Light Lot Split -00000 00023 December 13, 2012 Lot Split ND... · Hearing on the request of Jennifer Siemens, ... Summerland Station, ... A Phase I archaeological resource survey

For More Information Contact Brian Banks, Planner at (805) 568-3559

Owner/Applicant

Robert Light

580 Freehaven Drive

Santa Barbara, CA 93108

(760) 898-5959

Agent

Jennifer Siemens

Dudek

621 Chapala Street

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

(805) 963-0651

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Light Lot Split

12NGD-00000-00023

December 13, 2012

Light Lot Split, Case No. 12NGD-00000-00023 December 13, 2012

Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1

1.0 REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Hearing on the request of Jennifer Siemens, agent for Robert Light, owner, to consider Case No.

12TPM-00000-00002/TPM 14,787 [application filed on March 14, 2012] for approval of a

Tentative Parcel Map in compliance with County Code Chapter 21 to divide a parcel of

approximately 2.77 acres gross/net into two parcels of approximately 1.77 acres gross/net (proposed

Parcel one) and 1.0 acres gross/net (proposed Parcel two) on property zoned 1-E-1. Proposed

Parcel one would contain an existing single family dwelling, carport, swimming pool and utility

shed. No structures are located on proposed Parcel two. Access to proposed Parcel one would

continue to be provided via a driveway off of Freehaven Drive. Future access to proposed Parcel

two would be provided via a new driveway off of Freehaven Drive. Water service for proposed

Parcel two would be provided by the Montecito Water District, and water service for proposed

Parcel one would continue to be provided by the Montecito Water District. Sanitary service for

proposed Parcel two would be provided by a new private septic system, and a new private septic

system for Parcel one would be installed to serve the existing dwelling. Future access driveway

construction for proposed Parcel two would require the removal of two olive trees, and future

development within the proposed building envelope for Parcel two would require the removal of

four olive trees. Any removed olive trees as a result of future development would be replaced with

native Coast Live Oaks per the existing County recommendation of either 10:1 -1 gallon, 5:1 -

15gallon, or 3:1 -24” boxed trees. No grading, tree or vegetation removal is proposed as a part of

this project.

2.0 PROJECT LOCATION

The project site is located at 580 Freehaven Drive, Assessor Parcel Numbers 005-030-011 and 005-

230-023, in the Toro Canyon area, First Supervisorial District.

2.1 Site Information

Comprehensive Plan

Designation

Coastal, Urban, Res 1.0, Single-Family Residential (1.0 dwellings unit per

acre), Toro Canyon Community Plan Area.

Zoning District, Ordinance Article II, 1-E-1, Residential (1.0-acre min. parcel size)

Site Size 2.77 acres gross/net

Present Use & Development Residential, Single Family Dwelling with carport and swimming pool

Surrounding Uses/Zoning North: Residential, 1-E-1

South: Residential and Orchards, RR-10

East: Residential, 1-E-1

West: Residential, 1-E-1

Access Private driveway easement from Freehaven Drive.

Public Services Water Supply: Montecito Water District

Sewage: Private Septic System

Fire: Summerland Station, Carpinteria-Summerland Fire

Protection District

Other: Carpinteria Unified School District

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 PHYSICAL SETTING

The subject site is a developed lot in a developed urban residential neighborhood along Freehaven

Drive in the foothills of the Toro Canyon area. The lot is located in the Coastal Zone approximately

1.25 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The approximately 2.77 acre lot is currently developed with a



single family residence, carport, swimming pool, private septic system, paved private driveway, and

residential landscaping. The lot’s predominant feature is its ridgeline location which offers views of

the ocean to the south and the Santa Ynez Mountains to the north. Surrounding uses include a

single family dwelling to the north (across Freehaven Drive), a single family dwelling to the west, a

single family dwelling to the east, and a single family dwelling and orchard to the south.

The topography of the lot varies from moderate slopes of 10-15% at the central portion, to steeply

descending slopes of approximately 30% at the southern portion of the lot, and approximately 20%

slopes at the northern portion of the lot. The proposed new lot would include a 15,670 sq. ft.

building envelope with an average slope of 14.40% which would limit future development to the

central, moderately sloped portion of the lot.

Vegetation on the lot consists of non-native residential landscaping including irrigated turf grass,

approximately 35 mature olive trees (remnants of an over-mature grove), and 5 oak trees. No

sensitive flora or fauna are known to exist in the area of proposed development. An arborist report

by County-qualified consultant Peter Winn, dated May 9, 2012 was prepared for the proposed

project. The report analyzed the condition of the existing oak and olive trees within the proposed

building envelope and driveway locations, and identified protection measures for trees outside of

the development areas. The report identified 6 olive trees that would likely need to be removed to

allow for future development, and suggested mitigation measures, incorporated into the project

description, that include replacing any removed olive trees with native Coast Live Oaks per the

existing County recommendation of either 10:1 -1 gallon, 5:1 -15gallon, or 3:1 -24” boxed trees.

Future construction on the new lot is not expected to impact any oak trees based on the location of

the building envelope and future driveway location.

A Geological Feasibility Study, dated July 12, 2012 and Revised Study, dated August 27, 2012,

were prepared by Coastal Geology & Soil, Inc., a County-qualified consultant. These reports were

peer-reviewed and accepted by the P&D Geologic consultant, GeoDynamics, Inc. The geologic

structure of the site consists of Sespe formation (Tsp) deposits of claystone, siltstone, and sandstone.

The clay soils of the lot are potentially expansive which would require special design parameters for

future driveway and structure construction. In addition, the lot is located in an area defined as

having a high potential for Radon gas which would require habitable structures to have foundations

that incorporate adequate ventilation of this naturally occurring gas. These design considerations

would be addressed as part of the Building and Safety review of any future development.

A Phase I archaeological resource survey of the parcel was prepared by Heather Macfarlane (an

approved County consultant) on November 20, 2011. The Phase 1 survey was peer-reviewed and

found acceptable by the P&D Archeologist. The survey concluded that there are no known

archaeological sites within the parcel itself, and the likelihood of encountering cultural deposits is

low.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

The environmental baseline from which the project’s impacts are measured consists of the physical

environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as described above.

4.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST

The following checklist indicates the potential level of impact and is defined as follows:



Potentially Significant Impact: A fair argument can be made, based on the substantial evidence

in the file, that an effect may be significant.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Incorporation of mitigation measures has

reduced an effect from a Potentially Significant Impact to a Less Than Significant Impact.

Less Than Significant Impact: An impact is considered adverse but does not trigger a

significance threshold.

No Impact: There is adequate support that the referenced information sources show that the

impact simply does not apply to the subject project.

Reviewed Under Previous Document: The analysis contained in a previously adopted/certified

environmental document addresses this issue adequately for use in the current case and is

summarized in the discussion below. The discussion should include reference to the previous

documents, a citation of the page(s) where the information is found, and identification of mitigation

measures incorporated from the previous documents.

4.1 AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES

Will the proposal result in:

Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the

public or the creation of an aesthetically offensive site

open to public view?

X

b. Change to the visual character of an area? X

c. Glare or night lighting which may affect adjoining

areas?

X

d. Visually incompatible structures? X

Existing Setting: The project site is located at 580 Freehaven Drive, approximately 700 feet

south of the intersection of East Valley Road and Freehaven Drive in the Toro Canyon area. The

surrounding urban neighborhood along Freehaven Drive is characterized by low-density

residential development on lots ranging from 1.0 to 3.30 acres in size. While the Freehaven

neighborhood is designated as an urban area with one acre minimum parcel sizes, the lots south

of the subject parcel (and the Freehaven neighborhood) are composed of designated rural parcels

characterized by low-density residential development and irrigated orchards on lots ranging from

approximately 5.0 to 20.0 acres in size. Views in this area are dominated by coastal and

mountain views due to the site’s location on an east-west trending ridge above the Summerland

community and its proximity to the foothills. Future development on the subject lot would be

subject to the County’s Ridgeline and Hillside Development Guidelines which applies to all

structures proposed to be constructed where there is a 16 foot drop in elevation within 100 feet

ina any direction from the proposed building footprint.

County Environmental Thresholds: The County’s Visual Aesthetics Impact Guidelines

classify coastal and mountainous areas, the urban fringe, and travel corridors as “especially

important” visual resources. A project may have the potential to create a significantly adverse

aesthetic impact if (among other potential effects) it would impact important visual resources,



obstruct public views, remove significant amounts of vegetation, substantially alter the natural

character of the landscape, or involve extensive grading visible from public areas. The

guidelines address public, not private views.

Impact Discussion:

(a) Future development of a residence and residential accessory structures within the designated

15,670 sq. ft. building envelope would not result in obstruction of public views of the mountains

due to the distance of the subject property from public viewing areas along Greenwell Avenue and

Ortega Ridge Road, both approximately 4,000 feet distant to the south. Likewise, future

development would not result in obstruction of public views to the ocean from public viewing areas

along Bella Vista and/or Ladera Lane to the north due to the intervening topography and vegetation.

In addition, County Ridgeline and Hillside Development Guidelines and Toro Canyon Community

Plan policies limit the height of new structures to 25 feet which further minimizes any potential for

public view impacts. However, during construction the site could be visually offensive to the public

because of trash and debris related to future construction. Therefore, mitigation measure no. 1

would require weekly trash and construction debris pick-ups as directed by compliance monitoring

staff.

(b) The subject property is located within a developed neighborhood and is surrounded by

residential development on lots ranging from approximately 1.0 to 20.0 acres in size. Consistent

with the 1-E-1 zoning of the property, the proposed project would divide a parcel of approximately

2.77 acres gross/net into two parcels of approximately 1.77 acres gross/net (proposed Parcel one)

and 1.0 acres gross/net (proposed Parcel two). Proposed parcel one would contain the existing

single family dwelling, carport and driveway, and parcel two would allow for future development

within a designated 15,670 sq. ft. building envelope on the new 1.0 acre parcel. In addition, a new

driveway along the western property line would provide access to the proposed building envelope

directly from Freehaven Drive. Future development of the proposed lot would “infill” an

undeveloped area of a built-out urban neighborhood characterized by low-density residential

development and the project would be consistent with the development pattern of the existing

neighborhood.

