Ii. Summary: Guidelines. The Process Begins by Determining Whether or Not The Project Is Subject To Environmental

II.
SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION
This summary is intended to highlight major areas of importance in the environmental analysis, for use
by decision makers and the public, and to provide the information required per Section 15123 of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The summary includes a
discussion of the environmental review process, a description of the proposed project, requested actions
from the City of Los Angeles, areas of known controversy and issues to be resolved. A summary of the
potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project as well as
alternatives to the proposed project, their level of significance, mitigation measures and level of impact
after mitigation are also included in this chapter.
B. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) is guided by the CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines. The process begins by determining whether or not the project is subject to environmental
review. The second phase involves determining whether the project may have a potentially significant
environmental effect. If it is determined that the project could result in potentially significant
environmental effects that could not be mitigated to below a level of significance, then the topical issues
that contribute to these potentially significant effects will be addressed in the EIR.
The City of Los Angeles determined that the project could result in potentially significant environmental
effects related to several environmental topics. As a result, this Draft Subsequent EIR was prepared. The
Draft Subsequent EIR is being circulated for public review. Responses to any comments received and any
necessary revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR will be provided in the Final Subsequent EIR. Following
the public review and comment period, the Final Subsequent EIR will be considered for certification by
the Los Angeles City Council. Only after the certification of the Subsequent EIR would the City of Los
Angeles take any action on the project, including consideration of the requested entitlements necessary to
implement the proposed project.
Los Angeles Department of City Planning II-1 Andora Avenue Subdivision – Tentative Tract No. 53426
Impact Sciences, Inc. (0947.002) Subsequent Draft EIR
February 2010
II. Summary
C. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The Draft Subsequent EIR is organized into the following sections so the reader can easily obtain
information about the project and the potential for impacts in regards to specific environmental issue
areas:
 Section I, Introduction, describes the purpose and use of the EIR, provides a brief overview of the
proposed project, and outlines the organization of the EIR.
 Section II, Summary, presents a summary of the proposed project and alternatives, potential impacts
and mitigation measures, and impact conclusions regarding growth inducement and cumulative
impacts.
 Section III, Project Description, describes the project location, project details, baseline environmental
setting and existing physical conditions and the applicant’s objectives for the project.
 Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis describes existing conditions, or setting, before project
implementation; methods and assumptions used in impact analysis; thresholds of significance;
impacts that would result from the proposed project; applicable mitigation measures that would
eliminate or reduce significant impacts for each environmental issue; and cumulative impacts. This
Draft Subsequent EIR analyzes the proposed project’s potential to result in significant impacts in
regards to geology, water resources, air quality, noise, biology, land use, transportation, public
services (fire, police, and schools), aesthetics and views, cultural resources, and public utilities (water
and wastewater).
 Section V, Growth Inducement provides discussion of the ways in which the project could foster
economic or population growth.
 Section VI, Project Alternatives provides analysis of alternatives to the project. As required by the
State CEQA Guidelines, a discussion of the reasons for selection of the alternatives analyzed is
provided with a comparative analysis of each alternative with the project.
 Section VII, Effects Found Not to be Significant provides information regarding impacts of the
proposed project that were determined to have no impact by the City of Los Angeles.
 Section VIII, Organizations and Persons Contacted, References, identifies the documents, agencies,
other organizations, and individuals consulted in preparing this EIR.
 Any technical reports used to prepare the analysis included in this EIR are available in the
Appendices at the end of this EIR.
D. LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES
The project site is located on approximately 91 gross (85.98 net) acres in the northwestern portion of the
City of Los Angeles just north of Valley Circle Boulevard in the community of Chatsworth. The project
site is currently undeveloped and is bordered on the north by unincorporated Los Angeles County and
February 2010
II. Summary
on the west by Ventura County. The site is located at 9607 Andora Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles west
of Topanga Canyon Boulevard, just north of Chatsworth Oaks Parks, and within the southwest portion of
the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch District Plan area of the City.
E. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
1. Project Overview
The project is a request to change the zone on the property from A1-1 and A2-1 to RE40-1-H-K and to
subdivide the property under Tentative Tract Map No. 53426 into 48 lots for 45 single family and three
open space lots. No change is proposed to the General Plan land use designation, which is currently
Minimum residential density, corresponding to the OS, A1, A2, and RE40 zones, and Very Low
residential density, corresponding to the RE20 and RA zones. The average residential size lot would be
45,428 square feet (sf), which exceeds the 40,000 sf minimum lot size of the RE40 zone. Minimum net lot
size will be 32,000 sf.
Of the approximately 91 acres on the site, approximately 38 acres (approximately 42 percent) would be
preserved as permanent, common open space. The remainder of the property would be developed into
an equestrian-oriented gated community along four private streets. The community’s main access road
would be Rogers Way, approximately 50 feet in width and originating at the current terminus of Andora
Avenue. The existing terminus of Andora Avenue would be completed as a 60-foot-wide public
right-of-way and standard cul-de-sac. Beyond the public cul-de-sac, the roadway would become private
Rogers Way and traverse the site, westerly, curve northerly, and terminate at the property line between
the subject property and the privately held property to the north (Tentative Tract Map No. 50632), with
no connection to property to the west in Ventura County. Additional private streets, “A,” “B,” and “C”
Courts, would provide access to proposed lots not fronting on Rogers Way.
The project would be developed as a gated, equestrian-oriented community. Residential lots would have
a pad size varying from approximately 11,000 to 30,000 sf, which exceeds the minimum pad area of
9,000 sf for equestrian communities. The proposed homes would generally consist of four or more
