respectfully Submitted, Alane Miller Managing Member KenLane Revocable Trust i I Date: I acknowledge Mr. Curtis Hairell, who lives at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road in Newhall, has applied with the City of Santa Clarita planning department to sub -divide hi's now two acre parcel into two legal lots and to future construct his dream home on the back lot. I am in favor of Mr. Hairell's proposed project. /d Signed I' l Date: Jr/4 /Z I acknowledge`MK''Curtis Hairell, who lives at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road in Newhall, has applied'with the`City of Santa'Clarita planning department to sub -divide hi.s now -two acre parcel into two legal lots and to future construct'his dream home on the back lot. I am in favor of Mr. Hairell's proposed project. Signe IrArycti'i Pat miff" 24824 Quigley CYIL Newhall. Ca o,zo, Q'- y%7/� �- Date: I acknowledge Mr. Curtis Hairell, who lives at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road in Newhall, has applied with the City of Santa Clarita planning department to sub -divide his now two acre parcel into two legal lots and to future construct'his dream home on the back lot. I am in favor of Mr. Haireli's proposed project. SignedQLId'rOPFK Zi��o �ut�E217.� eve Date: � 17 b(Z I ackndwledge Mr: Curtis Hairell, who lives"at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road in Newhall, has applied witN'the City'of Santa' Clarita planning -department to sub -divide his now two, acre. parcel into two fegal `Iots'and`to futureconstruct his:dream.home on the ,back lot. I am in favor of Mr. Hairell's proposed project. . Signedv'j�:i,(,� \Dams Date: I acknowledge Mr. Curtis Hairell, who lives at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road in Newhall, has applied with the City of Santa Clarita planning department to sub -divide his now two acre parcel into two legal lots and to future construct his dream home on the back lot. I am in favor of Mr. Hairell's proposed project. V / -7 (—�- Date: V, - /A-. I acknowledge Mr.. Curtis Hairell, who lives at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road in Newhall, has applied . with'tH'e City'df'5a I nt6 C16r!tb Plari'mri0epartme'ritt(i sub -divide his now tw'o acre, parcel iiko two 16ga"l lots and to'futbre'66nstVu6t his d rea' m home on the bdck lot. 4� I iv,. I am in favor of Mr. Hairell's proposed project. Signed 0 L/ J4 � Date: I acknowledge Mr. Curtis flairell, who lives at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road in Newhall, has applied with the City of Santa Clarita planning department to sub -divide his now two acre parcel into two legal lots and to future construct his dream home on the back lot. I am in favor of Mr. Nalrell's proposed project. Date: G Ti j I acluiowledgeMr. Curtis ldairell who lives at.24837:Quigley:Canyon:Road inNewhall, has, applied with the City.of:santa.Clarita planning department:to sublivide his.npw two acre:,, parcel into two legal lofts and to future construct his dream home.on the hack lot. I am in favor of Mr. Hairell's proposed' project. sea 9i� Date: I acknowledge Mr. Curtis Hairell,-who lives at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road in Newhall, has applied with the City of Santa Clarita planning department to sub -divide his now two acre parcel into two legal lots and to future construct his dream home on the back lot. I am in favor of Mr. Hairell's proposed project. Signed xn' 2P,55 Date: I acknowledge Mr. Curtis Hairell, who lives at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road in Newhall, has applied with the City of Santa Clarita planning department to sub divide his now two acre parcel into two legal lots, and to future construct his dream home on the back lot. I am in favor of Mr. Hairell's proposed project. Sign d aI,KzJ /4P-, Re -5s M Date: I acknowledge Mr. Curtis Hairell, who lives at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road In Newhall, has applied with the City of Santa Clarita planning department to sub -divide his now two acre parcel into two legal lots and to future construct his dream home on the back lot. 1 am in favor of Mr. Halrell's proposed project. S Bn�T Date: / I acknowledge Mr. Curtis Hairell, who lives at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road in Newhall, has applied with the City of Santa Clarita planning department to sub-divide'his now two acre parcel into two legal lots and to future construct his dream homeone back lot. I am in favor of Mr. Hairell's proposed project. Signed �� M d I �Sa eV �. 99 P14NN e I September 6, 2012 SEP To: i"-itv of Santa Clarita Community Development Department Master Case Number 11-178/ Subdivision of 24837 Quigley I., Attn: Jeff Hogan and Ben Jarvis, We have lived in our house at 24834 Meadview Avenue for nearly 17 years. We purchased our home in Placerita Canyon because we enjoy the rural lifestyle and the open z space between properties. With that said we are opposed to the proposed subdivision of the Quigley.Canyonproperty for the following reasons: 1. Thel ppsitiodof the proposed 2500 sq. ft. home would be directly .'In Iwith the PIP backyudfacing living space of hour home. The proposed structure is intended to be built up on a pad which would...then be looking down into our space. The lack of privacy issue cannot be mitigdf6d'Witha, taller or solid fence as we are in a - flood zone and neither is permitted. Currently, we enjoy the scenery of the horse corrals and bam. 2 r e s ce e proposed structure is not in a .,',"- &water flow studies are being "' FEMA flood zone, however our property sfill inthe AO zoning. We feel that runoff water may becoim'd an issue 1 s I cp-1 :A,..ger az ea ea will be developed and more ape will reduce the available a ?�so-" "b"o'n' area,., Ye ry 3. Currently, the proposed subdivision indicates tl eproperty's main access would be from Quigley Canyon Road. We are concerned that the Meadview access will beoomefhe primary entrance,to the nebvstructure, increasing the number of trips .I.dif6ctly adjacent to our living space. in and out of the property. c Currently, it is used for an 0' t ie access. 4.--r We feel that the subdivision and building of another home adjacent to our property would significantly reduce the value of our home and diminish the 4� r -> Q g c Y m AA.. V4.a y mtdj9 .. ,ND r�. dti � v d � 4� o k r y m AA.. V4.a y mtdj9 .. ,ND r�. dti � !g 4� .,.: of ,... .. Kim` and Mike'Mulhausen' . Sept: 5, 20121r;rn 24851 Meadview Ave. Newhall, CA 91321 Re Master Case Number 11=118' To Whom It May Concern n. This letter is in response to the Community Development Department's request for issues regarding tfie above referenced matter to be received in writing prior to the September 18, 2012 public hearing. Those issues raised will be then be considered by the Planning Commission. ;.( iell ... >. it ...i. We have serious concerns* regarding rainwater run , ",..omtliis proposed new construction (4b00 SF" pad) down MeadviewAve. Presently"the"neighboflrig'p"rop'ertles are gra8ed"such that the water runs'l''' down Meadview and onto a portion of our property and then into the wash. When it gains,, Meadview'' Avenue isflooded in front of our guest house. Cars for the homeowners who live on the other side of the wash are required to maneuver through a large "lake" to access their bridge that allows them to get to their homes''-OUi guesthouse>has•flooded; in'the:past due;to•this runoff New•constructiors'will'make this'situation'alot;:wbfse .r .c a> .: ,: ,• v...,; i,.. v , ',+rs ,. ^.9. The City owns a 40' strip along the banks of this wash that is in serious need of restabilization. Further, water runoff will make this situation even' more direr: Fish and Game who has authority�overthiswashrtv and its banks has informed me that the banks need to be restabilized. The wash is to be left in a natural state and presently there are huge obstructions that are preventing the water's natural flow and consequently, is causing a HUGE amount of erosion. Therefore, it is Fish and Games position that the,,,,. banks need to be restabilized, I was told by Chris Price, Asst. City Engineer, that eventually our Placerita properties will be washed down the wash due to the. erosion and we are allowed W'do nothing about it. Tt Last April, a huge Oak tree on the edge of our property fell over the wash due to the erosion. It had to be removed.. There is an Oak tree on a property on the other side of the wash from us that has roots exposed and is very unstable. I have informed the City that when this tree goes down, which it eventually will, it will fall across the wash and onto our property. This wash is used as a trail by horseback riders. If someone happens to be down in the wash when this Oak goes down, someone fir could be killed. Increased water runoff, from this new proposed construction, will only exacerbate the present situation. In discussing the water problem with Chris Price on May 11,2011, he asked me how we are able to access our property in the rains. There is another wash that