Based on the location of the proposed building envelope and access driveway, 6 of the 35 existing

over-mature olive trees would likely need to be removed to allow for future development of the

newly created lot. A detailed discussion of these trees can be found in Section 4.4 (Biological

Resources) of this document. In order to preserve the visual character of the area, the project

description includes the replacement of any removed olive trees with native Coast Live Oaks per the

existing County recommendation of either 10:1 -1 gallon, 5:1 -15gallon, or 3:1 -24” boxed trees.

With the incorporation of the replacement tree plantings into the project description, the project

would not substantially alter the natural character of the landscape nor result in a change to the

visual character of the area.

(c,d) Depending on the location and design of new lighting on the proposed lot, lighting could

potentially spill over and/or be highly noticeable in the surrounding neighborhood. Mitigation

measure no. 2, requiring that lighting be hooded, low wattage and directed downward in order to

prevent spillover unto adjacent lots, would reduce impacts associated with lighting to a less than

significant level.



Future build-out of the proposed lot with development of a size or style incompatible with the

surrounding neighborhood and with the low-density nature of existing development could result in

the construction of visually incompatible structures. Therefore, mitigation measure no.3 requires

design review by the SBAR to ensure that future development is aesthetically integrated with the

existing residential development in the neighborhood.

Cumulative Impacts:

The implementation of the project is not anticipated to result in any substantial change in the

aesthetic character of the area since the proposed project would result in infill residential

development within an established urban residential neighborhood. In addition, public views of

the project would be limited and the proposed mitigation measures would ensure that future

development of the new lot would be visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Thus, the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable effect on aesthetics.

Mitigation and Residual Impact:

The following mitigation measures would reduce the project’s aesthetic impacts to a less than

significant level:

1. Aest-09 Construction Clean-up. The developer shall clear the project site of all trash

and excess construction debris.

PLAN REQUIREMENT: This requirement shall be noted on final building plans.

TIMING: Trash and excess constitution debris removal shall occur weekly. Post

construction debris removal shall occur prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance.

MONITORING: P&D compliance monitoring staff shall respond to complaints and site

inspect prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance.

2. Aest-04 BAR Required. The Owner/Applicant shall obtain Board of Architectural

Review (BAR) approval for all new structural development as required under ordinance

and by the Toro Canyon Community Plan. All project elements (e.g., design, scale,

character, colors, materials and landscaping) shall be compatible with vicinity

development.

TIMING: The Owner/Applicant shall submit architectural drawings of the project for

BAR review and shall obtain final BAR approval prior to issuance of a Coastal

Development Permit. Grading plans, if required, shall be submitted to P&D concurrent

with or prior to BAR plan filing.

MONITORING: The Owner/Applicant shall demonstrate to P&D compliance

monitoring staff that the project has been built consistent with approved BAR plans prior

to Final Building Inspection Clearance.

3. Aest-10 Lighting. The Owner/Applicant shall ensure any exterior night lighting installed

on the project site is of low intensity, low glare design, minimum height, and shall be

hooded to direct light downward onto the subject lots and prevent spill-over onto adjacent

lots. The Owner/Applicant shall install timers or otherwise ensure lights are dimmed

after 10 p.m. PLAN REQUIREMENTS: These elements shall be included on design

and construction plans, including electrical details and fixture heights, and submitted to

BAR for approval prior to issuance of a Coastal Development Permit for development.



TIMING: Lighting shall be installed in compliance with this measure prior to Final

Building Inspection Clearance.

MONITORING: P&D compliance monitoring staff shall review compliance with this

measure prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance to ensure that exterior lighting

fixtures have been installed consistent with their depiction on the BAR-approved plans.

With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts would be less than significant.

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. Convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural

use, impair agricultural land productivity (whether

prime or non-prime) or conflict with agricultural

preserve programs?

X

b. An effect upon any unique or other farmland of State

or Local Importance?

X

The project site does not contain a combination of acreage and/or soils which render the site an

important agricultural resource. The site is located within an urban residential zone and does not

support any active agricultural production. The site will not impact any neighboring agricultural

operations based on the location of the proposed development envelope.

Mitigation and Residual Impact: No impacts are identified. No mitigations are necessary.

4.3 AIR QUALITY


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. The violation of any ambient air quality standard, a

substantial contribution to an existing or projected air

quality violation, or exposure of sensitive receptors to

substantial pollutant concentrations (emissions from

direct, indirect, mobile and stationary sources)?

X

b. The creation of objectionable smoke, ash or odors? X

c. Extensive dust generation? X

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

d. Emissions equivalent to or greater than 10,000

metric tons (MT) of CO2 per year from stationary

sources during long-term operations?

X

e. Emissions equivalent to or greater than 1,100 MT of

CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) per year or 4.6

MT CO2e/Service Population (residents +

employees) per year from other than stationary

sources during long-term operations?

X




Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

f. Emissions equivalent to or greater than 6.6 MT

CO2e/Service Population (residents + employees)

per year for plans (General Plan Elements,

Community Plans, etc.)?

X

County Environmental Threshold:

Chapter 5 of the Santa Barbara County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (as

revised in September 2008) addresses the subject of air quality. The thresholds provide that a

proposed project will not have a significant impact on air quality if operation of the project will:

emit (from all project sources, mobile and stationary), less than the daily trigger for

offsets for any pollutant (currently 55 pounds per day for NOx and ROC, and 80

pounds per day for PM10);

emit less than 25 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) or reactive organic

compounds (ROC) from motor vehicle trips only;

not cause or contribute to a violation of any California or National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (except ozone);

not exceed the APCD health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the APCD

Board; and

be consistent with the adopted federal and state Air Quality Plans.

No thresholds have been established for short-term impacts associated with construction activities.

However, the County’s Grading Ordinance requires standard dust control conditions for all projects

involving grading activities. Long-term/operational emissions thresholds have been established to

address mobile emissions (i.e., motor vehicle emissions) and stationary source emissions (i.e.,

stationary boilers, engines, paints, solvents, and chemical or industrial processing operations that

release pollutants).

Impact Discussion:

The project would not result in significant new daily vehicle emissions (i.e., new vehicular trips to or

from the site would be fewer than 10 on an average daily basis). Additionally, the project would not

include any new stationary sources requiring an Air Pollution Control District (APCD) permit (e.g.,

combustion equipment, solvent or coatings usage, industrial or chemical processing) that would

increase the amount of pollutants released into the atmosphere. Finally, the proposed project would

not generate additional smoke, ash, odors, or long term dust after construction is complete and

occupancy clearance has been granted.

(a-c) Potential Air Quality Impacts

Short-Term Construction Impacts. Project-related construction activities associated with the

future build-out of the proposed parcel would be required to minimize grading to the extent feasible.

Earth moving operations at the project site would not have the potential to result in significant

project-specific short-term emissions of fugitive dust and PM10, with the implementation of standard

dust control measures that are required for all new development in the County.

Emissions of ozone precursors (NOx and ROC) during project construction would result primarily

from the on-site use of heavy earthmoving equipment. Due to the limited period of time that grading



activities would occur on the project site, construction-related emissions of NOx and ROC would not

be significant on a project-specific or cumulative basis. However, due to the non-attainment status of

the air basin for ozone, the project should implement measures recommended by the APCD to reduce

construction-related emissions of ozone precursors to the extent feasible. Compliance with these

measures is routinely required for all new development in the County. To ensure compliance with

these dust control measures, mitigation measure no. 4 is recommended to reduce air quality impacts

from construction-related emissions and ozone precursors to the maximum extent feasible.

Long-Term Operation Emissions. Long-term emissions are typically estimated using the

URBEMIS computer model program. However, the proposed project, a lot split resulting in two

parcels and the potential construction of one new residence, is below threshold levels for significant

air quality impacts, pursuant to the screening table maintained by the Santa Barbara County APCD

and no stationary source requiring an APCD permit is proposed. Therefore, the proposed project

would not have a potentially significant long-term impact on air quality.

Cumulative Impacts:

The County’s Environmental Thresholds were developed, in part, to define the point at which a

project’s contribution to a regionally significant impact constitutes a significant effect at the

project level. In this instance, the project has been found not to exceed the significance criteria

for air quality. Therefore, the project’s contribution to regionally significant air pollutant

emissions, including greenhouse gases, is not cumulatively considerable, and its cumulative

effect is less than significant.

(d-f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Global Climate Change

Background: Greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous

oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). Combustion of fossil fuels constitutes the primary source of

GHGs. GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere, where these gases trap heat near the Earth’s surface

by absorbing infrared radiation. This effect causes global warming and climate change, with

adverse impacts on humans and the environment. Potential effects include reduced water

supplies in some areas, ecological changes that threaten some species, reduced agricultural

productivity in some areas, increased coastal flooding, and other effects.

Methodology: The County’s methodology to address Global Climate Change in CEQA

documents is evolving. The County is currently working to develop a Climate Action Plan

consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 (Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of

Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Until the Climate Action Plan is formally adopted, the County will

follow an interim approach to evaluating GHG emissions. This interim approach will look to

criteria adopted by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) for

land use development projects, summarized below, for guidance on determining significance of

GHG emissions.

According to the SLOAPCD “CEQA Air Quality Handbook,” the relevant 1,150 metric ton significance

criterion is equivalent to 79 single family residences. Based on this equivalency, the GHG emissions

from this project (resulting in 2 lots and the potential for 1 new residence) are considered to be less than

1,150 metric tons/year and cumulative impacts as a result of GHG emissions are considered to be

adverse, but less than significant.




Implementation of standard conditions placed on grading plans as implemented through Chapter 14

(Grading Ordinance) of the County Code, along with standard APCD conditions would reduce potential

construction related short-term dust impacts to a less than significant level, and residual impacts would

be less than significant. The project would not result in significant project-specific long-term air quality

impacts.

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

Flora

a. A loss or disturbance to a unique, rare or threatened

plant community?

X

b. A reduction in the numbers or restriction in the range

of any unique, rare or threatened species of plants?