bedrooms and be one and two stories in height. Maximum building height would not exceed 25 feet for
one-story structures and 35 feet for two-story structures.
Open space lot No. 46 would house a private equestrian center, accessible to residents by vehicle via a
driveway easement, varying in width between 12 and 20 feet, over lot Nos. 44 and 45, and continuing
beyond what will be individually owned property through common open space lot No. 46 to the facility.
A 12-foot-wide public equestrian trail would be dedicated and improved from Andora Avenue, northerly
along the easterly property line of the subject property, around the northerly side of the private
February 2010
II. Summary
equestrian center, then southwesterly across common open space lots Nos. 46 and 47, and along the
northerly property line of proposed lot No. 37 to the Ventura/Los Angeles County line.
Landform and contour grading techniques will be employed to minimize the amount of grading.
Development of the project would require grading of 600,000 cubic yards of dirt, which will be balanced
on site and would also preserve many of the natural rock outcroppings.
F. PROJECT GOALS
The following project goals have been identified for the proposed project:
 To develop a high quality residential community;
 To preserve and enhance the equestrian amenities in the San Fernando Valley;
 To enhance accessibility for emergency responders;
 To utilize landform and contour grading techniques to minimize grading on site;
 To preserve a substantial portion of the project site as permanent open space;
 To protect as much of the area’s natural habitat and biological resources as feasible;
 To provide a maximum of 45 new housing units for the City while housing is in short supply;
 To conform with the intent and purpose of the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch District Plan and would
implement a portion of the City’s General Plan; and
 To generate substantial employment in the construction industry. These jobs, while temporary,
would in turn stimulate overall economic activity within the Los Angeles region and generate
additional employment opportunities in the commercial and industrial sectors.
G. CITY ACTIONS REQUESTED
Implementation of the project as currently proposed would require, but not necessarily be limited to, the
following actions by the City of Los Angeles:
 TT-53426: Approval of the Tentative Tract Map No. 53426, a tentative tract map to allow a 47-lot
(43 square-foot lots and four open space lots) single family project on 91 acres in the proposed
RE-40-1-H-K zone; and
 APCNV-2004-7308-ZC: Approval of a zone change from A2-1 and A1-1 to RE40-1-H – K concurrently
with Tract Map 53426.
February 2010
II. Summary
H. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the analysis in this EIR is focused on issues determined by a
preliminary environmental investigation performed by the City. Based on the determinations made by
the City, this Draft Subsequent EIR analyzes the proposed project’s potential to result in significant
impacts in regards to geology, water resources, air quality, noise, biology, land use, transportation, public
services (fire, police, and schools), aesthetics and views, cultural resources, and public utilities (water and
wastewater).
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Aesthetics and Views
Project Impacts
Aesthetics
Project implementation has the potential to alter the aesthetic character of the project area. However, as
discussed in Section IV.A, Aesthetics and Views, the landscaping strategy, the project site’s proximity
and connectivity to the Chatsworth community, utilization of the cluster design concept, and
implementation of biological mitigation measures to reduce impacts to rock outcroppings would reduce
the degree to which the proposed project would contrast with the aesthetic resources and character of the
existing site and surrounding hillsides. Therefore, the impact associated with the integration of the
project site into the aesthetic character of the project area would be less than significant.
Views
The proposed project would remove some of the rock outcroppings located on the project site. However,
the project has been designed to minimize impacts to rock outcroppings. Construction of the proposed
project would result in the direct removal of wetland resources. Significant impacts to rock outcroppings
and riparian habitat would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation,
as identified and discussed in Section IV.B, Biological Resources.
Nighttime Lighting
During construction, nighttime lighting would be maintained on the project site for security purposes.
Since construction activity would be limited to daytime hours, no lighting associated with the operation
of construction equipment would be utilized during the nighttime. The use of security lighting during
construction would be temporary. However, the use of security lighting during project construction
February 2010
II. Summary
would be limited to the locations on the project site requiring lighting and all security lights would be
shielded and projected downwards onto the project site only. As such and given the temporary nature,
the impact to existing ambient illumination levels would be less than significant.
The proposed project would introduce new permanent sources of lighting to the project site and project
area. These sources consist of streetlights on the project site and along the proposed Andora Avenue
extension and domestic indoor and outdoor lighting including security lights. The combined effect of
these light sources would increase ambient illumination levels on the project site and in the project area.
However, based on the quantity and proximity of nighttime illumination existing within adjacent
communities such as Chatsworth and throughout the entire San Fernando Valley, the increase in ambient
nighttime lighting generated by the proposed project would be less than significant.
The various light sources, such as streetlights, domestic indoor and outdoor lighting, have the potential to
spill over onto or otherwise affect adjacent light-sensitive uses including the residences within the
Chatsworth community, the undeveloped open space surrounding the project site and scenic vista points,
resulting in a significant illumination impact. However, the project would reduce light spillover by
incorporating shielding and screening, projecting light sources downward, and lowering lighting
intensity. Furthermore, the project would comply with the Los Angeles Municipal Codes regarding street
lighting, and outdoor lighting, as identified above in the Regulatory Framework. With Code compliance,
the potential for light spillover to affect light-sensitive land uses would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM-AES-1 The preservation of natural vegetation and rock formations to the extent feasible to retain
a final site appearance that is as undisturbed as possible.
MM-AES-2 Minimize grading operations by developing minimum feasible building pad sizes and
refining the roadway alignments during the tentative tract map review process, and
contour grading.
MM-AES-3 Protect viewsheds to ridgelines from adjacent residences.
MM-AES-4 Architectural treatment to project design to achieve aesthetic compatibility with the
surrounding environment could include:
 Exterior surfaces colored to blend with natural surroundings, including nonreflective