we need to drive through to get back to our house. I told him that there area couple of days a year when we have to park our cars on Quigley Canyon and walk across the little foot bridge that extends over the wash. We then cross over other homeowner's private property to gain access to our home. He said that the foot bridge is not approved by the City and should not be there. Effectively what he was saying, is that our home Is not to be accessible in rain. Therefore, this new proposed construction would also not be accessible during the times when the wash is filled with* water. In this same conversation, I brought up to Chris Price the inability of the Fire Department to access the area if there is water in the wash. My understanding is that a large ladder truck could not get over the wash to provide fire protection for our homes even if there were no water in the wash. I was basically told by Chris Price, that they would never allow any homes to be built back herewith today's building and safety requirements. Based on my prior conversations with the City, we were very surprised to learn that.the City is.in fact considering new construction in this area. We as homeowners feel that the issues I brought up in this correspondence need to be addressed prior to any proposed new construction. We most certainly appreciate your time and attention to this matter. . Best Regards, Kim and Mike Mulhausen �, Ann 1. Jones,, 248.55 Quigley Canyon Road Newhall, CA,9132 September _7:2012, Jason Smisko, Senior Planner Citv,of SantaClarita, ke:" Master 'Ce'se '11-J-78 Comments on Pf osed Mitigated Negative Declaration DearMr, Smi*o: , - I r6sider_ht 14855Quigley :Caiiydh,Road, which is located immediately adJacent to the property that i�s_ihe' s`ubjbct'to'this application ......... The following " are my comments foh1h I e4nitial Study and proposed- MitigatcdNegative6 .�,mv� Decilritio'n- f6r'this casd��"i� ii -1, _�4:,®r UL, As I will explain in more detail below this project conflicts with the General Plan's maximum permitted d6fiklyViad" iandfi§i6$oIi6ids � resulting �n potentially sigriffl Cant I and;use'and planning' impacts as We aSpotentl Y all, sIgnCifi-an " t;a�esthdtic-,,ii�pAdts�'�:,ThdInitial SWdy-findings i-6garding. -, L'_� air ousliN; it�qeriliousb &Fdmisnong and se�rvices�`Wliicb ialni.mcbrrect� G6neiall Plan: As -I"Will"dls6 6'�RplaiK,;'there ,is- a fair'argument that the project isnot consistent with::the:City's,,,,,I- oak tree 'pOlibi6sandbidiii&f6dAgrd'iesult,:the,proposed-removal,of;the .oak trees will have ,, significant impacts that will require further CEQA review. jwa:,I¢e 11 Fnrffi&r CE0kR6icw Is Required Based dif General -Plan Inconsistency The lniti'al- Study recognizes that there wouldbe significant:�mpxt thatlwou.ldi.requ.i.re furthent,. CEQA reviewdf the proposed sfibdivision would ``conflict with; any applicable land use plan,;_ policy orregulationi%.includingi-butnot limited .to,ffie gener_aI.pIqn-.,.1,apiC4.,f9T...-..epurpPs9o.f avoiding ordlitigatiiig7an;envi,rbfiiiiefttaI rffect.",.In,additi,o.niqe�iqrql,�Plan consistency i,s,tbe,,, rationale the Initial Study uses to conclude that the proposed subdivision will have less than n� sjg. ificalnnmpacts- on aif'quality (Initial Study� §111(b)), greenhouse.gasemissions (Initia.liStudy §VII), and services:(hutiall Study §XVI]J).,r:) d, In each: instdnee,-the,-Initial.Studyconcludes the projectwill have, 4 less, than, significant im,t) act, because the project is.consistent with:the.General Plan, including the one pm. it -per acre..mmum permitted density specified in the General Plan for the property. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's General Plan both in terms of the resulting density and the plan's land use policies. Approving this subdivision will result in a density that is greater than the maximum one unit for acre density allowed in the General Plan. It also will impact my neighborhood's ability to continue being an equestrian community, This is not the first subdivision on this properly. This property was originally an approximately 2.5-acreparcel. In 1976, the lot was split to create anew lot fronting Meadview Avenue. According to the parcel map, the Meadview lot contained .48 acres and the remaining parcel contained 2.02 gross acres. As provided by that land use approval, two dwellings were allowed on 2,5 gross acres. The existing parcels collectively are consistent with the General Plan's permitted density. of one - unit -per acre. There are two houses on 2.5 acres of land, The proposed second splitting of this lot would result in a third residence being located on the property. If the second lot split is approved, there would be three units on the 2.5 acre property, which exceeds the maximum permitted density under the General Plan. Looking only at the size of the remaining lot after the first lot,split and not at the density on the property overall will result in a much higher density than is permitted. Approving a project that would result in a greater overall density than is permitted under the General Plan, undermines the attainment of the environmental protection that the one unit per acre area density was intended to achieve. It invalidates the Initial Study's conclusions regarding air quality, greenhouse gas emission and services, which are based on the assertion that the subdivision is consistent with the maximum permitted density in the General Plan, which is not the case. Allowing the density to exceed the maximum allowed raider the General Plan produces a result that would be inconsistent with the General Plan's land use policies for our neighborhood. Under the General Plan, Placenta Canyon is described as "a rural. residential area" in which "equestrian -oriented residential uses among oak woodlands typify development." The properties in our community are designated as 'Non -Urban 4." This designation provides for the maintenance and expansion of rural communities in the planning area that are distinguished by large lot sizes (generally two acres or greater), agricultural and equestrian uses, and an absence of urban services. The General Plan's land use element ("LUE") contains an objective calling for maintaining "the distinctive community character of villages and neighborhoods throughout the planning area by establishing uses, densities, and design guidelines appropriate to the particular needs and goals of each area." (LUE Objective LU 1.2.) With respect to Placerita Canyon, the land use objective is to "ensure compatibility of development with existing mral, equestrian lots and the adj acent National Forest land; maintain community character..." (LUE Objective LU 1.2.6) Generally, the LUE emphasizes evaluating the appearance that results from development of land. In this regard, the LUE focuses on two basic planning concepts (i) urban form and (ii) community design. "Urban form" refers to the individual elements of a built environment, such as distribution of uses, the physical relationship between uses, location of uses on a lot and the like. Terms such as density, concentration, centrality, diversity, mixed use, connectivity, and. proxiiiiityare terms used: to define aspects of urban form: The'LUE describes "community design" as "a term foften used:by plkmento refer-to'the overall style and:"look" `of a:community, _ : based on predominant architectural styles; landscape matenals :nse of signs; streetlights and street fumiture'and other aspects of the'built environment thaiconvey a visual message about):,,, the c'bmm'diiity's'setting' i histo""ry and character.', ':(LUE, p. 30!)?:, r, n: Allowing a second lot split on this.property would,;through incremental decisions, produce an ;; unacceptably:high:'densitytaut wouta'beout oicnaracterwim!surrouneing:communiry: ;;z:r_,::,f,J;_ Common sense supports this mathematic reality. Putting a third house in the middle of this 2.5 acre parcel eliminates the'§ense of rGfal'operiness that the maximum"permitted density -is mtend'ed preserve °The resulYis a moredense, compact subuiban appearance with a iesultmg loss of privacy' and' ..tion`ofie"sid.... i+•* p,i -�• ,;. _ ;_., .n:.;. our neighborhood.will:confinue to exist'as a rural. equestnanrcommunrty'only if it continues to:.f>_ appear tobe:arural equestriancommunity,:The.6heral.Plan:recognizes'that.thcpro§ent, ,a, property configuratiionsahat.allow for equestrianuses and structures:to;occupy 1"arge portions of..e r the lots is':whafmakes these pioperties,pArt of an, ufal:egnestrian community. f.3 ,w .; r The proposed second subdivision of this property conflicts with all of these policies. It not onlyi,,, results in three houses over a 2.5 acre area, which far exceeds the maximum permitted density in the General Plan, but it changes the;appearance,ofthe properhe6 from one, where equestrian uses;; structures The proposed second'subdiVisron not only oonflicts with $tie.maximum'pe mittBd-- '1 '. den'sityin the General'Plan b8t also withthe General Plan,poticy to prose ve.our commnnity:assa: rural equestria i'enolave., There is a fair argument that the proposed second subdivision of the property conflicts with:.the,iai applicable General Plan's policies'that were adopted to preserve the equestrian nature of the community"and`av'oid or`mrtigatethe environmental impacts't1fat would.'re'sult fircir higher T �t`� derisif es and uses that would`unde`rmuie"'our'c'om-miimty."ss abilityto continue as a'n r&`-? ur •ez=`k+: endr.cfn an na; uFhnrhnnd is ilccordmelS'-the Initial Sthdv's 6onclnsiomin'+Section X(bl is .i. rsa ander=CEOA un .zf6q: r-rm i... 