X

c. A reduction in the extent, diversity, or quality of

native vegetation (including brush removal for fire

prevention and flood control improvements)?

X

d. An impact on non-native vegetation whether

naturalized or horticultural if of habitat value?

X

e. The loss of healthy native specimen trees? X

f. Introduction of herbicides, pesticides, animal life,

human habitation, non-native plants or other factors

that would change or hamper the existing habitat?

X

Fauna

g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range,

or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare,

threatened or endangered species of animals?

X

h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals

onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles,

amphibians, fish or invertebrates)?

X

i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for

foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)?

X

j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident

or migratory fish or wildlife species?

X

k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise,

human presence and/or domestic animals) which

could hinder the normal activities of wildlife?

X

Existing Plant and Animal Communities/Conditions:

Background and Methods:

Santa Barbara County has a wide diversity of habitat types, including chaparral, oak woodlands,

wetlands and beach dunes. These are complex ecosystems and many factors are involved in

assessing the value of the resources and the significance of project impacts. For this project, a site

visit by County staff was conducted on April 6, 2012. In addition, a site visit and follow-up arborist

report by County-qualified consultant Peter Winn, dated May 9, 2012 was prepared for the proposed

project. The following analysis is based on this information.

Flora:



Vegetation on the 2.77 acre site consists of non-native residential landscaping including irrigated

turf, approximately 35 mature olive trees (remnants of an over-mature grove), and 5 oak trees. No

special status plants are expected to occur in the area.

Fauna:

No sensitive plant or animal species are known or expected to occur on the developed urban

residential parcel.

County Environmental Thresholds:

Santa Barbara County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (2008) includes

guidelines for the assessment of biological resource impacts. The following thresholds are

applicable to this project:

Individual Native Trees: Project created impacts may be considered significant due to the loss of

10% or more of the trees of biological value on a project site.

Impact Discussion:

(a-d) Potential areas of disturbance associated with future build-out on the proposed parcels include

primarily irrigated turf grass, ruderal vegetation with pockets of non-native/ornamental vegetation,

and over-mature olive trees that do not provide significant habitat value. Therefore, no significant

impacts would occur to unique, rare or threatened plant communities, or non-native vegetation of

habitat value.

(e) The project would not result in removal of healthy native specimen trees. The existing olive

trees are introduced species, and not native. Vegetation on the lot consists of non-native residential

landscaping, approximately 35 over-mature olive trees, and 5 oak trees. An arborist report by

County-qualified consultant Peter Winn, dated May 9, 2012 was prepared for the proposed project.

The report analyzed the condition of the existing oak and olive trees within the proposed building

envelope and driveway locations, and identified protection measures for trees outside of the

development areas. The report identified 6 over-mature olive trees that would likely need to be

removed to allow for future development, and suggested mitigation measures that include replacing

any removed olive trees with native Coast Live Oaks per the existing County recommendation of

either 10:1 -1 gallon, 5:1 -15gallon, or 3:1 -24” boxed trees. This tree replacement has been

incorporated into the project description. The arborist report states that the 6 olive trees likely to be

removed as part of future construction are in poor health and are not viable for relocation. The

building envelope and future driveway locations avoid all existing oak trees, thus no impacts to oaks

are expected. However, in order to ensure that the existing oaks are protected to the maximum

extent from future construction related impacts including utility trenching, retaining walls for

access driveway construction, and equipment and material storage, mitigation measure no. 4

requires incorporation a tree protection plan as part of any future development proposal on the

newly created lot.

(f) The project would potentially result in the introduction of factors including herbicides,

pesticides, domestic animals, human habitation, and non-native plants typical of urban residential

development. Because no sensitive habitat exists on the urban residential parcel, these factors

would have no impact.



(g-k) No sensitive habitat or animal species are known or expected to occur on the developed urban

residential parcel.

Cumulative Impacts:

Since the project would not significantly impact biological resources onsite, it would not have a

cumulatively considerable effect on the County’s biological resources.


The following mitigation measures would reduce the project’s biological resource impacts to a less

than significant level.

4. Bio-01a Tree Protection Plan-Site Plan Component. An Arborist Report prepared by

Peter Winn, dated May 9, 2012, identified 6 Olive trees within or immediately adjacent to

the Parcel 2 Building Envelope and driveway location. The Owner/Applicant shall

submit a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) prepared by a P&D-approved arborist and/or

biologist and designed to protect Oak trees on-site. The plan shall include the following

site plan components

1. The Owner/Applicant shall comply with and depict the following on the TPP exhibit

and Grading and Building Plans.

a. All Oak trees shall be preserved. No grading for buildings, accessways,

easements, subsurface grading sewage disposal and well placement shall take

place within the area within six feet of the dripline of any of these trees.

b. Six olive trees within the Parcel 2 Building Envelope and proposed access

driveway may be removed per approved plans. Depict location of these trees.

c. Depict approved Building Envelopes. Include utility corridors, irrigation

lines, roadways, driveways. All proposed utility trenching and retaining walls

for access driveway construction shall be located outside the area within six

feet of the dripline of all protected trees unless authorized by P&D.

d. Depict equipment storage (including construction materials, equipment, fill

soil or rocks) and construction staging and parking areas outside of the

protection area.

e. Depict the type & location of protective fencing (see below) or other barriers to

be in place to protect trees in protection areas during construction.

f. Depict the location of all tree wells or retaining walls. These shall be located

outside the area within six feet of the dripline of all protected trees unless

authorized by P&D.

g. Depict the location of all paths within 25 feet of dripline areas. Only pervious

paving materials (gravel, brick without mortar, turf block) are permitted within 6

feet of dripline areas.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Owner/Applicant shall: (1) Submit the TPP; (2)

Include all applicable components in Tree Replacement Plan and/or Landscape and

Irrigation Plans if these are required; (3) include as notes or depictions all plan

components listed above, graphically depicting all those related to earth movement,

construction, and temporarily and/or permanently installed protection measures.



TIMING: The Owner/Applicant shall comply with this measure prior to approval of a

Coastal Development Permit for development, including grading for access to the

Building Envelope. Plan components shall be included on all plans prior to the issuance

of grading/building permits. The Owner/Applicant shall install tree protection measures

onsite prior to issuance of grading/building permits and pre-construction meeting.


monitoring staff that trees identified for protection were not damaged or removed or if

damage, or removal occurred, that correction is completed as required by the TPP prior to

Final Building Inspection Clearance.

With the incorporation of this measure, residual impacts would be less than significant.

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

Archaeological Resources

a. Disruption, alteration, destruction, or adverse effect on

a recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological site

(note site number below)?

X

b. Disruption or removal of human remains? X

c. Increased potential for trespassing, vandalizing, or

sabotaging archaeological resources?

X

d. Ground disturbances in an area with potential cultural

resource sensitivity based on the location of known

historic or prehistoric sites?

X

Ethnic Resources

e. Disruption of or adverse effects upon a prehistoric or

historic archaeological site or property of historic or

cultural significance to a community or ethnic group?

X

f. Increased potential for trespassing, vandalizing, or

sabotaging ethnic, sacred, or ceremonial places?

X

g. The potential to conflict with or restrict existing

religious, sacred, or educational use of the area?

X

Existing Setting:

For at least the past 10,000 years, the area that is now Santa Barbara County has been inhabited

by Chumash Indians and their ancestors. A Phase 1 Archaeological Resource Survey, dated

November 20, 2011, was prepared by County-qualified consultant Heather Macfarlane for the

proposed project. The Phase 1 survey was peer-reviewed and found acceptable by the P&D

Archeologist. No archaeological resources were identified within the project areas or surrounding

locations and the assessment concluded that the likelihood of encountering cultural deposits is low

based on the project’s location, geology and distance from known prehistoric sites.

County Environmental Thresholds:

The County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual contains guidelines for

identification, significance determination, and mitigation of impacts to important cultural

resources. Chapter 8 of the Manual, the Archaeological Resources Guidelines: Archaeological,



Historic and Ethnic Element, specifies that if a resource cannot be avoided, it must be evaluated

for importance under CEQA. CEQA Section 15064.5 contains the criteria for evaluating the

significance of archaeological and historical resources. For archaeological resources, the criterion

usually applied is: (D), “Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory

or history.” A project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on an archaeological resource may

have a significant effect on the environment.

Impact Discussion:

(a-g) No known or recorded archaeological or ethnic resources exist on or adjacent to the project

site. The potential for undiscovered cultural resources to exist onsite is low. However, in the

event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during site development, the

standard archaeological discovery condition (mitigation measure no. 5) would mitigate impacts

to cultural resources to less than significant levels.


The following mitigation measure would reduce the project’s cultural resource impacts to a less

than significant level:

5. CulRes-09 Stop Work at Encounter. The Owner/Applicant and/or their agents,

representatives or contractors shall stop or redirect work immediately in the event

archaeological remains are encountered during grading, construction, landscaping or

other construction-related activity. The Owner/Applicant shall retain a P&D approved

archaeologist and Native American representative to evaluate the significance of the find

in compliance with the provisions of Phase 2 investigations of the County Archaeological

Guidelines and funded by the Owner/Applicant.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: This condition shall be printed on all building and grading

plans.

MONITORING: P&D permit processing planner shall check plans prior to issuance of

a Coastal Development Permit for future development and P&D compliance monitoring

staff shall spot check in the field throughout grading and construction.


4.6 ENERGY


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. Substantial increase in demand, especially during peak

periods, upon existing sources of energy?

X

b. Requirement for the development or extension of new

sources of energy?

X

Impact Discussion:

The County has not identified significance thresholds for electrical and/or natural gas service impacts

(Thresholds and Guidelines Manual). Private electrical and natural gas utility companies provide service



to customers in Central and Southern California, including the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara

County. The proposed project consists of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide a parcel of approximately

2.77 acres into two parcels of approximately 1.77 acres (proposed Parcel one) and 1.0 acres (proposed

Parcel two). The property is already developed with one single-family residence and therefore the

project would result in one new residentially developable parcel. Energy use for a future single family

dwelling is estimated as follows:

Energy Use

Multiplier Project Demand

Natural Gas

(13.7 million BTU per capita1)

41.1 million BTU per year

(Assuming a household of 3)

Electricity

(7.4MWh/yr/home PG&E; 6.9 MWh/yr/home SCE)2

6.9 megawatt hours per year

In summary, the project would have a negligible effect on regional energy needs. No adverse

impacts would result.