roofing of an earth tone shade.
February 2010
II. Summary
 Immediate landscaping of graded slopes and other cleared areas, as appropriate, in

accordance with an approved landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and which provides for the protection or replacement of all significant trees
and other vegetation.
 Application of landform or contour grading and landscaping techniques as

appropriate.
 Treatment of concrete drains with colored pigment to minimize their visual

significance.
MM-AES-5 The applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan for review and approval. The Landscape
Plan shall specify drought-tolerant vegetation which adequately screens the proposed
structures from Valley Circle Boulevard, Plummer Street, and Chatsworth Oaks Park.
The Landscape Plan shall indicate species type and minimum box size for screening
materials. Such vegetation shall be of a suitable size and species type so as to adequately
screen the proposed residential structures from the scenic corridors.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed development would alter approximately 53 acres of the existing site from unimproved land
to a suburban residential neighborhood. The visual characteristics associated with each new development
would be regulated by the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan. Therefore, the proposed project in
conjunction with additional development within the Community Plan Area would result in a less than
significant cumulative impact regarding aesthetics.
Implementation of the proposed project in combination with identified related projects does have the
potential to cumulative affect views and visual changes in the surrounding area. The identified related
projects include the construction of residential, commercial-retail, office, restaurant, industrial, and light
industrial uses. As such, build out of cumulative development would expand the suburban character of
the Chatsworth area and San Fernando Valley.
While the project would contribute to the cumulative expansion of the development in the hills, the
project site represents a small portion of the panoramic viewshed of the entire hillside. Additionally,
views of the hills would remain largely unchanged, and implementation of the identified cumulative
development, including the proposed project, would only slightly increase the footprint of developed
area and slightly extend the suburban character to the west. As such, no significant cumulative impacts
would result with implementation of the proposed project and cumulative projects.
February 2010
II. Summary
The proposed development would introduce new permanent sources of light to the project site where
presently undeveloped land is located. The proposed development would alter approximately 53 acres of
the existing site from unimproved land to a suburban residential neighborhood. Existing development
along the Simi foothills is contiguous with development across the San Fernando Valley. The proposed
project and related projects represents a marginal increase in development within the Chatsworth-Porter
Ranch Community Plan Area. Thus, ambient illumination levels are anticipated to increase in the project
area, but would not result in a cumulative significant impact due to the present extent of nighttime
illumination within the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch area and entire San Fernando Valley.
Adverse Effects
Despite the permanent conversion of open space area to a residential neighborhood, the use of the cluster
concept, preservation of open space, minimized impacts to rock outcroppings, and implementation of
landscape mitigation would reduce the removal of features which contribute to the area’s visual character
and would reduce the amount of natural open space to be graded. The landscaping strategy and the
project’s consistency with the Chatsworth community would facilitate the project’s aesthetic integration
into the project area. Based on this, the project would result in a less than significant impact to the natural
visual character of the Chatsworth region as well as to the visual character of adjacent communities such
as Porter Ranch.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant view impacts and no adverse
effects would occur.
Impacts associated with construction lighting would be less than significant. Due to the extent of adjacent
nighttime illumination generated by the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch area and the entire San Fernando
Valley, the increase in ambient nighttime illumination due to project operation would not result in a
significant impact. Additionally, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant
impact to light-sensitive uses.
2. Biology
Project Impacts
One special-status plant species and five special-status animal species listed in the California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory queries for the
project region have been observed on site (Santa Susana tarplant, coastal western whiptail, southwestern
willow flycatcher, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, and San Bernardino ringneck snake, San Diego
desert woodrat). An additional 26 plant and 30 animal species may potentially occur on or utilize the site
February 2010
II. Summary
despite not having been detected on site. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed below,
impacts to the species listed in the CNDDB and CNPS Inventory queries for the project region would be
less than significant.
The proposed project would remove at least 17 oak trees that are protected by the City’s Native Tree
Protection Ordinance. A permit for removal or relocation of oak trees is therefore required. The
conditions of this permit will mitigate any impacts associated with the direct removal of oak trees, and
will include provisions addressing the type, size and number of replacement trees and the locations in
which they shall be planted. With adherence to the conditions set forth in the permit, project impacts to
oak trees will be less than significant.
Although approximately 50 acres of wildlife habitat would be removed by the proposed project, none of
it lies within an area designated as a wildlife movement/migration corridor. The nearest such designated
habitat linkage is the Santa Monica – Sierra Madre Connection, within 1 mile west of the proposed project
site. The proposed project would therefore not impede use of this linkage, nor would it sever accessibility
of this linkage to dedicated open space associated with Chatsworth Reservoir to the south and State Park
land to the north of the project site.
No wetland habitat is present on the project site; however, three first-order drainages and one
second-order drainage are present. These would be impacted by the proposed project. None of these
drainages would be regulated by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as they do not
connect to a navigable water of the US. All of these drainages may be regulated by California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG), however, pending a jurisdictional delineation which has not been performed. 1
Unpermitted impacts to CDFG jurisdictional area would constitute a violation of the California Fish and
Game Code. Prior to any impacts to these drainages, a Jurisdictional Delineation Report will be required
for review by CDFG, followed by a Jurisdictional Determination. If it is determined that CDFG
Jurisdiction is present on the site, a Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required prior to project
implementation.
The proposed project would introduce sources of night lighting and noise that may discourage use of
remaining areas of natural open space on the project site and in areas immediately adjacent to it. Some of
the observed wildlife species on site are special-status (coastal western whiptail, San Bernardino ringneck
snake, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, San Diego desert woodrat), and several other special status
species may potentially utilize the site (monarch butterfly, silvery legless lizard, rosy boa, San Diego
banded gecko, coast horned lizard, coast patch-nosed snake, Cooper’s hawk, Southern California
1 CDFG requires a jurisdictional delineation, which are not determined until project approval.
February 2010
II. Summary
rufous-crowned sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow, Costa's hummingbird, Lawrence's
goldfinch, loggerhead shrike, Allen's hummingbird, gray vireo, pallid bat, spotted bat, western mastiff
bat, western red bat, hoary bat, western small-footed myotis, California leaf-nosed bat, Los Angeles
pocket mouse, and American badger). Special-status mammal species potentially utilizing the site are
generally nocturnal, and thus may be adversely affected by artificial light sources. Construction-related
noise impacts may affect bird singing behavior, thus upsetting breeding efforts. Long-term noise effects
would be less intense, but various common activities associated with residential neighborhoods (play,
traffic, landscaping, etc.) are likely to result in a noisier environment than is currently manifest on the site
and surrounding natural open space areas. Other reasonably anticipated ‘edge effects’ produced by
residential development include the introduction of cats and dogs as predators on native wildlife species,
an increase in trash and litter in natural open space areas and the introduction of invasive plant species.
Combined, these edge effects constitute a potentially significant impact on special-status wildlife and
plant species. Mitigation listed below would reduce impacts to special-status species arising from edge
effects of the proposed project to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
MM-BIO-1 In order to offset impacts to Santa Susana tarplant arising from implementation of the
proposed project, a mitigation and monitoring program plan prepared prior to approval
shall be developed to maintain a population of Santa Susana tarplant, equal to or greater
than the present population on the proposed project site. In maintaining a viable
population, the mitigation must provide for a self-sustaining, genetically diverse
population that flowers and produces viable seeds within five years.
At a minimum the plan shall include details describing the following components of the
program:
 site preparation, transplantation, seeding and irrigation techniques;
 provisions for general maintenance of the mitigation area, including responsibility