'l .3,._,a. .. _.�IC..uJi{ f## For the same reasons, the inconsistencies with rythe applicable General Plar policiesf and.the.,q densification of the site in a manner that does not maintain the rural equestrian community appearanc'sub" sdbsan "allydeg'rades-the exist n"g"visual characfer'and quality ofthe'site and its fc!Iv.' surrounds; whioh'the`Inihal Study'Qdest onnaiie recoghizes'as a''p'otentiallyaignificant impact: n: Section I(c)r The Initial Stndyeironeously'co'ncludas thatthe:proposedsecond=subdivis'ton on ", the property will'have, no'aesthetic impact based'on-the proposition thatreplacing an'equestrian: stable with a home has no'im' Homesazid siable's'`are riotfungible Replacing>'stablesswith.homes; increasing.the density limiting the area that can be devoted to equestrian use and creating a more predominantlyr:;,,, , suburban appearance all have aesthetic impacts that alter the character of our community. There is a fair argument thatapproving Ithe 'proposed second subdivisioh of the property will have aesth6trc IrE,-, ts`that require"furtlierrev ew under CEQA r" 01111""` ' Part of the problem with the Initial Study is that it characterizes our community in a manner that is inconsistent with the General Plan's characterization. Instead of recognizing our community as a mral equestrian enclave in which "equestrian -oriented residential uses among oak woodlands typify development," as the General Plan does, the Initial Study claims that "while the neighborhood is equestrian friendly," the neighborhood is urbanized and largely developed." (Initial Study, p. 2.). The Initial Study claims that replacing an existing stable with "a single family home would likely improve the existing condition in terms of odors" and suggests that an equestrian stable generates "noxious or objectionable odors under normal circumstances.". Having lived in this community in proximity to equestrian uses, I can state based on my experience that the equestrian bams and other facilities in this community do not generate odors, let alone noxious and objectionable odors. Replacing equestrian stables and bams with houses is not an environmentally superior approach under any circumstance. The Initial Study analysis suggests hostility toward the General Plan's recognition of our community as a rural equestrian enclave and the policy of keeping our community as such. The Initial Study's incorrect. characterization of the community and apparent hostility toward equestrian uses have resulted in a document that fails to appreciate the potential significant impacts that would result from this second subdivision of the property, and the need for further environmental review.of those impacts. The Initial Study Questionnaire recognizes that there are potential significant environmental impacts that require further CEQA review when there are unmitigated conflicts "with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources" such as the City's oak tree ordinance. The Initial Study concludes, incorrectly, that there is a less than significant impact with mitigation. There is a fair argument that the proposed oak tree removals conflict with the City's policy to preserve all mature oak trees in place. The City's codified policies. state that preserving,mature oaks in place is.an overriding policy. The`City's Municipal Code states that the City policy is "to require the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees." (17.17.090 C J The purpose of the oak tree provision in the Code "is to protect and preserve oak trees in the City and to provide regulatory measures designed to accomplish this purpose." (17.17.090 D.) When a removal is proposed in connection with proposed new development, the City's oak tree ordinance requires the applicant to show that the removal is necessary "to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property." Furthermore, the applicant must provide that the removal "will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance," which calls for preserving mature oak trees whenever possible. (17.03.140E., emphasis added.) . No alternatives analysis has been performed here and no effort is being made to preserve the trees in accordance with the City's policy. On its face, the proposed subdivision conflicts with the City's oak ordinance policy. It calls for the removal of two mature oak trees, which City policy mandates iniist be preserved unless thereis no ieasonable altemanve to accommodate the''' trees'duo to the unique physical development constiains on the property The justification for ignoring the City's oak tree preservation policy and for the Initial Study. determination that there is a less than significant impact loins on'the Initial'`Study's'conolusion that the two mature oaks slated for removal (Oak Trees 73 and 75) are not healthy specimens. According to the Initial Study, "Oak Tree No. 73 leans to the south indicating a defective or girdled root system" and "is also located directly below a power line." The Initial Study claims that Oak Tree 75 "has substantial borer damage and has previously suffered structural failures'" The factual conclusigns are based on the applicant's oak tree consultant's report.-1—this}regard, L; engaged Christy Cuba, an experienced oak tree specialist, to review the oak tree report.Ivlr; Hairell submitted. Based on her review of the applicant's oak tree report and her observation of the oak trees from my property, Ms. Cuba concluded that Mr. Hairell's report does not clearly establish that the health of the trees mandate their removal. Ms. Cuba's report will be submitted under separate cover. Based on her initial observations, Ms. Cuba notes that the risk assessment analysis necessary to determine whether either tree poses an imminent health or safety threat have not been performed. The factors in Mr. Hairell's report used to justify the removal are common characteristics that are shared many trees in the area that do not pose any imminent threats, including trees on the property that Mr. Hairell's report does notprdpose:to remove. Indeed, Mr. Hairell's oak tree report rates the two trees proposed for- removal orremoval as relatively healthy. There are trees proposed to remain in Mr. Hairell's property that are graded as less healthy than, and exhibit structural issues similar to, the two trees proposed for removal. This begs the question as to why the trees within the development envelope were called for removal due to health issues, but those with similar defects outside of the development envelope were not. Furthermore, there are numerous oak trees in the neighborhood that are located below power lines. The utility company regularly trims all of the oak trees beneath their power lines. I have yet to see any of the many oak trees located below the power lines in the neighborhood removed by the utility even though many of those trees are as close to the power lines as Oak Tree 75. The only distinguishing feature between the trees that are proposed for removal and the ones that, are not proposed for removal is their proximity to the proposed development of the site. Without a thorough risk assessment of all the oak trees that share similar defects noted in trees 73 and 75, it appears that Oak Trees 73 and 75 were downgraded inconsistently with other oaks in the Hairell report in order to justify a removal of the trees without engaging in any effort to preserve them. Given the disagreement between the applicant's oak tree consultant and Ms. Cuba's observations over the factual premise for the Initial Study's less than significant impact determination, there is a fair argument that the subdivision will conflict with the City's codified oak tree policy, which mandates further review under CEQA. A v2 For all of these reasons, I believe that the Initial Study's conclusion that this project can proceed with a mitigated negative declaration is unwarranted and that further environmental review under CEQA is warranted. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Ann I. Jo I s R2ClcIVrzC8 1 PLANNING DIVISION ANN I. JONES 24855 Quigley Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita SEP 1,, 7 2012 CITY DF SANTA CLARITA Re: Case Number 11-178 -- Proposed lot split at 24837 Quigley Canyon Dear Commissioners: I am writing to oppose the application by Curtis Hairell to once -again split the lot at 24837 Quigley Canyon. Mr. Hairell plans to create a flag lot with a driveway onto Quigley Canyon and to cut down two oak trees. Ironically, Mr. Hairell has admitted to me that he has no intention of building on this lot. Rather, he is getting his lot split and cutting down oak trees for the sole purpose of maximizing the price that he can ask when he puts his property on the market at the end of this month. By contrast, as his next door neighbor, I intend to reside here indefinitely and do not want to see trees lost or a dense urban form replace what is now a rural residential area. On September 7, 2012, I submitted written comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The information in that letter along with the information Lam providing in this letter demonstrate that the mitigated negative declaration for this project is not in compliance with CEQA and that there is a fair argument that further environmental review under CEQA is required. I have now had an opportunity to review your staff report and proposed findings. The purpose of this letter is to demonstrate that this project does not meet the required findings for approval. Specifically, (i) the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan, (ii) the site is not physically suited for the type or density of development, (iii) the proposed oak tree removals are not justified, and (iv) the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this application has not been prepared in compliance with CEQA. 1. The Lot Snlit Is Inconsistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan Santa Clarita Municipal Code section 17.01.120.G requires this second lot split to be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's General Plan both in terms of the resulting density and the plan's land use policies. Approving this subdivision will result in a density that is greater than the maximum one unit for acre density allowed in the General Plan. It also will impact my neighborhood's ability to continue being an equestrian community. 1, t At the outset, it is important to keep in mind that the maximum density permitted under the General Plan is one unit per gross acre In other words, the plan looks are the overall density in the area without regard to lot boundaries. This latest lot split would result in three houses over a 2.5 gross acre area, which exceeds the maximum permitted density under the General Plan. This is not the fust subdivision on this property. This property was originally an approximately 2.5 -acre parcel. In 1976, the lot was split to create a new lot fronting Meadview Avenue. According to the parcel map, the Meadview lot contained .48 acres and the remaining parcel contained 2.02 gross acres. As provided by that land use approval, two dwellings were allowed on 2.5 gross acres. The existing parcels collectively are consistent with the general plan's permitted density of one - unit -per acre. There are two houses on 2.5 gross acres of land. The proposed second lot split would result in a third residence being located on the property. If the second lot split is approved, there would be three units on the 2.5 acre property, which exceeds the maximum permitted density under the General Plan. When you account for the existing density on the adjacent parcels, the density further exceeds the maximum permitted density in the General Plan. While your proposed findings note that the General Plan density is one unit per gross acre (Res No. P12-05, Section Ld), the consistency finding drops the reference to "gross acreage" and instead focuses on the size of the proposed lots (Res No. P12-05, Section 3.a). Looking only at the size of the proposed lots and not at the density on the gross acreage, results in a much higher density than is permitted under the General Plan. The resulting density is inconsistent with the General Plan's land use element policies. I moved to Placerita Canyon for the very reasons articulated in the General Plan Land Use Element ("LUE") Objectives — I wished to reside in a high-quality development that enhances the urban environment and builds "long term value." Under the General Plan, Placenta Canyon is described as "a rural residential area" in which "equestrian -oriented residential uses among oak woodlands typify development." Thus, the properties in our community are designated as "Non -Urban 4." This designation provides for the maintenance and expansion of rural communities in the planning area that are distinguished by large lot sizes (generally two acres or greater), agricultural and equestrian uses, and an absence of urban services. The LUE contains an objective calling for maintaining "the distinctive community character of villages and neighborhoods throughout the planning area by establishing uses, densities, and design guidelines appropriate to the particular needs and goals of each area." (LUE Objective LU 1.2.) With respect to Placerita Canyon, the land use objective is to "ensure compatibility of development with existing rural, equestrian lots and the adjacent National Forest land; maintain community character..." (LUE Objective LU 1.2.6.) Generally, the LUE emphasizes evaluating the appearance that results from development of land. In this regard, the LUE focuses on two basic planning concepts (i) urban form and (ii) community design. "Urban form" refers to the individual elements of a built environment, such 2 as distribution of uses, the physical relationship between uses, location of uses on a lot and the like. Terms such as density, concentration, centrality, diversity, mixed use, connectivity, and proximity are terms used to define aspects of urban form. The LUE describes "community design" as "a term often used by planners to refer to the overall style and "look" of a community, based on predominant architectural styles, landscape materials, use of signs, street lights and street furniture, and other aspects of the built environment that convey a visual message about the community's setting, history, and character." (LUE, p. 30.) The LUE is clear that your Commission cannot look at Mr. Hairell's application myopically. Looking only at the size of the remaining lot after the first lot split and not at the density on the property overall will result in a much higher density than is permitted and will change the urban form in way that is contrary to all of the applicable land use density policies. The LUE recognizes that such an approach is inconsistent with the General Plan when it stated: Urban form also results from thousands of small, incremental decisions made over many years, each decision adding a building, parking lot, or other feature to the urban landscape. Sometimes these decisions result in unintended consequences that are not recognized until much later. (LUE, p. 30.) Allowing a second lot split on this property would, through incremental decisions, produce an unacceptably high density that would be out of character with surrounding community. Common sense supports this mathematic reality. Putting a third house in the middle of this 2.5 acre parcel eliminates the sense of rural openness that the maximum permitted density is intended preserve. The result is a more dense, compact suburban appearance with a resulting loss of privacy and separation of residences. The proposed second subdivision of this property conflicts with all of these policies. It not only results in three houses over a 2.5 acre area, which far exceeds the maximum permitted density in the General Plan, but it changes the appearance of the properties from one where equestrian uses occupy a significant portion of the lot to an appearance that is predominated by residential structures. The proposed second subdivision not only conflicts with the maximum permitted density in the General Plan, but also with the General Plan policy to preserve our community as a rural equestrian enclave. In my case, wedging a 2,500 square foot house onto the property results in a residence that would be less than 100 feet from the side of my home. Where, as in this case, we are in a flood zone, putting four houses in such a small footprint with the new parcel being a flag lot with limited ingress and egress is simply bad land use planning. Not only is this density not allowed under the zoning and General Plan, it is inconsistent with equestrian -oriented residential uses. The City of Santa Clarita has placed a magnificent equestrian open space at the end of Cleardale Street — immediately adjacent to my property. I have two horses currently residing in the front of my house and spaces for more horses in the back of the property. Horses and density (and coincident noise and activity) simply don't mix. Were there to be grading or other construction related activities on this parcel, the horses would have to leave. 