Cumulative Impacts:

The project’s contribution to the regionally significant demand for energy is not considerable, and is

therefore less than significant.

Mitigation and Residual Impact: No mitigation is required. Residual impacts would be less than

significant.

4.7 FIRE PROTECTION


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. Introduction of development into an existing high fire

hazard area?

X

b. Project-caused high fire hazard? X

c. Introduction of development into an area without

adequate water pressure, fire hydrants or adequate

access for fire fighting?

X

d. Introduction of development that will hamper fire

prevention techniques such as controlled burns or

backfiring in high fire hazard areas?

X

e. Development of structures beyond safe Fire Dept.

response time?

X

Existing Setting:

The subject property is located within a designated “High Fire Hazard” area. The project would

be served by the Summerland Fire Station (Station #2), located at 2375 Lillie Avenue in

Summerland. This station is staffed with three firefighters per shift. The Carpinteria Station

(Station #1), located at 911 Walnut Avenue in Carpinteria, is staffed with three firefighters per

shift and provides support to Station #2 as necessary.

1 http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/residential.cfm/state=CA#ng 2 http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-47992.pdf



County Standards:

The following standards are applied in evaluating impacts associated with the proposed

development:

The emergency response thresholds include Fire Department staff standards of one on-duty

firefighter per 4,000 persons (generally 1 engine company per 12,000 people, assuming three

firefighters/station). The emergency response time standard is approximately 5-6 minutes.

Water supply thresholds include a requirement for 750 gpm at 20 psi for all single family

dwellings.

The ability of the County’s engine companies to extinguish fires (based on maximum flow

rates through hand held line) meets state and national standards assuming a 5,000 square foot

structure. Therefore, in any portion of the Fire Department’s response area, all structures

over 5,000 square feet are an unprotected risk (a significant impact) and therefore should

have internal fire sprinklers.

Access road standards include a minimum width (depending on number of units served and

whether parking would be allowed on either side of the road), with some narrowing allowed

for driveways. Cul-de-sac diameters, turning radii and road grade must meet minimum Fire

Department standards based on project type.

Two means of egress may be needed and access must not be impeded by fire, flood, or

earthquake. A potentially significant impact could occur in the event any of these standards

is not adequately met.

Impact Discussion:

Predictions about the long-term effects of global climate change in California include increased

incidence of wildfires and a longer fire season, due to drier conditions and warmer temperatures.

Any increase in the number or severity of wildfires has the potential to impact resources to fight

fires when they occur, particularly when the state experiences several wildfires simultaneously.

Such circumstances place greater risk on development in high fire hazard areas.

(a) The site is located in a “High Fire Hazard” area. The project would introduce new development

which is at greater risk to fire hazards especially during “sundowner” wind events which are

prevalent in the foothill areas. As such, special design and construction considerations for future

development are required in order to minimize fire hazard impacts. The project includes mitigation

measures that require fire resistant building materials for all habitable structures (mitigation measure

no. 6), and landscaping consistent with Fire District fuel management standards (mitigation measure

no. 7), for all future development.

(b) Introducing typical suburban/rural residential activities (barbecuing, internal combustion

engines, lawnmowers, etc.) into the area has the potential to increase opportunities for uncontrolled,

unintentional fires. However, developing the vacant land that is historically covered with

combustible vegetation could also reduce fire risks to the area, particularly with the incorporation of

project landscaping consistent with Fire District fuel management standards (mitigation measure no.

7). Therefore, the potential of the project to cause a high-fire hazard is less than significant.

(c) The proposed access and water delivery plans for future development have been reviewed and

preliminarily approved by the Fire District for conformance with high fire hazard requirements.



(d) The project site is located in the urban area, where controlled burns, backfires, and other similar

fire prevention techniques are not permitted.

(e) The nearest fire station, located on Lillie Avenue in Summerland, is approximately two miles

from the project site. Thus, the project site is situated within the County standard for safe Fire

Department response time of five minutes

Cumulative Impacts:

Since the project would not create significant fire hazards, it would not have a cumulatively

considerable effect on fire safety within the County.


The following mitigation measures would reduce the project’s fire hazard impacts to a less than

significant level:

6. Fire-03 Fire Prevention Methods. The following fire prevention methods shall be used

for all future structures:

1. Building materials for all structures including residences, fences and accessory

structures shall be constructed of fire resistant materials;

2. P&D Building and Safety Class A or B roofing (i.e, non-combustible tile or asphalt

composite shakes) shall be required for all future onsite structures;

3. Spark arresters shall be required for wood burning fireplaces;

4. Private decks and structural overhangs proposed for all new structures shall be

constructed with fire retardant materials or heavy timber.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Where appropriate, the fire prevention measures shall be

graphically depicted on grading and building plans.

TIMING: Measures shall be installed prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance.

MONITORING: P&D building inspectors shall site inspect during construction.

7. Special Fire - Fuel Management/Landscape Plan. Prior to approval of a Coastal

Development Permit for future construction, the Owner/Applicant shall submit landscape

plans to P&D and the Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District for review and

approval. Individual landscaping plans shall utilize fire resistant species and shall

incorporate the following fuel management components:

1. Trees and understory plantings shall be maintained in a succulent (well watered)

condition and pruned of all dead growth.

2. Zone I – (Cleared Zone) from the structure(s) exterior edge to 30’ surrounding the

structure(s). Vegetation in this zone is limited to ground covers, green lawns, and a

limited number of selected ornamental plants and single specimen trees.

3. Zone II – (Reduced Fuel Zone) from 30’ to 100’ from the structure(s) edge

surrounding the structure(s). Vegetation in this zone is characterized by disruption of the

vertical and /or horizontal continuity of flammable and combustible vegetation with the

goal of reducing the rate of fire spread, and providing a safer environment for firefighters

to suppress wildfires.

4. Zone III – (Constrained Site Zone) from 100’ to 200’ from the structure(s) edge

surrounding the structure(s) having slopes greater than 25% and/or having fuel loads in



excess of 100 tons per acre. Clearance distance between vegetation will depend on

slope, size, type, and fuel compaction and chemical content as determined by the

Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Prior to approval of a Coastal Development Plan for future

development, the Owner/Applicant shall submit landscape plans to P&D and the

Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District for review and approval. This mitigation

shall be incorporated into landscape plans for future development.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Owner/Applicant shall install the landscaping

consistent with the approved plan prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance.

MONITORING: Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District staff and P&D

compliance monitoring staff shall site inspect to verify landscape installation prior to final

occupancy clearance.


4.8 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. Exposure to or production of unstable earth conditions

such as landslides, earthquakes, liquefaction, soil

creep, mudslides, ground failure (including expansive,

compressible, collapsible soils), or similar hazards?

X

b. Disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering

of the soil by cuts, fills or extensive grading?

X

c. Exposure to or production of permanent changes in

topography, such as bluff retreat or sea level rise?

X

d. The destruction, covering or modification of any

unique geologic, paleontologic or physical features?

X

e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either

on or off the site?

X

f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or

dunes, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion

which may modify the channel of a river, or stream, or

the bed of the ocean, or any bay, inlet or lake?

X

g. The placement of septic disposal systems in

impermeable soils with severe constraints to disposal

of liquid effluent?

X

h. Extraction of mineral or ore? X

i. Excessive grading on slopes of over 20%? X

j. Sand or gravel removal or loss of topsoil? X

k. Vibrations, from short-term construction or long-term

operation, which may affect adjoining areas?

X

l. Excessive spoils, tailings or over-burden? X

Threshold:

Pursuant to the County’s Adopted Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, impacts related to geological

resources may have the potential to be significant if the proposed project involves any of the

following characteristics:



1. The project site or any part of the project is located on land having substantial geologic

constraints, as determined by P&D or PWD. Areas constrained by geology include parcels located

near active or potentially active faults and property underlain by rock types associated with

compressible/collapsible soils or susceptible to landslides or severe erosion. "Special Problems"

areas designated by the Board of Supervisors have been established based on geologic constraints,

flood hazards and other physical limitations to development.

2. The project results in potentially hazardous geologic conditions such as the construction of cut

slopes exceeding a grade of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical.

3. The project proposes construction of a cut slope over 15 feet in height as measured from the

lowest finished grade.

4. The project is located on slopes exceeding 20% grade.

Impact Discussion:

A Geological Feasibility Study, dated July 12, 2012 and Revised Study, dated August 27, 2012,

were prepared by Coastal Geology & Soil, Inc., a County-qualified consultant. The findings of the

studies are a result of a field investigation of the subject parcel and surrounding area, evaluation of

geologic inspection pits, deep boring, historic aerial photograph analysis, and review of relevant

hydrologic and geologic information. The report concludes that the project is geologically feasible

as proposed. These reports were peer-reviewed and accepted by the P&D Geologic consultant,

GeoDynamics, Inc.

(a) The project site is not underlain by any known fault and compliance with existing building

regulations would reduce potential ground shaking impacts caused by movement along the closest

known fault (Arroyo Parida), approximately 400 feet north of the parcel, to a less than significant

level. The geologic structure of the site consists of Sespe formation (Tsp) deposits of claystone,

siltstone, and sandstone. Landslides were not observed in the immediate vicinity of the project site

or on published geologic maps. However, surficial landslides and soil creep may occur on slopes

underlain by the Sespe formation, requiring special design considerations as part of the Building and

Safety review of any future development. Likewise, the clay soils of the lot are potentially

expansive which would require special design parameters for future driveway and structure

construction. Therefore, mitigation measure no. 9 requires a soils engineering study that addresses

structural design criteria for all future development, including access driveway construction prior to

future residential development on the new lot. In addition, the lot is located in an area defined as

having a high potential for Radon gas which would require habitable structures to have foundations

that incorporate adequate ventilation of this naturally occurring gas. These design considerations

would be addressed as part of the Building and Safety review of any future development as required

by mitigation measure no. 10. All soils-related hazards would be reduced to a less than significant

level through compliance with the mitigation measures and grading and building codes.