for maintenance, weeding, protection from herbivory, and a mitigation “as-built”
plan;
 performance standards of the mitigation, including goals to be met for reproduction,

survivorship, plant spacing, and non-native species cover;
 monitoring protocols, including provisions for the evaluation of plant establishment

and vigor, indicators of use by wildlife, site photographs, and any problems
associated with litter, herbivory, erosion caused by factors other than normal
geophysical processes, or vandalism;
February 2010
II. Summary
 monitoring report requirements, provisions for site protection, adaptive management

strategies, and certification of success.
MM-BIO-2 Follow-up surveys for Braunton's milk-vetch, Lewis' evening-primrose, San Fernando
Valley spineflower, Parry's spineflower, slender mariposa lily, and Plummer’s mariposa
lily shall be conducted after sufficient winter precipitation makes such surveys feasible. If
any of these species are found during the course of these surveys, impacts shall be
mitigated by preservation of an equivalent area of existing occupied habitat off site
contiguous with dedicated open space, augmented by a management program, which
incorporates provisions to improve special-status species habitat values in the preserved
areas.
MM-BIO-3 Pre-construction special-status reptile surveys shall be conducted for silvery legless
lizard, rosy boa, coastal western whiptail, San Diego banded gecko, San Bernardino
ringneck snake, coast horned lizard, and coast patch-nosed snake. If any of these animals
are detected, they shall be relocated to undeveloped areas prior to the commencement of
construction. The placement of silt fencing or other means which would provide a
physical barrier to reptile movement shall be erected at the edge of the construction areas
and prior to animal relocation to prevent their reentry to the site.
MM-BIO-4 A habitat restoration plan shall be developed to improve habitat values of undeveloped
open space areas of the project site, so as to encourage their continued use by
special-status and common plant and wildlife species. The plan shall specify, at a
minimum, the following:
 the location of mitigation sites;
 the quantity and species of plants to be planted;
 procedures for creating additional vegetation communities with locally indigenous

species;
 methods for the removal of non-native plants;
 a schedule and action plan to maintain and monitor the enhancement/restoration