2. The Site Physically Suitable for the Second Lot Split and Proposed Density Santa Clarita Municipal Code section 17.01.120.G requires your Commission to deny the second lot split if the site is not physically suitable for the type of development and for the proposed density of development. Although Mr. Hairell's property is planned and zone for one -acre minimum lot densityl, the LUE states that development at that density is not guaranteed. It states: It is important to note, when reading the Land Use Map and the descriptions of each land use designation, that the maximum density or intensity is not guaranteed for any land use category. In determining the most appropriate use for each property shown on the Land Use Map, consideration will be given to topography; availability of roads and infrastructure; existing development patterns; potential land use conflicts; public health, safety, and welfare; presence of environmental resources and hazards; and other site constraints. Therefore, the upper ranee of residential density and non-residential use intensity will be granted only when the reviewing authority determines that all other applicable site. (LUE, p. L-48, emphasis Because this parcel was previously split and the resulting density of a second split would exceed one unit per acre, the property is not suitable either for the type of development or the density of development that would result from approving a second lot split. Furthermore, our neighborhood will continue to exist as a rural equestrian community only if it continues to appear to be a rural equestrian community. The General Plan recognizes that the present property configurations that allow for equestrian uses and structures to occupy large portions of the lots is what makes these properties part of an rural equestrian community. Because of the prior subdivision of this property, this property is not now configured to allow equestrian uses and structures to occupy large portions of the newly created residential parcel. The bulk of the new parcel is a flag, which the Staff Report notes will be open for emergency access. As a result no equestrian structures can be located on that flag, which makes up a significant portion of that parcel. To the extent the new parcel could accommodate equestrian facilities, the area for such structures will be severely limited. The site is not physically suited to produce a lot that allows equestrian uses and structures to occupy large portions of the property. I understand from my conversation with your planning staff that while the general plan was amended last year to create a one -acre maximum density, the City's zoning ordinance has not been amended to conform to the plan. Your staff appears to be interpreting the zoning to allow for a much greater density than is permitted under the general plan. The fact that the zoning ordinance has not yet been amended does not change the fact that your Commission must deny the second lot split because the density is not consistent with the general plan. However, to the extent that the applicable zoning allows for a greater density, it is inconsistent with the General Plan and, accordingly, unenforceable. 3. The Oak Tree Removals Are Not Justified. I also oppose the Mr. Hairell application's request to be allowed to remove two oak -trees (# 73 and # 75) on his property. It is readily apparent that Mr. Hairell has designed a lot split that will require the removal of two mature oaks. The City's codified policies state that preserving mature oaks in place is an overriding policy. The City's Municipal Code states that the City policy is "to require the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees." (17.17.090 C.) The purpose of the oak tree provision in the Code "is to protect and preserve oak trees in the City and to provide regulatory measures designed to accomplish this purpose." (17.17.090D.) When a removal is proposed in connection with proposed new development, the City's oak tree ordinance requires the applicant to show that the removal is necessary "to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property." Furthermore, the applicant must provide that the removal "will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance," which calls for preserving mature oak trees whenever possible. (17.03.140E., emphasis added.) Mr. Hairell has made no such showing. Instead, his arborist claims that the trees in question must be removed because of the health of the tree. In this regard, I engaged Christy Cuba, an experienced oak tree specialist to review oak tree report Mr. Hairell submitted. Based on her review of the report and her observation of the oak trees from my property, Ms. Cuba concluded that Mr. Hairell's report does not establish that the health of the trees mandate their removal. Ms. Cuba's report is attached. Ms. Cuba's report notes that there is no evidence that Oak Tree #73 is at risk of imminent failure. She notes that other oak trees on the property also lean, but are not proposed for removal. She notes there is no justification for treating Oak Tree #73 any differently that the other leaning oaks on the property. Ms. Cuba's report also notes the health grade given to both Oak Tree 473 and #75 (also proposed for removal) indicates that neither tree is a candidate for immediate removal based on the health of the trees. The only distinguishing feature between the trees that are proposed for removal and the ones that are not proposed for removal is their proximity to the proposed development of the site. In light of Ms. Cuba's observations, it is readily apparent that trees #73 and #75 are healthy trees that have been downgraded without the level of investigation required to make such a determination and based on characteristics that are commonly founds with many healthy trees on site and elsewhere in the community. The analysis in Mr. Hairells' oak tree report strongly suggests that the heath and safety determination was made in order to avoid having to consider alternatives to the proposed removals caused by the proposed development. Ms. Cuba's report demonstrates there is no basis on which to find that the health of the two oak trees justifies their removal without engaging in the alternatives analysis that the City's oak tree ;M) ordinance mandates. Since no alternatives analysis has been performed, there is no basis to grant the approval to remove the trees. The fact that further development of this property may inevitably result in mature oak tree removals, which is contrary to the City's strong oak tree preservation policy, also further demonstrates that the site is not suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. This Project Does Not Qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed findings call for you to determine that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. I respectfully submit that this finding is inappropriate based on the record before you. A mitigated negative declaration is not appropriate when there is evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment As I noted in my written comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, there is a fair argument that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and there would be aesthetic impacts as a result of increasing the density beyond the gross acre maximum specified in the General Plan. In addition, given the disagreement between the applicant's oak tree consultant and Ms. Cuba's observations over the factual premise for the Initial Study's less than significant impact determination, there is a fair argument that the subdivision will conflict with the City's codified oak tree policy, which mandates further review under CEQA. Since further environmental review is required under CEQA, it is not appropriate to find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. Thank you very much for your consideration. I hope you will reject this proposed application. Ann I. J nes Proposed lot split at 24837 Quigley Canyon — Case Number 11-178 I oppose the application of Curtis Hairell. This is a community is described in the General Plan as a "rural residential area" with residences on lots of at least one acre. The original parcel at issue in this application was 2.5 acres. It has been subdivided already and has two houses on 2.5 acres. Hairell plans to further subdivide that area - which will result in three houses on 2.5 acres. This residential density is inconsistent with the general plan. And, given that this parcel is in a flood plain, adding housing in this way is irresponsible. Our neighborhood treasures its openness, access to trails and open space. It is described in the General Plan as "equestrian -oriented." The kind of density proposed here and the lack of connection of this flag lot to the neighborhood are antithetical to the existing form of our community. In addition, Curtis Hairell's application proposes to cut down two oak trees. The reasons that he gives for taking these trees down are not justified by his own arborist's report. Oak trees are precious and protected resources and should not be destroyed lightly and without careful study. The current study simply is not adequate. Before this application is granted, a more complete analysis of the need to take these trees down is necessary. u �--7hio1/ AV, a �6^12_ �c nieadvree.D I A*' t-�eWkL L X113 � /I /3, �j C�w ID 3� -3vi c� -3vi %All o27fg16�2rAoe LSI Afw1 otl m 7 O: Y u w IA4D all: i 0111 o'x .