(b,i) No grading is proposed as part of the proposed project to create one new residentially

developable lot. Plans for the grading associated with future development are unknown and

future development could result in excessive grading on-site. Therefore, mitigation measure no.

8, would limit all structural development, associated grading, and construction activities

(including septic systems, and construction staging, stockpiling, and washout areas) to a



designated building envelope to avoid development on slopes of 20% or greater. Grading and

retaining walls less than 6 feet in height above grade necessary for construction of the access

driveway, construction of entry gates, and trenching for utilities may occur outside of the

building envelope subject to applicable ordinance and policy limitations at the time of future

development. Future improvements related to construction of a private driveway to access the

newly created lot would not result in excessive grading. With the incorporation of the building

envelope mitigation measure, grading related impacts would be reduced to a less than significant

level

(c) The project is not located in a coastal area and would not result in exposure to or production of

permanent changes in topography, such as bluff retreat or sea level rise.

(e) Grading operations that would occur on the project site would remove vegetative cover and

disturb the ground surface, thereby increasing the potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts.

These impacts would be potentially significant. However, the potential for the project to cause

substantial erosion and sediment transport would be adequately mitigated by mitigation measure no.

11 which requires future development to comply with the County’s standard erosion control

requirements.

(f) The project would not cause changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or dunes, or

changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river, or stream, or the

bed of the ocean, or any bay, inlet or lake

(g) The project would be served by a private septic system but would not require placement of

septic disposal systems in impermeable soils with severe constraints to disposal of liquid effluent.

(d, h, j, k, l) Other Potential Geological Hazards. There are no unique geological features located on

the project site. Any construction-related vibrations due to the temporary use of heavy equipment for

grading and construction associated with the future residential development of the lot would not

adversely impact adjoining areas due to the temporary nature of the construction. The project would not

involve mining or the loss of topsoil.

Cumulative Impacts:

Since the project as mitigated would not result in significant geologic impacts, it would not have

a cumulatively considerable effect on geologic hazards within the County.


The following mitigation measures would reduce the project’s geologic impacts to a less than

significant level:

8. DevEnv-01a Building Envelope. All structural development, associated grading, and

construction activities (including septic systems, and construction staging, stockpiling,

and washout areas) shall be located within the development envelope designated on the

Tentative Parcel Map, dated July 2012. Grading and retaining walls less than 6 feet in

height above grade necessary for construction of the access driveway, construction of

entry gates, and trenching for utilities may occur outside of the building envelope subject

to applicable Coastal Zoning Ordinance permit requirements.



PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Building Envelope shall be described by metes and

bounds and with this condition shall be recorded with the final map on the deed. The

building envelope shall be depicted on all plans submitted for Coastal Development Permit

and Grading/Building permits.

TIMING: The building envelope shall be staked in the field prior to approval of a Coastal

Development Permit for development.

MONITORING: During plan check, the P&D permit processing planner shall confirm that

all structural development is confined to the approved building envelope. Staking shall be

verified by compliance monitoring staff at the preconstruction meeting or prior to building

permit approval. P&D building inspectors and compliance monitoring staff shall ensure that

structural development is confined to the building envelopes and that staking remains in

place during construction.

9. Geo-01b Soils Engineering Study. The Owner/Applicant shall submit a soils

engineering study addressing structure sites and access road to determine structural

design criteria.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Owner/Applicant shall submit the study for P&D and

Public Works review and approval. Elements of the approved study shall be reflected on

grading and building plans as required.

TIMING: The Owner/Applicant shall submit the study prior to approval of a Coastal

Development Permit.

MONITORING: P&D permit processing planner shall review the study. The

Owner/Applicant shall demonstrate that the submitted plans conform to required study

components. Grading and building inspectors shall ensure compliance in the field.

10. Geo-07 Radon. Residences shall be designed and constructed in compliance with

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for minimizing impacts associated

with radon gas exposure.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The construction elements necessary to minimize radon gas

exposure shall be incorporated in structure design and depicted on building plans.

TIMING: P&D permit processing planner shall review and approve plans prior to

issuance of a Coastal Development Permit.

MONITORING: Building and Safety staff shall site inspect to ensure construction is

consistent with approved plans.

11. Geo-02 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Where required by the latest edition of the

California Green Code and/or Chapter 14 of the Santa Barbara County Code, a Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and/or an

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) shall be implemented as part of the project.

Grading and erosion and sediment control plans shall be designed to minimize erosion

during construction and shall be implemented for the duration of the grading period and until

re-graded areas have been stabilized by structures, long-term erosion control measures or

permanent landscaping. The Owner/Applicant shall submit the SWPPP, SWMP or ESCP)

using Best Management Practices (BMP) designed to stabilize the site, protect natural

watercourses/creeks, prevent erosion, convey storm water runoff to existing drainage

systems keeping contaminants and sediments onsite. The SWPPP or ESCP shall be a part of

the Grading Plan submittal and will be reviewed for its technical merits by P&D.

Information on Erosion Control requirements can be found on the County web site re:



Grading Ordinance Chapter 14 (http://sbcountyplanning.org/building/grading.cfm) refer to

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Requirements; and in the California Green Code for

SWPPP (projects < 1 acre) and/or SWMP requirements.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The grading and SWPPP, SWMP and/or ESCP shall be

submitted for review and approved by P&D prior to approval of land use clearances. The

plan shall be designed to address erosion, sediment and pollution control during all phases of

development of the site until all disturbed areas are permanently stabilized.

TIMING: The SWPPP requirements shall be implemented prior to the commencement of

grading and throughout the year. The ESCP/SWMP requirements shall be implemented

between November 1st and April 15

th of each year, except pollution control measures shall

be implemented year round.

MONITORING: P&D staff shall perform site inspections throughout the construction

phase.


4.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/RISK OF UPSET


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. In the known history of this property, have there been

any past uses, storage or discharge of hazardous

materials (e.g., fuel or oil stored in underground tanks,

pesticides, solvents or other chemicals)?

X

b. The use, storage or distribution of hazardous or toxic

materials?

X

c. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous

substances (e.g., oil, gas, biocides, bacteria, pesticides,

chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or

upset conditions?

X

d. Possible interference with an emergency response

plan or an emergency evacuation plan?

X

e. The creation of a potential public health hazard? X

f. Public safety hazards (e.g., due to development near

chemical or industrial activity, producing oil wells,

toxic disposal sites, etc.)?

X

g. Exposure to hazards from oil or gas pipelines or oil

well facilities?

X

h. The contamination of a public water supply? X

Impact Discussion:

There is no evidence that hazardous materials were used, stored or spilled on site in the past, and there

are no aspects of the proposed use that would include or involve hazardous materials at levels that

would constitute a hazard to human health or the environment.


http://sbcountyplanning.org/building/grading.cfm



4.10 HISTORIC RESOURCES


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts on a structure or

property at least 50 years old and/or of historic or

cultural significance to the community, state or

nation?

X

b. Beneficial impacts to an historic resource by

providing rehabilitation, protection in a

conservation/open easement, etc.?

X

Impact Discussion:

The proposed development does not include the demolition or alteration of structures in excess

of 50 years in age. Nor would the project alter the contextual nature of the site in a manner

which would significantly degrade the historical significance of the existing structures. As a

result, no impacts to historic resources are anticipated.


4.11 LAND USE


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. Structures and/or land use incompatible with existing

land use?

X

b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,

or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the

project (including, but not limited to the general

plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning

ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or

mitigating an environmental effect?

X

c. The induction of substantial growth or concentration

of population?

X

d. The extension of sewer trunk lines or access roads

with capacity to serve new development beyond this

proposed project?

X

e. Loss of existing affordable dwellings through

demolition, conversion or removal?

X

f. Displacement of substantial numbers of existing

housing, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere?

X

g. Displacement of substantial numbers of people,

necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere?

X

h. The loss of a substantial amount of open space? X




Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

i. An economic or social effect that would result in a

physical change? (i.e. Closure of a freeway ramp

results in isolation of an area, businesses located in the

vicinity close, neighborhood degenerates, and

buildings deteriorate. Or, if construction of new

freeway divides an existing community, the

construction would be the physical change, but the

economic/social effect on the community would be

the basis for determining that the physical change

would be significant.)

X

j. Conflicts with adopted airport safety zones? X

Existing Setting:

The subject site is a developed lot in a developed urban residential neighborhood along Freehaven

Drive in the foothills of the Toro Canyon area. The lot is located in the Coastal Zone approximately

1.25 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The approximately 2.77 acre lot is currently developed with a

single family residence, carport, swimming pool, a private septic system, a paved private driveway,

and residential landscaping. The lot’s predominant feature is its ridgeline location which offers

views of the ocean to the south and the Santa Ynez Mountains to the north. Surrounding uses

include a single family dwelling to the north (across Freehaven Drive), a single family dwelling to

the west, a single family dwelling to the east, and a single family dwelling and orchard to the south.

Environmental Threshold:

The Thresholds and Guidelines Manual contains no specific thresholds for land use. Generally, a

potentially significant impact can occur if a project would result in substantial growth inducing

effects.

Impact Discussion:

The proposed lot complies with the minimum lot size of the zone district and existing land use

designation. Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to conflict with policies

pertaining to Aesthetic/Visual Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Fire

Protection, Geologic Processes, Noise, Transportation/Circulation, and Water

Resources/Flooding. As mitigated throughout this document, impacts potentially resulting in

inconsistencies with policy adopted for purposes of mitigating environmental impacts are

reduced to less than significant levels. The project is not growth inducing, and does not result in

the loss of affordable housing, loss of open space, or a significant displacement of people. The

project does not involve the extension of a sewer trunk line, and does not conflict with any

airport safety zones. The project is compatible with existing land uses.

Cumulative Impacts:

The implementation of the project is not anticipated to result in any substantial change to the

site’s conformance with environmentally protective policies and standards. Thus, the project

would not cause a cumulatively considerable effect on land use.



Mitigation and Residual Impact: Based on the analysis contained in other sections of this

document, as mitigated, the proposed project does not cause a physical change in the

environment that would conflict with adopted environmental policies or regulations. Residual

impacts are less than significant.