area;
 a list of criteria by which to measure success of the mitigation sites (e.g., percent
cover of native species, survivorship/establishment of plantings, wildlife use);
 measures to exclude unauthorized entry into the creation/enhancement areas; and
February 2010
II. Summary
 contingency measures in the event that mitigation efforts are not successful.
Restored vegetation communities shall be designed to replace the functions and values of
the vegetation communities being removed and to minimize detrimental edge effects of
the project on surrounding open space areas wherever possible, such as by providing
natural buffers between the development and the Chatsworth Reservoir and State Park
property. The replacement vegetation communities shall have similar dominant trees and
understory shrubs and herbs (excluding exotic species) as the affected vegetation
communities.
MM-BIO-5 Preconstruction focused surveys for denning sites of San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit
and American badger shall be conducted. If denning sites for either of these species are
detected, construction activities shall be halted until young are weaned and leave the
den.
MM-BIO-6 Thirty days prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the
proposed construction disturbance zone and within a 100-foot buffer of the disturbance
zone to identify and, if feasible, capture and relocate individuals of San Diego desert
woodrat, and American badger in order to avoid or minimize take of these special-status
species. Individuals shall be relocated to nearby undisturbed areas with suitable habitat.
Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to CDFG in the Annual
Mitigation Status Report. Collection and relocation of animals shall only occur with the
proper scientific collection and handling permits.
If active San Diego desert woodrat nests (stick houses) with young are identified within
the disturbance zone or within 100 feet of the disturbance zone, a fence shall be erected
around the nest site adequate to provide the woodrat sufficient foraging habitat at the
discretion of the qualified biologist. At the discretion of the monitoring biologist, clearing
and construction within the fenced area shall be postponed or halted until young have
left the nest. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods
when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent
impacts on these nests will occur. If San Diego desert woodrats are observed within the
grading footprint outside of the breeding period, individuals shall be relocated, if
feasible, to a suitable location on the project site (outside of the disturbance boundary) by
a qualified biologist in possession of a scientific collecting permit.
February 2010
II. Summary
MM-BIO-7 A winter survey shall be conducted to determine use of the site by monarch butterflies. If
monarch butterflies are found to use the site, development in areas adjacent to the
butterfly groves shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would
significantly degrade the areas.
Removal of trees within the perimeter of the habitat area utilized by wintering monarch
butterflies shall be prohibited unless it is determined by the City that such removal is
necessary by reason of good forestry practice, disease of the tree, or safety considerations.
Any such determinations, including tree maintenance or trimming, shall be accompanied
by a written evaluation of the impacts of the proposed action on habitat resources by a
qualified expert on the monarch butterfly. Such report and investigations shall be
arranged by the City and paid for by the applicant as part of environmental review.
Construction within or on properties contiguous to the designated butterfly groves shall

be prohibited during fall and winter months when the monarch butterflies are present.
Removal or modification of trees within the groves shall not be permitted during these
periods except when determined by the Director of City Planning to be a necessary
emergency to protect human life or property.
MM-BIO-8 To avoid impacts to nesting birds during construction, a qualified biologist (approved by
the Los Angeles City Planning Department) shall be retained to conduct nesting bird
surveys within suitable nesting habitat prior to initiation of construction activities.
Specifically, if activities associated with construction or grading are planned during the
bird nesting/breeding season, generally January through March for early nesting birds
(e.g., Coopers hawks or hummingbirds) and from mid-March through September for
most other bird species, the applicant shall have a qualified biologist conduct surveys for
active nests. Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted weekly, within
30 days prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities to determine the
presence/absence of active nests. The surveys shall continue on a weekly basis with the
last survey being conducted no more than three days before the start of
clearance/construction work. Surveys shall include examination of trees, shrubs, and the
ground, within grasslands, for nesting birds, as several bird species known to the area are
shrub or ground nesters, including mourning doves. If ground-disturbing activities are
delayed, additional pre-construction surveys shall be conducted so that no more than
three days will have elapsed between the survey and ground-disturbing activities.
February 2010
II. Summary
If active nests are located during pre-construction surveys, clearing and construction
activities within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors) shall be postponed or halted
until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and
there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an
active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate
barriers, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas.
The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when
construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent
impacts on these nests will occur. The results of the survey, and any avoidance measures
taken, shall be submitted to the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety within
30 days of completion of the pre-construction surveys and/or construction monitoring to
document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection
of native birds.
MM-BIO-9 No earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction activities, a

preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active
roosts of special-status bats are present on or within 300 feet of the project disturbance
boundaries. Should an active maternity roost be identified (the breeding season of native
bat species in California generally occurs from April 1 through August 31), the roost shall
not be disturbed and construction within 300 feet shall be postponed or halted, at the
discretion of the biological monitor, until the roost is vacated and juveniles have fledged,
as determined by the biologist.
MM-BIO-10 Thirty days prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the
proposed construction disturbance zone and within a 100-foot buffer of the disturbance
zone to capture and relocate individuals of Los Angeles pocket mouse in order to avoid
or minimize take of these special-status species. Individuals shall be relocated to nearby
undisturbed areas with suitable habitat. Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall
be provided to CDFG in the Annual Mitigation Status Report. Collection and relocation
of animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits.
MM-BIO-11 Should the preconstruction survey for the American badger conducted under mitigation
measure MM-BIO-5 result in identification of a occupied natal den in the construction
disturbance zone, no construction-related activities shall occur that would cause a direct
impact to the natal den until it is determined by a qualified biologist that young are no
longer dependent on the natal den. If a natal den is identified within 100 feet of the
construction disturbance zone, the den location will be clearly marked with fencing or
February 2010
II. Summary
flagging to ensure that inadvertent impacts to the den do not occur during construction,
but not so as to inhibit normal behavioral activities (e.g., foraging) by the mother. The
biologist shall serve as the construction monitor during those periods when construction
activities will occur near occupied natal dens to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on
the natal dens occur.
MM-BIO-12 In addition to any conditions set forth in the project oak tree report, the following work
procedures shall be required during construction for the protection of oak trees on site:
 all work within the oak tree aerial/root zone shall be regularly observed by the Tree
Preservation Consultant;
 vertical trenches or fence posts shall be hand dug; and
 unless waived by the City, a minimum 5-foot-high temporary chain link fence shall
be constructed at the limits of approved work to protect the adjacent trees from
further unauthorized damage. Such a fence would remain in place until the
completion of construction.
 Should any work be required within the limit of fencing, the temporary fence may be
opened and the Tree Preservation Consultant shall direct all work at any time the
fence is open.
MM-BIO-13 Replacement oak trees shall be of the same species as those removed and shall be sourced
from the project region (San Fernando Valley/Simi Hills). Transplantation shall be
conducted under the direction of the Native Tree Preservation consultant and by a
qualified tree transplant and moving company.
MM-BIO-14 Surface runoff from impermeable sources, fill areas, and construction areas shall be
directed away from oak trees.
MM-BIO-15 Edge effects of the development on surrounding open space areas shall be minimized
through the following measures:
 Habitat replacement efforts shall be strategically placed, where slope and exposure
considerations make such placement appropriate, to provide a buffer between the
crossing and developed areas of the project site.
 Fuel modification zones A and B shall be combined to provide a 50-foot irrigated