�a,'.w'er'°'Y Pi �i +* � --'d"� ""3 �' E � `et 3"Gr'LtrEpa'Y �.'sF-4i yy- •�?'. � - .. "sur„'s, m z > V O 0 C co CL hN1J n3l'JI 'If '✓`g J r .veJ ! !1D t`r' ✓' rc'a. s M`�`-`"�t i 1 Y •'a`n of 'hx x. {? f- f�.?rt `F �. y. F 345 v. '*•• atl ,"� "' 'u F Y, uB',f`', �3 - z!�sF Im. C' `,e S I It •' , i f i '( �5�: !1ay3rN v,_ "`�Lt n� � Y F . w r rat Zir' I 4ux�• FMOdf 9t t til 3 00 Z. al t}d a M // o Q ooCN ` Z f- 5 CN RF C A R L B E R G & A S S O C I A T E S REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORISTS & HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS September 12, 2012 Ms. Ann Jones 24855 Quigley Canyon Road Santa Clarita, California 91321 Re: Peer Review of Oak Tree Report for the Curtis Hairell Residence, 24837 Quigley Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, California Dear Ms. Jones, It was a.pleasure to meet you at yourproperty on August28, 2012. This letter reports on the findings of my visit and review of the Protected Tree Report as prepared by Arbor Essence for the proposed subdivision of your southerly neighbor's parcel located at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road. PROJECT BACKGROUND 1 understand that your neighbor, Curtis Hairell, has applied for an Oak Tree Permit and Tentative Parcel Map on his property located at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road in Santa Clarita, California. You are concerned with the potential impacts of the project on the existing oak trees located adjacent to your property. Specifically, with the removal of two oak trees within the development envelope that have been identified by Mr. Hairell's arborist as candidates for removal due to poor health and structure for one and risk of failure for the other. ASSIGNMENT My assignment wasTo provide a peer review of the Protected Tree Report prepared for the project by Arbor Essence (AE), review the Oak Tree Permit application for consistency with the Oak Tree Report, conduct an "over -the -fence" inspection of the adjacent property's oak trees, and prepare a MAIN OFFICE— 2402 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90403. 3I0.453.TREB 8A I Fl. 1.1Tr. Orrice - 80 W. SIERRA MAURE R L \ D.. 9241. SIERRA MAURE, CALIFURNIA 91024 • 626.248.8977 ANN JONES —PEER REVIEW OF OAK TREE REPORT FOR THE HAIRELL PROPERTY, SANTA CLARrrA 2 brief report of my opinion on the general condition of the subject trees in comparison to their condition as stated in the AE Protected Tree Report dated March 21, 2012. OBSERVATIONS & LIMITATIONS . On August 28, 2012, I met you at your property in order to conduct an "over -the -fence" macro -visual inspection of the on-site and neighboring oak trees that are addressed in -the AE report. The inspection was limited to what I could reasonably see from the confines of your property or from the street. The purpose of the site inspection was to evaluate the findings of the AE report to the extent feasiblegiven the limited access. I took numerous photographs of the subject trees to assist in my analysis. Several of those photographs are included in this report to illustrate the condition of certain trees. The AE Protected Tree Report includes 14 coast live oak trees. I used the AE.tree location map to assist in identification of the subject oaks. Ten are located on the Hairell property and four are located off-site, but their canopies extend onto the Hairell property. One of the off-site trees, #0S -I in the report, is located on your property. Three other subject oaks are on or immediately adjacent to your southerly property line (Trees #73, #77, and #79). Tree #78 is located further south, but its canopy overhangs your property. Trees #71 and #72 are located just west of Quigley Canyon Road and were easily observed from the road. The remaining protected trees are situated in various locations on the Hairell property and visibility was varied. I walked the property line and looked through the chain link fence to assess the general condition of the trees in comparison to the AE report data sheets. I used binoculars to assist my inspection of the interior property trees and upper canopies of the larger trees. The At report indicates that the inspection of the subject trees was conducted from ground level and that no extensive or invasive diagnostics were employed in the course of the field survey. It indicates that the trees on the property appear to be in average condition for their age and acknowledges that most contain defects common to older coast live oaks, such as cavities and pockets of decay throughout their crowns. It also acknowledges that several of the trees contain "significant defects" and recommends annual monitoring to assess risk in those trees. Trees #73 and #75 are construed to have "significant health or structural problems" and they are proposed for removal for this reason and not due to development. Tree #73 is recommended for removal due to a trunk lean to the south of approximately 30 degrees and the supposition that the lean is the result of a defective girdling root system. AE considers this tree to be at risk for failure and requests its removal. This tree is located on the northerly property line under the power lines and in the proposed driveway. It would need to be removed for the development. CARLBERG & AssociATEs SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 ANN JONES —PEER REVIEW OF OAK TREE REPORT FOR THE HAIFELL PROPERTY, SANTA CLARITA 3 Tree 475 is located in the central portion of the property near an existing outbuilding and horse corral. It is described in the AE report as having lost one of its two main trunks and half of its crown in the last year due to borer damage and decay: The AE report goes on to describe areas of dead bark, additional borer damage, and dead buttress roots. For these reasons, tree #75 is proposed for removal. It is located immediately adjacent to the proposed residence's rear yard patio. No other protected trees are proposed for removal. All of the other trees, except #71 and #72 at the front of the property, are proposed to sustain some degree of encroachment. Prior to my site visit to your property, I reviewed the Oak Tree Permit application, the AE report, tree location map, tree and site photos, tree evaluation forms, and plant appraisal forms. I particularly focused on the health grades assigned to each of the subject trees and any remarks or notes on the AE tree evaluation forms. For the purposes of this report, I will only address trees that I found to have inconsistencies or questionable conclusions based on my comparison to the grades given in the AE report and my observations of the trees from afar. The A -F grading system is standard for the city of Santa Clarita and explained in'the AE report. Tree #71 is rated with a health grade of"C" in the AE.report. It is a semi.mature tree, with no obvious defects from the street and no indication of defects on the AE report data sheet. The crown appears full and healthy and AB reports "good vigor", which is an indication of overall health. This tree exhibits a trunk lean of approximately 25-30 degrees to the west. It is not a self-correcting lean at this time. In my opinion, the "C" grade for health is low for this tree. Tree #72 is a young, vigorous tree with no obvious defects from the street and no indication of defects on the AE report data sheet. The crown appears full and healthy and AE reports "good vigor", which is an indication of overall health. This tree is shaded by neighboring trees. In my opinion, the "B" grade for health is low for this young and vigorous tree that exhibits no sign of health defects. Tree #73 also exhibits an approximate lean of 30 degrees to the south; the same degree of lean as Tree #71. It has been topped in the past, reportedly for power line clearance, but is vigorously recovering with a dense and healthy crown. This tree is rated with a `B" for health in the AE report, but a note regarding structure is made with reference to the lean. The data sheet calls for removal of this tree due to the lean and alludes that the lean is probably the result of a defective girdling root system. While the tree is leaning, it cannot be known if the pre -pruning canopy was self-correcting. This tree is immediately south of your property line fence and I hada clear view of the native ground around the north side of the root flare. The ground was hard packed and clear of leaf litter. No sign of soil heaving or cracking was observed. Those are standard signs of a tree that is slowly."falling" due to rotational failure or root plate lifting on the side opposite a large girdling root. While lean can be a sign of girdling roots, without a root crown excavation, it should not be assumed that the lean is attributed to girdling roots. If that were the case, then why isn't Tree #71 proposed for removal based on its virtually same degree of lean and a lower health rating? In my opinion, the CARLBERG & AssocLATFs SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 