4.12 NOISE


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. Long-term exposure of people to noise levels

exceeding County thresholds (e.g. locating noise

sensitive uses next to an airport)?

X

b. Short-term exposure of people to noise levels

exceeding County thresholds?

X

c. Project-generated substantial increase in the ambient

noise levels for adjoining areas (either day or night)?

X

Setting/Threshold:

Noise is generally defined as unwanted or objectionable sound which is measured on a logarithmic scale

and expressed in decibels (dB(A)). The duration of noise and the time period at which it occurs are

important values in determining impacts on noise-sensitive land uses. The Community Noise Equivalent

Level (CNEL) and Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) are noise indices which account for differences in

intrusiveness between day- and night-time uses. County noise thresholds are: (1) 65 dB(A) CNEL

maximum for exterior exposure, and (2) 45 dB(A) CNEL maximum for interior exposure of noise-

sensitive uses. Noise-sensitive land uses include: residential dwellings; transient lodging; hospitals and

other long-term care facilities; public or private educational facilities; libraries, churches; and places of

public assembly.

The proposed project site is located outside of 65 dB(A) noise contours for roadways, public facilities,

and airport approach and take-off zones. Surrounding noise-sensitive uses consist of an existing

residential neighborhood.

Impact Discussion:

(a, c) The proposed project consists of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide 2.77 acres into two lots and

would not result in: 1) the generation of any noise exceeding County thresholds; 2) a substantial increase

ambient noise levels in adjoining areas; or 3) exposure of noise sensitive uses on the proposed project site

to off-site noise levels exceeding County thresholds. No long-term noise-related impacts would result.

(b) Since the project site is located in an existing residential neighborhood and is surrounded by

neighboring residences, the proposed project would result in construction activities generating short-term

noise impacts exceeding County thresholds. With the incorporation of mitigation measures nos. 12 and

13, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation and Residual Impact: The following mitigation measures would reduce the project’s noise

effects to a less than significant level:

12. Noise-02 Construction Hours. The Owner /Applicant, including all contractors and

subcontractors shall limit construction activity, including equipment maintenance and site

preparation, to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No

construction shall occur on weekends or State holidays. Non-noise generating



construction activities such as interior plumbing, electrical, drywall and painting

(depending on compressor noise levels) are not subject to these restrictions. Any

subsequent amendment to the Comprehensive General Plan, applicable Community or

Specific Plan, or Zoning Code noise standard upon which these construction hours are

based shall supersede the hours stated herein.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Owner/Applicant shall provide and post [two] signs

stating these restrictions at construction site entries.

TIMING: Signs shall be posted prior to commencement of construction and maintained

throughout construction.

MONITORING: The Owner/Applicant shall demonstrate that required signs are posted

prior to grading/building permit issuance and pre-construction meeting. Building

inspectors and permit compliance staff shall spot check and respond to complaints.

13. Noise-04 Equipment Shielding-Construction. Stationary construction equipment that

generates noise which exceeds 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with

appropriate acoustic shielding to P&D's satisfaction.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Owner/Applicant shall designate the equipment area

with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans.

TIMING: Equipment and shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in

the designated location throughout construction activities.

MONITORING: The Owner/Applicant shall demonstrate that the acoustic shielding is

in place prior to commencement of construction activities. P&D compliance staff shall

perform site inspections throughout construction to ensure compliance.


4.13 PUBLIC FACILITIES


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. A need for new or altered police protection and/or

health care services?

X

b. Student generation exceeding school capacity? X

c. Significant amounts of solid waste or breach any

national, state, or local standards or thresholds relating

to solid waste disposal and generation (including

recycling facilities and existing landfill capacity)?

X

d. A need for new or altered sewer system facilities

(sewer lines, lift-stations, etc.)?

X

e. The construction of new storm water drainage or

water quality control facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could

cause significant environmental effects?

X

Impact Discussion:

The proposed project would result in the increase of one new home within the area. This level of

new development would not have a significant impact on existing police protection or health care

services. Existing service levels would be sufficient to serve the proposed project. The proposed

project would not generate solid waste in excess of County thresholds. The project proposes to



utilize a private septic disposal system for wastewater disposal, and the proposed new system has

been found adequate to serve the project per Environmental Health Services (email from Paul

Jenzen dated November 16, 2012). The proposed project would create new impervious surfaces

that could result in greater surface runoff from the site since there would be less open ground

capable of absorbing rainwater. This increased surface runoff would be accommodated via on-site

infiltration. No additional drainages or water quality control facilities would be necessary to serve

the project. Therefore, the project would have no impact to public facilities.

Mitigation and Residual Impact: No impacts are identified. No mitigation is necessary.

4.14 RECREATION


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. Conflict with established recreational uses of the area? X

b. Conflict with biking, equestrian and hiking trails? X

c. Substantial impact on the quality or quantity of

existing recreational opportunities (e.g., overuse of an

area with constraints on numbers of people, vehicles,

animals, etc. which might safely use the area)?

X

Setting/Threshold: The Thresholds and Guidelines Manual contains no threshold for park and recreation

impacts. However, the Board of Supervisors has established a minimum standard ratio of 4.7 acres of

recreation/open space per 1,000 people to meet the needs of a community. The Santa Barbara County

Parks Department maintains more than 900 acres of parks and open spaces, as well as 84 miles of trails

and coastal access easements.

The project site is approximately ¾ of a mile north of the Greenwell Preserve in Summerland, one

mile north of Ocean View County Park in Summerland, and 1 ½ miles west of Toro Canyon County

Park. The site is bordered on all sides by single family residential development. No established

recreational uses (including parks, biking, equestrian or hiking trails) are located on or immediately

adjacent to the proposed project site.

Impact Discussion:

(a, b) The proposed project site is not located on any established recreational uses, including biking,

equestrian or hiking trails. A Parks Department trail easement is proposed on the parcel to the south of

the project site, identified in the Toro Canyon Plan as the proposed Lambert Trail. The proposed project

to create one new residentially developable lot would not conflict with a future trail on the adjoining

property. This trail is identified as a low acquisition priority and it is not known when, or if, the trail will

ever be developed. Regardless, public views to the mountains by future trail users would not be impacted

based on the location of the proposed building envelope and the steep topography of the trail location

below the subject parcel. Accordingly, no adverse impacts would result from the project and impacts

would be less than significant.

(c) The proposed project is for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide 2.77 acres into two lots and would

allow construction of one additional single family home (the property is currently developed with one

single family home). The population increase associated with project implementation would result in less

than significant adverse impacts on the quality and quantity of existing recreational opportunities, both in

the project vicinity and County-wide. Standard County conditions requiring Payment of Quimby fees for



new residential development would ensure that the project’s contribution to the regional demand for parks

and recreational facilities is less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts:

Since the project would not affect recreational resources, it would not have a cumulatively

considerable effect on recreational resources within the County.

Mitigation and Residual Impact: Standard County conditions requiring Payment of Quimby fees for

new residential development would ensure that the project’s contribution to the regional demand for parks

and recreational facilities is less than significant. Residual impacts would be less than significant.

4.15 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular

movement (daily, peak-hour, etc.) in relation to

existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?

X

b. A need for private or public road maintenance, or need

for new road(s)?

X

c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for

new parking?

X

d. Substantial impact upon existing transit systems (e.g.

bus service) or alteration of present patterns of

circulation or movement of people and/or goods?

X

e. Alteration to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X

f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists

or pedestrians (including short-term construction and

long-term operational)?

X

g. Inadequate sight distance? X

ingress/egress? X

general road capacity? X

emergency access? X

h. Impacts to Congestion Management Plan system? X

Setting/Thresholds:

According to the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, a significant traffic

impact would occur when:

a. The addition of project traffic to an intersection increases the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio by the

value provided below, or sends at least 15, 10 or 5 trips to an intersection operating at LOS D, E or F.

LEVEL OF SERVICE

(including project)

INCREASE IN VOLUME/CAPACITY

GREATER THAN

A 0.20

B 0.15

C 0.10

Or the addition of:



LEVEL OF SERVICE

(including project)

INCREASE IN VOLUME/CAPACITY

GREATER THAN

D 15 trips

E 10 trips

F 5 trips

b. Project access to a major road or arterial road would require a driveway that would create an

unsafe situation, or would require a new traffic signal or major revisions to an existing traffic signal.

c. Project adds traffic to a roadway that has design features (e.g., narrow width, road side

ditches, sharp curves, poor sight distance, inadequate pavement structure) or receives use which

would be incompatible with substantial increases in traffic (e.g. rural roads with use by farm

equipment, livestock, horseback riding, or residential roads with heavy pedestrian or recreational

use, etc.) that will become potential safety problems with the addition of project or cumulative

traffic. Exceeding the roadway capacity designated in the Circulation Element may indicate the

potential for the occurrence of the above impacts.

d. Project traffic would utilize a substantial portion of an intersection(s) capacity where the

intersection is currently operating at acceptable levels of service (A-C) but with cumulative

traffic would degrade to or approach LOS D (V/C 0.81) or lower. Substantial is defined as a

minimum change of 0.03 for intersections which would operate from 0.80 to 0.85 and a change

of 0.02 for intersections which would operate from 0.86 to 0.90, and 0.01 for intersections

operating at anything lower.

Impact Discussion:

Under the County of Santa Barbara’s Thresholds of Significance for Traffic Impacts and Contents

of a Traffic Study, a traffic study is not required for the proposed project. The proposed project

would add ten average daily trips and one peak hour trip (PHT) to area roadways, a negligible

increase over existing traffic levels. The project would not result in a significant increase in traffic,

pedestrian, or bicycle safety hazards. The project’s effect on transportation modes would therefore

be less than significant.

(a) Potential Impacts to the Street System. The proposed project would generate approximately 10

average daily vehicle trips and approximately one peak hour vehicle trip. Under the County of

Santa Barbara’s Thresholds of Significance for Traffic Impacts and Contents of a Traffic Study, a

traffic study is not required for the proposed project. The addition of this traffic onto roadways in

the project area would not result in significant traffic or other transportation related impacts.