I ANN JONEs —PEER REvIEw OF OAK TREE REPORT FOR THE HArRELL PROPERTY, SANTA CLARITA recommendation for removal without additional analysis is not justified by the data presented and conflicts with the findings for Tree #71. Tree #74 exhibits upper crown dieback, sparse foliage, low vigor and a cavity at the base of the trunk. AE assigned this obviously declining tree a health grade of "C'; the same as Tree 471 that is a young, vigorous tree with no obvious defects. In my opinion, this grade is inconsistent with the actual physical condition of the tree and is contradictory to the amount of defects noted in the field evaluation form. Tree #75 is recommended for removal due to extensive, ongoing borer damage, decay, a dead buttress root, and past failure of one of the two main stems that removed approximately half of its crown. From my vantage, I could cortfinn the history of failure, one cavity at the base, and the generally poor condition of this tree, but could not see the specific trunk defects noted in the AE report. The remaining canopy is fairly centered, relatively light in weight, and vertical in nature. AE assigned a health grade of "C" to this tree. By the city's definition, a "C" grade reflects a tree that "Although healthy in overall appearance there exists an abnormal amount of stress, pest infestation or visual signs of minor structural problems. Survivability of the tree is not threatened". This grade would indicate that the survivability of this tree is not threatened at this time and removal may or may not be warranted. A follow-up risk assessment would need to be performed to ascertain the full extent of the current level of decay and risk for imminent failure. Tree #76 is also given a health rating of "C" in the AE report. It is noted to have "major trunk damage", a large cavity at the base on the southwest side of the trunk, and it is. also leaning to the northwest. With the amount of defects reported and the degree of lean similar to Trees #71 and #73, why is this tree not requested for removal' Trees #77, 978, and #79 are all large, old trees that exhibit numerous defects common to old coast Live oaks. They are all located close to the Hairell's north.property line and their canopies overhang your rear yard. They have all experienced limb failures, have pockets of decay and cavities (some significant), and all are recommended for annual inspection for risk. Tree #77 is given a health grade of "B" and Trees 478 and #79 are both given a "C" rating. Based on my observations, the "B" grade is too high and does not reflect the defects noted in the tree evaluation form. The "C" ratings are also questionable based on the conditions noted in my visual assessment from within their driplines. Trees #80, #08-2, #OS -3 and #OS -4 are located on the far south side of the Hairell lot or on the southerly adjacent property and were not accessible. I was not able to vet any substantial information on those trees. I examined historical aerial photographs of the subject property to analyze the canopy cover of the subject oaks over time and did not note any significant changes to the oak tree canopy in the past 10 years. CARLBERG & AsSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Y �� CONCLUSIONS Overall, the AE report includes the basic information required by the city of Santa Clarita for oak tree reports and that information is reflected in the application. However, based on my site visit and review of the AE report, it is my opinion that there is inconsistency, in grading the overall health of the trees to remain and the trees to be removed. In addition, if lean alone is the basis for removal recommendation, then two additional trees should have been recommended for removal in the AE report. It is not clear why one tree that appears outwardly healthy in all other aspects except the lean, but is in the development envelope, iscalled for removal and the other two that exhibit similar lean and greater levels of defects are not. Since there was no follow-up risk assessment completed for any of the subject trees that exhibit moderate to significant structural defects, it is my opinion that the conclusions to preserve and monitor some trees, but remove Trees #73 and #75 are not justified by the data presented. Additional analysis should be conducted to give the city of Santa Clarita a full understanding of the existing conditions and potential risks associated with the oaks prior to issuance of an Oak Tree Permit. Please feel welcome to call if you have any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, Christy Cuba Registered Consulting Arborist, 4502 CertfiedArborist, WE -1982A Certified Tree Risk Assessor, #1529 CARLBERG & ASSOCIATES SMEMBER 12, 2012 t20 ^j%i tix i e a trl Y � y�. .. ( � �� i Yi •r .iii.+• `'�`Y�x 'r r1^ 4?N � r .w„ -a•=: —^'^--- ��, }ssS�Y��4t.{�! �+: Y.,.i i �f ver t.� }�fl ax M1 <. s- 0, '!• *t txV' �, i ' �' J '� \ %rte S � �.;�'t ,l, Shy ) t\ :'� * r�' � oz y 'ti v,�.¢1•.. `�; .M .. ,....4`. .. -L3 ANN JONES—PEER REVIEW OF OAK TREE REPORT FOR TEE HAIRELL PROPERTY, SANTA CLARITA I 1 CHRISTINE M. CUBA CARLBERG & ASSOCIATES. Satellite Office: 80 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., #241 • Sierra Madre, CA 91024 o. 626.248.8977 e. christy@cycarlberg.com EDUCATION B.A., Environmental Analysis/Design, Cum Laude, University of California, Irvine,, 1993 Graduate, International Society of Arboriculture Certification Study Program, Brea, California, April 1998 Graduate, Consulting Academy, American Society of Consulting Arborists, San Diego, California, February 2008 EXPERIENCE Consulting Arborist, Carlberg & Associates; 2011 —Present Director of Environmental Services and Senior Arborist, Land Design Consultants, Inc., Pasadena, 1994-2011 Park Specialist/Naturalist, City of Monrovia, CA, 1988 - 1996 CERTIFICATES Certified Arborist, WE -1982A, International. Society of Arboriculture, 1998 Registered Consulting Arborist, #502, American Society of Consulting Arborists, 2011 Certified Tree Risk Assessor, #1529, International Society of Arboriculture; 2012 AREAS of EXPERTISE Ms. Cuba is experienced in the following areas of tree management and preservation: • Inventories & reports for thousands of native and non-native trees • Evaluation of trees for hazards, preservation, encroachment, relocation & restoration • Value assessments for native and non-native trees • Potential impact analysis based on engineering, architect, and grading plans Promulgation of guidelines for tree preservation and management • Construction monitoring 7 program development& implementation • Tree & landscape resource mapping — GPS & AutoCAD • Planting, pruning, and maintenance specifications • Post -fire inventories, assessments, and valuations for native & non-native trees • Planning Commission, City Council, and community meetings representation • Review of landscape plans for mitigation compliance • Preparation of native habitat and woodland management plans • Performance of long-term mitigation compliance monitoring & reporting PREvIOUs CONSULTING EXPERIENCE Ms. Cuba has performed hundreds of tree inventories, health evaluations, impact analyses, hazard and value assessments for government agencies including; counties, cities, sanitation districts, and water districts, as well as private developers, architects, engineers and homeowners. She has over 23 of experience in arboriculture as related to environmental planning, state and federal regulatory permitting, preparation of CEQA analyses, and mitigation planning and implementation. Representative clients include: City of Pasadena City of Glendora Southern California Pipeline Pierce College City of Monrovia City of Santa Clarita Newhall County Water District Pomona College Pulte/Centex L.A. County Fire Dept. Newhall Land & Farming L.A. Co. Sanitation Dist. AFFILIATIONS Ms. Cuba participates with the following professional organizations: • Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and the ASCA Education Task Force • Member, International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter • Member, Los Angeles Oak Woodland Habitat Conservation Strategic Alliance • Secretary, Street Tree Seminar, Inc. CARLBERG& ASSOCIATES SEP't'En18rR 12, 2012 ANN JONES—PEER REVIEW OF OAKTREE REPORTFOR TIM HAIREL, PROPERTY, SANTA CLARITA 12 CERTIFICATE OF PERFORMANCE I, Christine Cuba, certify: _ That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and appraisal is stated in the attached report; I That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; ' That the analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own; • That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices; ■ That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report; • That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party. Ifurther certify that I am a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and.that I acknowledge, accept, and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice.. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor and have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the study of trees for over twenty years. . CARLBsRG & ASSOCIATES J //,, Signed: Glr fes. ( /'M Date: September 12, 2012 SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 09/18/2012 15:05 8185473100 GRAHAM_VAAGE_LLP PAGE 02/04 LAW OFFICES GRAHAM - VA.AGE LLP Suite 1030 TELEPHONE PLEASE REPLY TO' 547- X818) 547-4800 Arnold K. Graham 500 NORTH GRAND BOULEVARD GLENDALFo CAY.IPORNMk 91203 FACSIMILE FILE NO: 18181 $47-3100 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL September 18, 2012 Lisa Eiehman, Vice -Chair and Members of the Santa Clarita Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Case Number 11-178 Proposed Lot Split: 24837 Quigley Canyon Rd., Santa Clarita Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter is written in support of the proposed lot split at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, Contrary to the assertions of certain opponents whose opposition is premised upon their own self-interest, the proposed lot split at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road fully and completely meets City standards, including its General Plan together with its Land Use Element. The opposition attempts to make several arguments against the proposed lot split, as follows: 1. That this is a "re -splitting" of a previous lot split that occurred in 1976; 2. That the result of the subject lot split will leave one of the parcels as a flag lot, and having a driveway onto Quigley Canyon Road; 3. That two oak trees will be authorized to be removed; 4. That the applicant purports to have no intention to personally develop or reside on the property; ' 5. That the lot split project does not meet the required findings for approval by the City; 6. That the proposed lot split is not consistent with Santa Clarita General Plan; 7. That the subject property is not physically suited for the type or density of proposed development; and 8. The mitigated negative declaration has not been prepared in compliance with CEQA, without addressing all of the foregoing, the following comments are made: 09/10/2012 15:05 8185473100 GRAHAPI_VAAGE_LLP PAGE 03/04 LAW OFFICES GRAHAM • YAAGE LLP Lisa Eichman, Vice -Chair September 18, 2012 Page 2 1. The proposed lot split of the property located at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road is legal and proper, and is not a "re -splitting" of a parcel. The subject property is a legal parcel, and under the Subdivision Map Act, it is entitled to be split so long as the resultant complies with the City's established land use standards. The opposition attempts to piggyback as a legal prohibition a previous lot split which the current applicant had no involvement with nor control over. The subject property was legally created, and is legally existing, and is eligible to be subdivided in accordance with applicable City standards. The applicant is entitled to split the property at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road because it is legal and proper to do so. 2. The lot split does not create a "flag lot" as interpreted by the normal definition of that term or as referenced in planning jargon. The newly split lot will have driveway access onto 24837 Quigley Canyon Road, but it will also have separate legal access onto Meadview Avenue. While the access onto Meadview is presently unimproved, and has some use constraints related to its present physical condition, nevertheless, the subject property does have legal access onto both Meadview and Quigley Canyon Road. The subject property is not a flag lot, either by fact or by legal definition. 3. The proposed lot split does in fact meet all of the required findings for approval; the proposed lot split is consistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan; the site is physically suited for the type of single family residential development as will be allowed under the City's Zoning Ordinance; and the lot split will not result in an over -densification of either parcel. 4. The proposed authorization for removal of two oak trees is justified based upon the information and opinions provided by the applicant's arborist, as well as based upon the analyses and conclusions of the City Planning staff. Further, the proposed oak tree removals are not of protected Heritage oaks, but rather are California coastal oaks. 5, The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the City Planning staff for this application has been prepared in full compliance with and meets all the standards of CEQA. As a last matter, a petition attached to one of the opposition submittals which purports to have been signed by various property owners in the area, is materially and deliberately distortive based on two misrepresentations: the first misrepresentation is that the subject property "has been subdivided already and has two houses on 2.5 acres," which is a factual misrepresentation. The true fact is tbat the subject property at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road consists of 2.02 acres, and has only one house located on it. The 2.02 acres are sought to be subdivided into two parcels. The second overt misrepresentation on the purported petition states that the applicant (Hairell) "plans to further subdivide that area which will result in three houses on 2.5 acres." Again, this is a blatant misstatement and misrepresentation to the Planning Commission: the �1� 09/18/2012 15:05 6165473100 GRAHAM_VAAGE_LLP PAGE 04/04 LAW OFFICES GRAIJA.M � VAAGE LLP Lisa Eichman, Vice -Chair September 18, 2012 Page 3 applicant has no intention to further subdivide the property other than what is presently being applied for, and legally could not do so. Further, the applicant has no ownership or control over any adjoining properties„and therefore, there are not and would not be "three houses on 2.5 acres” since the applicant only owns 2.02 acres. The Santa Clarita General Plan allows parcels in this area to have a minimum lot size of one acre. The proposed lot split is consistent with the subject rural residential area, is not urban in its character and use, and is not antithetical to equestrian uses. Therefore, the applicant has fully and completely complied with all land use, zoning and General Plan standards of the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed lot split of 24837 Quigley Canyon Road is both legal and proper. Yours very tru,34e-� ARNOLD Applicant AKG/md cc: Joe Montes, City Attorney (by facsimile and email) Hairell, ,I z CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL ON MASTER CASE 1 1-178 APPLICATION: Master Case Number 11-178 Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040 PROJECT PROPONENT: Hairell Family PROJECT LOCATION: 24837 Quigley Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Assessor Parcel No. 2834-028-034 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.01 acre parcel into two residential lots. Lot 1 would consist of one acre (43,749 sq. ft. gross, 36,812 sq. ft. net) and Lot 2 would consist of 1.01 -acre (44,151 sq. ft. gross and 43,501 sq. ft. net). The property is located in the Residential Low (RL) zone in the Placerita Canyon community of Newhall. The subject property contains ten oak trees, including four heritage specimens. The project would allow two non -heritage oak trees to be removed and would also allow for encroachment into the protected zone of eight trees on the property. The project includes 1,364 cubic yards of grading to create a 4,000 sq. ft. (approximate) building pad. While no construction is proposed as part of this request, the project would create a legal, buildable parcel that could be developed in the future. The subject property is located in the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On October 16, 2012, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to adopt a resolution of denial, without prejudice, for Master Case 11-178 which includes the proposed Tentative Parcel Map and Oak Tree Permit. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant filed an appeal of this Planning Commission action on October 17, 2012. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA): The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 21080 b.5 which states, "This division does not apply to any of the following activities [including] projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." The City of Santa Clarita will conduct a public hearing on this matter on: DATE: November 27, 2012 TIME: on or after 6:00 PM LOCATION: City Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that YOU or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence received by the City prior to the close of the public hearing. For further information regarding this proposal, please contact the project planner at the City of Santa Clarita Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Project Planner: Jason Smisko, Senior Planner. Dated: October 29, 2012 Armin6 Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk Publish Date: November 6, 2012 i1