(b) Need for New Roads or Road Maintenance. Traffic that would be generated by the project

would not result in significant impacts to public streets that would require new roads or a

significant amount of increased roadway maintenance.

(c) Parking. The proposed project would be required to provide all required parking spaces on-site,

and out of the road right-of-way. However, because of the narrow width of Freehaven Drive and

the project’s location in a High Fire Hazard Area, it is important to ensure that emergency ingress

and egress is not impeded along Freehaven Drive. Therefore, mitigation no. 14 would require all



future construction-related vehicles, equipment staging and storage areas to be located onsite and

outside of the road right of way.

(d, e) Transit. The proposed project would not result in significant transit- or transportation-related

impacts.

(f, g) Traffic Hazards and Emergency Access. The project would not create a traffic hazard for

motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit users, or affect emergency access. The additional traffic

caused by the project would not result in significant traffic safety impacts. Standard County

conditions requiring on-site construction parking would ensure that temporary impacts associated

with construction of future residences would be less than significant.

(h) Congestion Management Plan. Roadways and intersections in the project area operate at

acceptable levels of service and are not subject to Congestion Management Plan requirements.

Cumulative Impacts:



project level. In this instance, the project has been found not to exceed the threshold of

significance for traffic. Therefore, the project’s contribution to the regionally significant traffic

congestion is not considerable, and is less than significant.


The following mitigation measures would reduce the project’s transportation impacts to a less than

significant level:

14. Parking-02 Onsite Construction Parking. All construction-related vehicles, equipment

staging and storage areas shall be located onsite and outside of the road right of way. The

Owner/Applicant shall provide all construction personnel with a written notice of this

requirement and a description of approved parking, staging and storage areas. The notice

shall also include the name and phone number of the Owner/Applicant’s designee

responsible for enforcement of this restriction.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Designated construction personnel parking, equipment

staging and storage areas shall be depicted on project plans submitted for Coastal

Development approval.

TIMING: A copy of the written notice shall be submitted to P&D permit processing

staff prior to issuance of a Coastal Development Permit for future development. This

restriction shall be maintained throughout construction.

MONITORING: P&D permit compliance and Building and Safety shall confirm the

availability of designated onsite areas during construction, and as required, shall require

re-distribution of updated notices and/or refer complaints regarding offsite parking to

appropriate agencies.




4.16 WATER RESOURCES/FLOODING


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of

water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?

X

b. Changes in percolation rates, drainage patterns or the

rate and amount of surface water runoff?

X

c. Change in the amount of surface water in any water

body?

X

d. Discharge, directly or through a storm drain system,

into surface waters (including but not limited to

wetlands, riparian areas, ponds, springs, creeks,

streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, tidal areas, bays,

ocean, etc) or alteration of surface water quality,

including but not limited to temperature, dissolved

oxygen, turbidity, or thermal water pollution?

X

e. Alterations to the course or flow of flood water or

need for private or public flood control projects?

X

f. Exposure of people or property to water related

hazards such as flooding (placement of project in 100

year flood plain), accelerated runoff or tsunamis, sea

level rise, or seawater intrusion?

X

g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of

groundwater?

X

h. Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through

direct additions or withdrawals, or through

interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or

recharge interference?

X

i. Overdraft or over-commitment of any groundwater

basin? Or, a significant increase in the existing

overdraft or over-commitment of any groundwater

basin?

X

j. The substantial degradation of groundwater quality

including saltwater intrusion?

X

k. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise

available for public water supplies?

X

l. Introduction of storm water pollutants (e.g., oil,

grease, pesticides, nutrients, sediments, pathogens,

etc.) into groundwater or surface water?

X

Water Resources Thresholds

A project is determined to have a significant effect on water resources if it would exceed established

threshold values which have been set for each overdrafted groundwater basin. These values were

determined based on an estimation of a basin’s remaining life of available water storage. If the

project’s net new consumptive water use [total consumptive demand adjusted for recharge less

discontinued historic use] exceeds the threshold adopted for the basin, the project’s impacts on

water resources are considered significant.



A project is also deemed to have a significant effect on water resources if a net increase in pumpage

from a well would substantially affect production or quality from a nearby well.

Water Quality Thresholds:

A significant water quality impact is presumed to occur if the project:

Is located within an urbanized area of the county and the project construction or

redevelopment individually or as a part of a larger common plan of development or sale

would disturb one (1) or more acres of land;

Increases the amount of impervious surfaces on a site by 25% or more;

Results in channelization or relocation of a natural drainage channel;

Results in removal or reduction of riparian vegetation or other vegetation (excluding non-

native vegetation removed for restoration projects) from the buffer zone of any streams,

creeks or wetlands;

Is an industrial facility that falls under one or more of categories of industrial activity

regulated under the NPDES Phase I industrial storm water regulations (facilities with

effluent limitation; manufacturing; mineral, metal, oil and gas, hazardous waste,

treatment or disposal facilities; landfills; recycling facilities; steam electric plants;

transportation facilities; treatment works; and light industrial activity);

Discharges pollutants that exceed the water quality standards set forth in the applicable

NPDES permit, the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) Basin Plan or

otherwise impairs the beneficial uses3 of a receiving water body;

Results in a discharge of pollutants into an “impaired” water body that has been

designated as such by the State Water Resources Control Board or the RWQCB under

Section 303 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (i.e., the Clean

Water Act); or

Results in a discharge of pollutants of concern to a receiving water body, as identified by

the RWQCB.

Impact Discussion:

(a) The proposed project does not include any components that would cause changes in currents or

the course of marine or fresh water.

(b) The project would create minor amounts of additional storm water runoff as a result of newly

constructed impermeable surfaces (i.e. structures, driveways, patios, etc.) Construction activities

such as grading could also potentially create temporary runoff and erosion problems. Therefore,

mitigation measure no. 15 would ensure infiltration and treatment of storm water runoff

associated with future development, thereby further reducing the potential for introduction of

pollutants in to ground or surface water. Application of standard County grading, erosion, and

drainage-control measures would ensure that no significant increase of erosion or storm water

runoff would occur.

3 Beneficial uses for Santa Barbara County are identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the Water Quality Control Plan for

the Central Coastal Basin, or Basin Plan, and include (among others) recreation, agricultural supply, groundwater recharge, fresh water habitat,

estuarine habitat, support for rare, threatened or endangered species, preservation of biological habitats of special significance.



(c-g) The project would not cause a change in the amount of surface water in any water body or

discharge water directly into surface waters. Additionally, the project site is not located within a

mapped floodplain or floodway. The property is not located in a coastal area. Therefore, the project

would not result in a significant impact associated with exposure of people or property to water

related hazards such as flooding (placement of project in 100 year flood plain), accelerated runoff or

tsunamis, sea level rise, or seawater intrusion.

(h, i, k) The project would be supplied water from the Montecito Water District which, in a letter

dated January 18, 2012, indicated that water service is available to serve the proposed project.

Water service would not result in overdraft or over commitment of any groundwater basin.

However, due to the general pressures on the state’s water resources associated with water

consumption and the potential for future drought years to compromise water supplies, excessive

water use on the project site for landscape irrigation would result in a potentially significant impact.

Therefore, incorporation of water conserving landscaping as required by mitigation measure no. 16

would minimize adverse impacts associated with future development to available water supplies.

(j) The proposed use of septic systems would contribute in an adverse but less than significant

manner to regional degradation of groundwater quality.

(l) The project could adversely affect surface water quality by increasing the volume and

decreasing the quality of stormwater runoff. The future residential development associated with the

new lot would involve the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and household cleaners and chemicals.

Runoff from driveways and/or parking lots could introduce oil and other hydrocarbons into drainage

facilities. However, the project would be expected to generate only minor amounts of storm water

pollutants, and incorporation of mitigation measure no. 15 requiring pervious surfaces would reduce

impacts to water quality. Minor amounts of such household hazardous material would not present a

significant potential for release of waterborne pollutants and would be highly unlikely to create a

public health hazard. Materials used in the construction of the project (e.g., wash water, paint,

solvents, concrete, etc.), if not contained properly, could impact groundwater or be carried to

surface waters. These impacts are considered potentially significant. Therefore, adverse impacts as

a result of future construction would be reduced by incorporation of mitigation measure no. 17.

Cumulative Impacts:



project level. In this instance, the project has been found not to exceed the threshold of

significance for water resources. Therefore, the project’s contribution to the regionally significant

issues of water supplies and water quality is not considerable, and is less than significant.


The following mitigation measures would reduce the project’s water resource impacts to a less than

significant level:

15. NPDES-15 Storm Water Retention-Pervious Surfaces. To reduce runoff from

impervious areas and allow for infiltration, the Owner/Applicant shall incorporate



pervious materials or surfaces into the project design. Unless prohibited by the Fire

District, parking and driveway areas shall use permeable materials and design.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Owner/Applicant shall demonstrate use of pervious

materials or surfaces on building, drainage and landscape plans submitted for Coastal

Development Permit approval.

MONITORING: P&D planners shall verify use as applicable during plan review;

compliance monitoring staff shall site inspect for installation prior to Final Building

Inspection Clearance.

16. WaterCons-01 Water Conservation-Outdoor. To improve water conservation, the

Owner/Applicant shall include the following components in Landscape and Irrigation

Plans to be approved by P&D:

1. Landscaping that reduces water use:

a. Landscape with drought-tolerant species.

b. Group plant material by water needs.

c. Turf shall constitute less than 20% of the total landscaped area.

d. No turf shall be allowed on slopes of over 4%.

e. Extensive mulching (2” minimum) shall be used in all landscaped areas to

reduce evaporation.

2. Irrigation that reduces water use:

a. Install drip irrigation or other water-conserving irrigation.

b. Install soil moisture sensing devices to prevent unnecessary irrigation.

3. Hardscape to retain water:

a. Permeable surfaces such as concrete unit pavers shall be used for all parking

areas and pathways.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Owner/Applicant shall submit a landscape and

irrigation plan to P&D for review and approval prior to issuance of the Coastal

Development Permit.

TIMING: The Owner/Applicant shall implement all aspects of the landscape and

irrigation plan in accordance with the Landscape Conditions.


monitoring staff that all required conserving landscape and irrigation features are installed

prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance and landscape and irrigation are maintained

per approved landscape plans. Any part of irrigation plan requiring a plumbing permit

shall be inspected by building inspectors.

17. WatConv-05 Equipment Washout -Construction. The Owner/Applicant shall

designate a washout area for the washing of concrete trucks, paint, equipment, or similar

activities to prevent wash water from discharging to the storm drains, street, or ocean.

Note that polluted water and materials shall be contained in these areas and removed

from the site.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Owner/Applicant shall designate the P&D approved

location on all Coastal Development / Grading / Building permits.

TIMING: The Owner/Applicant shall install the area prior to commencement of

construction.

MONITORING: P&D compliance monitoring staff shall ensure compliance prior to

and throughout construction.




5.0 INFORMATION SOURCES

5.1 County Departments Consulted

Police, Fire, Public Works, Flood Control, Parks, Environmental Health, Special Districts,

Regional Programs, Other : ___________________________________________________

5.2 Comprehensive Plan

X Seismic Safety/Safety Element Conservation Element

Open Space Element X Noise Element

X Coastal Plan and Maps X Circulation Element

X ERME

5.3 Other Sources

X Field work Ag Preserve maps

X Calculations X Flood Control maps

X Project plans X Other technical references

Traffic studies (reports, survey, etc.)

X Records X Planning files, maps, reports

X Grading plans X Zoning maps

Elevation, architectural renderings X Soils maps/reports

X Published geological map/reports Plant maps

X Topographical maps X Archaeological maps and reports

Other

6.0 PROJECT SPECIFIC (short- and long-term) AND CUMULATIVE

IMPACT SUMMARY

Class I Impacts: None

Class II Impacts: Aesthetic/Visual Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Fire

Protection, Geologic Processes, Water Resources/Flooding.

Cumulative Impacts: As discussed herein, the proposed project would not result in impacts

related to agricultural resources, air quality, energy, hazardous materials, historic resources,

noise, public facilities, recreation or transportation, so no cumulative impacts would result.

Project-specific impacts to Aesthetic/Visual Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural

Resources, Fire Protection, Geologic Processes, and Water Resources/Flooding would be

mitigated to levels below significance, so no cumulative impacts would result.

7.0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document




Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Reviewed

Under

Previous

Document

1. Does the project have the potential to substantially

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, substantially reduce the number or

restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or

animal, contribute significantly to greenhouse gas

emissions or significantly increase energy

consumption, or eliminate important examples of the

major periods of California history or prehistory?

X

2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-

term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental

goals?

X

3. Does the project have impacts that are individually

limited, but cumulatively considerable?

(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the

incremental effects of a project are considerable when

viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,

the effects of other current projects and the effects of

probable future projects.)

X

4. Does the project have environmental effects which

will cause substantial adverse effects on human

beings, either directly or indirectly?

X

5. Is there disagreement supported by facts, reasonable

assumptions predicated upon facts and/or expert

opinion supported by facts over the significance of an

effect which would warrant investigation in an EIR ?

X

1) As discussed in Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8, 4.11, 4.12, 4.15 and 4.16 of this document, the

proposed project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment.

However, mitigation measures proposed in these sections would reduce project impacts to levels

of less than significance. With incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in this initial

study into the project description, the project would not 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, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a

rare or endangered plant or animal, contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions or

significantly increase energy consumption, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of

California history or prehistory.



2) The proposed project would split an existing 2.77 acre lot, zoned 1-E-1, into two lots of 1.77

acres (proposed Parcel one) and 1.0 acres (proposed Parcel one). The subject property is

developed with one existing single family residence and therefore the project would have the

potential to result in the future construction of one new single-family residence and residential

accessory structures. This level of density is anticipated by the 1-E-1 zoning. No long-term

environmental goals would be adversely affected by the proposed project as it simply involves

infill residential development within an urban area of the County.

3) The proposed project would split an existing 2.77 acre lot, zoned 1-E-1, into two lots of 1.77

acres (proposed Parcel one) and 1.0 acres (proposed Parcel one). The subject property is developed

with one existing single family residence and therefore the project would have the potential to result

in the future construction of one new single-family residence and residential accessory structures.

This level of density is anticipated by the 1-E-1 zoning. All potentially significant impacts

associated with proposed project would be reduced to less than significant levels through feasible

mitigation. Additionally, each past, present and reasonably foreseeable project has been or will be

conditioned for consistency with the County’s Comprehensive and Coastal Land Use Plans.

Therefore, when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current

projects and the effects of probable future projects, cumulative impacts would not be considerable.

4) No hazardous materials are known to occur on-site. The project would be designed to meet

Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District and Uniform Building Code requirements, and the

project would not result in adverse noise or air quality impacts. The project would not have the

potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

5) There are no disagreements supported by facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts

and/or expert opinions supported by facts over the significance of an effect which would warrant

investigation in an EIR associated with the proposed project. An arborist report by County-

qualified consultant Peter Winn, dated May 9, 2012 was prepared for the proposed project. The

report was reviewed by County staff and was found to meet the County’s guidelines for preparation

of an arborist report and tree protection plan. A Geological Feasibility Study, dated July 12, 2012

and Revised Study, dated August 27, 2012, were prepared by Coastal Geology & Soil, Inc., a

County-qualified consultant. These reports were peer-reviewed and accepted by the P&D Geologic

consultant, GeoDynamics, Inc. A Phase 1 Archaeological Resource Survey, dated November 20,

2011 was prepared by County-qualified consultant Heather Macfarlane for the proposed project and

peer-reviewed by the P&D Archeologist. The study was found to meet the County’s guidelines for

preparation of a cultural resources report and to be adequate for the project.

8.0 INITIAL REVIEW OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH

APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION, ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN REQUIREMENTS

The project will be subject to all applicable requirements and policies under the Article II

Coastal Zoning Ordinance, the Coastal Land Use Plan, and the County of Santa Barbara

Comprehensive Plan (including the Toro Canyon Plan). Specific relevant policies include the

policies listed below.

Comprehensive Plan Requirements



The following policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan are applicable to this project: Land Use

Policies 2-6, 2-11; Geologic Hazards Policies 3-8, 3-10; Flood Hazard Policy 3-12; Hillside and

Water Protection Policies 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20; Visual Resources Policies 4-

1, 4-4, 4-7; and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Policies 9-35 and 9-36.

Toro Canyon Plan

The following policies and development standards of the Toro Canyon Plan are applicable to this

project: Land Use LUG-TC-1, LUG-TC-7, LUG-TC-11, LUR-TC-2; Fire Protection FIRE-TC-

2, DevStd FIRE-TC-2.2, DevStd FIRE-TC-2.3, DevStd FIRE-TC-2.5, DevStd FIRE-TC-2.7;

Parks, Recreation and Trails PRT-TC-3, DevStd PRT-TC-3.1; Circulation CIRC-TC-1, CIRC-

TC-1.5, CIRC-TC-3; Waste Water and Water WW-TC-1, WW-TC-1.1, WW-TC-2, WW-TC-

2.1, WW-TC-2.3, WW-TC-2.9, WW-TC-2.10, WW-TC-2.11, WW-TC-3, DevStd WW-TC-3.2,

WW-TC-4; Biological Resources BIO-TC-2, BIO-TC-2.2, BIO-TC-4, BIO-TC-4.2, BIO-TC-13,

DevStd BIO-TC-13.1, BIO-TC-13.2; Flood and Drainage FLD-TC-2, DevStd FLD-TC-2.2,

FLD-TC-2.5; Geology Hillsides and Topography GEO-TC-1, DevStd GEO-TC-1.1, GEO-TC-2,

DevStd GEO-TC-2.1, DevStd GEO-TC-2.3, GEO-TC-3, DevStd GEO-TC-3.1, DevStd GEO-

TC-3.2, GEO-TC-5, DevStd GEO-TC-5.1; History and Archeology HA-TC-1, DevStd HA-TC-

1.1, DevStd HA-TC-1.2; Visual and Aesthetic Resources VIS-TC-1, DevStd VIS-TC-1.1,

DevStd VIS-TC-1.2, DevStd VIS-TC-1.3, VIS-TC-2, DevStd VIS-TC-2.1, DevStd VIS-TC-2.2,

DevStd VIS-TC-2.3,

9.0 RECOMMENDATION BY P&D STAFF

On the basis of the Initial Study, the staff of Planning and Development:

Finds that the proposed project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment and,

therefore, recommends that a Negative Declaration (ND) be prepared.

X Finds 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 incorporated into the

REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION would successfully mitigate the potentially significant

impacts. Staff recommends the preparation of an ND. The ND finding is based on the assumption

that mitigation measures will be acceptable to the applicant; if not acceptable a revised Initial Study

finding for the preparation of an EIR may result.

Finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and recommends

that an EIR be prepared.

Finds that from existing documents (previous EIRs, etc.) that a subsequent document (containing

updated and site-specific information, etc.) pursuant to CEQA Sections 15162/15163/15164 should

be prepared.

Potentially significant unavoidable adverse impact areas:

With Public Hearing Without Public Hearing

PREVIOUS DOCUMENT:



PROJECT EVALUATOR: DATE:

10.0 DETERMINATION BY ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING OFFICER

I agree with staff conclusions. Preparation of the appropriate document may proceed.

I DO NOT agree with staff conclusions. The following actions will be taken:

I require consultation and further information prior to making my determination.

SIGNATURE:______________________________ INITIAL STUDY DATE: ___________________________

SIGNATURE:______________________________ NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE:________________

SIGNATURE:______________________________ REVISION DATE: ________________________________

SIGNATURE:______________________________ FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE: _________

11.0 ATTACHMENTS

1. Tentative map and Grading plans

G:\GROUP\PERMITTING\Case Files\TPM\12 cases\12TPM-00000-00002 Light\CEQA\Light Lot Split ND.docx

Documents

Light Lot Split -00000 00023 December 13, 2012 Lot Split ND... · Hearing on the request of Jennifer Siemens, ... Summerland Station, ... A Phase I archaeological resource survey