zone. Fuel modification zone C should extend up to 150 feet from the limit of zone
A/B, and shall be a non-irrigated zone of thinned native vegetation.
 Irrigation shall be limited to the area immediately surrounding the developed area
(fuel-modification combined zone A/B), so as to avoid attracting Argentine ants
February 2010
II. Summary
(Linepithema humile) which are known competitors and predators of native

arthropods and small vertebrates, including songbird nestlings.
 The landscape palette shall incorporate locally indigenous plants observed on site.
 Exterior night lighting shall be kept to a minimum and directed away from any
natural habitat areas.
 Plant palettes proposed for use on landscaped slopes, street medians, park sites and
other public landscaped areas within 100 feet of native vegetation communities,
including Santa Susana tarplant mitigation sites, shall be reviewed by a qualified
restoration specialist to ensure that the proposed landscape plants will not naturalize
and cause maintenance or vegetation community degradation in these areas
 The Home Owners Association (HOA) shall supply educational information to

future residents regarding pets, wildlife, and open space areas. The material shall
discuss the following:
 The detrimental effects of feeding feral cats and dogs. Maintenance activities
within preserved open-space areas shall allow humane removal of these animals.
Feral cats and dogs may be trapped and deposited with the local Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or the Los Angeles City Department of Animal
Control.
 Domestic pets shall be prohibited from roaming freely. Pets must be leashed
while using any areas within or adjacent to open space.
 Coyote, bobcat, and American badger shall be allowed to access buffer areas and
open space areas without persecution.
 Collection of native species within the mitigation areas and common open space
areas shall be prohibited, and signs shall be erected to inform the public of this
restriction.
 Invasive exotic species shall be prohibited and removed upon detection.
 The proposed project's HOA shall restrict residents from using anticoagulant
rodenticides or other pesticides that lead to secondary poisoning of predators.
Cumulative Impacts
Two related projects are large subdivision projects proposed in areas with similar habitat and
special-status species constraints as are present on the proposed project site. Additionally each of these
three projects would entail incremental loss of habitat available for special-status and common plant and
animal species that is increasingly becoming lost and fragmented throughout the region. This loss is
widely recognized as a threat to the long-term biodiversity of the region, and attempts to understand and
compensate for this loss include the designation of the nearby Santa Monica – Sierra Madre Connection
February 2010
II. Summary
and the assignation of “special-status” designations to a wide variety of formerly wide spread and
common plant and animal taxa, including many of the special-status species having potential to occur on
the project site, such as coast horned lizard, coastal western whiptail, ashy rufous-crowned sparrow, and
others.
Cumulative impacts to biological resources in the region are therefore significant, and would continue to
be so despite project-level mitigation of impacts arising from construction of the proposed project.
Chiefly, these are related to habitat loss for special-status and common wildlife species. There is no
feasible mitigation to offset this cumulative loss.
Adverse Impacts
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-15,

project impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant. There is no feasible
mitigation to offset the cumulative loss of regional biological resources, and this impact would remain
significant.
3. Air Quality
Project Impacts
Impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions from the construction and operation of the project
would be less than significant. In addition, the project would not exceed the localized significance
thresholds and would not exceed any secondary operational thresholds. The project would result in
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but would not exceed the proposed GHG emission threshold proposed
by the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). have not been adopted yet, the
implementation of the mitigation measures recommended below, in combination with the already low
GHG emissions of the project, would likely reduce the impacts related to global climate change to a less
than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM-AIR-1 The project shall achieve energy efficiency of at least 30 percent beyond the requirements
of Title 24 (2008), as specified in the California Energy Commission (CEC) Tier II
requirements.
MM-AIR-2 The project shall reduce water consumption by at least 15 percent beyond “business as
usual” for new single-family residential units of comparable size beyond what is
required by state or local ordinance.
February 2010
II. Summary
Cumulative Impacts
Regional Impacts
Project impacts would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulatively significant impacts
when the average daily trips exceed the rate of growth in population defined in SCAQMD’s Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). The 2007 AQMP is the most recent iteration and is designed to accommodate
growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to
achieve the state and federal air quality standards, including the federal 8-hour ozone standard by 2024,
and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, projects that are within the emission thresholds
identified above should be considered less than significant unless there is other pertinent information to
the contrary. The project’s construction emissions would not exceed the project-level significance
threshold. The project’s operational emissions are substantially under the project-level significance
thresholds. Additionally, as discussed above, the project is consistent with the 2007 AQMP. Therefore, the
project would not result in regional cumulative emissions that are cumulatively considerable and would
result in less than significant cumulative impacts.
Global Climate Change Impacts
The proposed project would not result in annual GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD proposed
threshold for residential projects (3,000 million metric tons measured in carbon dioxide equivalents
[MMTCO2E] per year). It is speculative to determine whether the project would meet the performance
standards for transportation, water, waste, and construction, since the SCAQMD has not yet established
those standards.
The project will include energy efficiency measures and other measures to reduce water consumption
and solid waste generation.
Therefore, because the project is well under the proposed SCAQMD threshold and includes measures
that would reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and solid waste generation, the project is
considered to be consistent with applicable measures in California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s)
Proposed Scoping Plan and would result in a less than significant cumulatively impact on global climate
change. However, it has become standard practice to recommend mitigation measures to reduce GHG
emissions from projects. Mitigation measures described below would reduce the project’s contribution to
global climate change.
February 2010
II. Summary
Adverse Impacts
No adverse effects are anticipated during construction or operation of the proposed project. Additionally,
no adverse effects related to global climate change impacts are anticipated with the incorporation of
proposed mitigation.
4. Cultural Resources
Project Impacts
Paleontological Resources
Paleontologic resources would be potentially affected by impacts resulting from earthmoving activities
associated with development of the proposed project. Direct impacts resulting in the possible loss of
some fossil remains, currently unrecorded fossil sites, associated specimen data and site data, and the
fossil-bearing strata could result mostly from earthmoving activities in previously undisturbed strata.
Direct impacts also would result from any earthmoving activity that buried previously undisturbed
strata, making the strata and their paleontologic resources unavailable for future scientific investigation.
Direct impacts would occur primarily within the proposed development area and probably would not
occur in the designated open space. Indirect impacts would result from easier access to fresh exposures of
fossiliferous strata and the accompanying potential for unauthorized fossil collecting.
Excavation in undisturbed sediments within the boundaries of the project site has potential to adversely
impact significant nonrenewable paleontologic resources. Mitigation proposed below would reduce
potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.
Archaeological Resources
The proposed project would result in development of 58 percent of the project site. The proposed project
would require approximately 600,000 cubic yards of grading and cut and fill. Therefore, impacts are
potentially significant and would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measure
listed below.
Historical Resources
No historical resources were found within the project site as the project site is currently vacant. For this
reason, no impacts to historical resources would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
February 2010
II. Summary
Mitigation Measures
MM-CR-1 A qualified archaeologist/paleontologist should be present during grading operations to

assure that reasonable measures are taken to protect and recover significant
archaeological/paleontological resources, should any be uncovered.
Cumulative Impacts
Paleontological Resources
Development of the related projects in the City could potentially affect paleontological resources. The
cumulative effect of these projects would contribute to the loss of subsurface cultural resources, if these
resources were not protected upon discovery. CEQA requirements for protecting paleontological
resources are applicable to development in the City Los Angeles. Because subsurface paleontological
resources would be protected upon discovery as required by law, impacts to those resources would be
less than significant. The project includes mitigation measures that would reduce the project’s impact to
paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Consequently, the project’s contribution to any
cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, cumulative impacts would
be less than significant.
Archaeological Resources
Development of the related projects may also require grading and excavation that could potentially affect
archaeological resources. The cumulative effect of these projects would contribute to the loss of
subsurface cultural resources, if these resources were not protected upon discovery. CEQA requirements
for protecting archaeological resources are applicable to development of related projects. Because
subsurface archaeological resources would be protected upon discovery as required by law, impacts to
those resources would be less than significant. The project includes mitigation measures that would
reduce the project’s impact to archaeological resources to a less than significant level. Consequently, the
project’s contribution to any cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and, therefore,
cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Historical Resources
No impacts to historical resources were identified; for this reason, implementation of the proposed
project would not contribute to cumulative impacts.
February 2010
II. Summary
Adverse Effects
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure MM-CR-1, project related to

archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources impacts would be less than significant. As no
historical resources impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are necessary.
5. Geology
Project Impacts
Local Geologic Setting and Earth Materials
As discussed in Section IV.E Geology, The geotechnical report found a potential for removal of local
large bedrock outcrops, which would require mitigation. The geotechnical report also found a potential
for debris flows during periods of significant precipitation and the quantification of such hazards and
appropriate mitigation would require additional studies. In addition, the geotechnical report states that
any cut slopes with proposed gradients steeper than 2:1 would require further evaluation. The report
recommends that fill slopes and cut slopes that require stabilization or buttressing should be designed at
2:1 or flatter.
The tract map indicates two retaining walls. One would be approximately 220 feet in length and 10 feet in
height, and the other would be 350 feet in length and 10 feet in height. These walls would be located
immediately north of lots 24 and 25, north of Andora Avenue. The maximum depth of proposed fill
would be approximately 100 feet, with fill slopes at a gradient of 2:1. The maximum height of proposed
cut slopes would be approximately 40 feet, also at a gradient of 2:1. The project is not proposing any
gradients steeper than 2:1, with the exception of the area adjacent to the proposed retaining walls north of
Andora Avenue. The proposed project would result in a major change in the land formation of the project
site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in potentially significant grading impacts.
The results of the rippability investigation by Ryland Associates, Inc. revealed that the underlying
Chatsworth Formation would likely require blasting to excavate in a cost-effective manner. This could
result in noise impacts to nearby residences; therefore, control of blast charge size is needed.
Based on preliminary observations, the existing colluvial and alluvial deposits are not suitable for
structural support and would be removed to competent bedrock within areas where development is
planned. The maximum depth of these materials, based on the geotechnical investigation, is estimated to
be 18 feet from existing grade in the eastern portion of the project site and approximately 20 feet in the
western portion of the project site. Buried large boulders are anticipated to occur within the alluvial
February 2010
II. Summary
deposits and would be removed and replaced with compact fill. However, with implementation of the
recommendations of the geologic report and mitigation measures for processing, subgrade preparation,
fill placement, and grading would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.
The alluvium may have shrinkage of ranging from 0 to 5 percent and bedrock may have shrinkage is
estimated to be approximately 12 to 17 percent when the material is compacted in accordance with the
mitigation measures recommended for this project. This shrinkage could result in a potentially significant
impact. As such, foundation design criteria for the treatment of differing expansive soils are provided in
the geotechnical report contained in Appendix IV.E. The geotechnical report concluded that on-site soils
are suitable for use as structural fill. However, with implementation of the recommendations of the
geologic report and mitigation measures related to shrinkage, potentially significant impacts would be
reduced to less than significant levels.
The potential for rockfalls and rolling boulders is considered relatively high for the slope located adjacent
to the northern and northwestern property lines and for a few areas located on the western half of the
property. The California Division of Mines and Geology (1998) (presently known as California Geological
Survey) has identified these areas as Earthquake Induced Landslide Seismic Hazard Zones. As such, the
proposed project would require mitigation to avoid potentially significant geologic hazards. As such
implementation of the recommendations of the geologic report and the proposed mitigation measures
would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.
Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during exploration of the site and is not anticipated to impact
excavations or grading operations for the project. As such, these impacts would be less than significant.
Seismicity
The site, similar to all of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region. The proposed
structures would be designed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) and Los Angeles
Building Code (LABC); because of this, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be
less than significant.
Due to the number of slopes on the project site and the steepness of these slopes, slope stability poses a
potentially significant geologic hazard impact to the proposed project. Implementation of the
recommendations of the geologic report and the proposed mitigation measures would reduce potentially
significant impacts to less than significant levels.
February 2010
II. Summary
During grading, alluvium and colluvium soils would be removed and recompacted, thereby preventing
impacts associated with seismic settlement. Additionally, during grading, alluvium and colluvium
subject to liquefaction would be removed to firm bedrock and recompacted. Therefore, the potential for
significant impacts associated with liquefaction would be avoided through conventional grading.
Expansion Potential
Soils at the project site are anticipated to be expansive in nature. However, with implementation of the
recommendations of the geologic report and mitigation measures related to expansion potential and
surficial soils, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Sedimentation and Erosion
Construction activity associated with project site development has the potential to result in wind and
water driven soil erosion during project grading activities due to exposure of slopes and/or stockpiled or
exposed soils throughout project construction. Since project construction would occur for a limited period
of time, this impact would be considered short term in nature; the potential for significant impacts
associated with sedimentation and erosion would end upon completion of construction. Nevertheless,
during project construction, potentially significant impacts associated with sedimentation and erosion
could result.
After construction, the majority of the developed area of the project site would be covered with
structures, pavement and landscaping; portions of the project site disturbed during project construction
but not covered with built structures would be re-landscaped. The remaining 38 acres of the site would
primarily remain unaffected and unchanged by project construction and operation. However, due to
permanent changes in topography and new graded slopes on the project site but within close proximity
to the three first order streams and one second order stream, project implementation has the potential to
result in new significant impacts associated with sedimentation and erosion into drainage channels.
However, with incorporation of mitigation listed below, potentially significant sedimentation and erosion
impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Landform Alteration
The proposed project would remove some of the rock outcroppings located on the project site. However,
the project has been designed to avoid as many potential impacts to rock outcroppings as possible.
Additionally, construction of the proposed project would result in the direct removal of wetland
resources. Significant impacts to rock outcroppings and riparian habitat would be reduced to less than
February 2010
II. Summary
significant levels with implementation of mitigation, as identified and discussed in Section IV.B,
Biological Resources.
Because of the minimal impact to topographic elevations, and because impacts to streambeds would be
mitigated to less than significant levels, impacts related to landform alteration would be less than
significant.
Mineral Resources
The project site is not located near an MRZ-2 zone or near a known or potential mineral resource area.
The site is not identified as a “locally important mineral resource recovery site,” a “regionally significant
construction aggregate resource area,” or an available site with known mineral resources of value to the
area, region, or state in the Los Angeles County General Plan. For these reasons, impacts related to
mineral resources would be less than significant
Mitigation Measures
MM-GEO-1 During construction, all grading and excavation will be performed under the supervision
of a licensed engineering geologist and/or soils engineer and all on-site hazards that are
not considered remote to on or off-site properties would be investigated and
recommended for corrective grading to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or
Superintendent of Building and Safety.
MM-GEO-2 During construction, the developer shall adhere to all applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code and the recommendations of the City Engineer and the Superintendent
of Building and Safety.
MM-GEO-3 Plans for the construction of permanent drainage facilities, including any necessary catch
basins and sumps would be contained in the final grading plan and tentative tract map
for the proposed project and subject to the recommendations of the Bureau of
Engineering.
MM-GEO-4 Sufficient vegetation would be planted to cover any grading or cut-and-fill on which
structures or improvements are not to be constructed. Vegetation shall be coordinated
with the City Fire Department approved list of fire-resistant plants and Department of
Building and Safety’s approved plant list. Provisions will be made to ensure maintenance
of vegetation.
February 2010
II. Summary
MM-GEO-5 An approved haul route will be provided for the export of any graded materials from the
project site.
MM-GEO-6 Any existing fill and disturbed natural soils within the building areas would be
excavated and replaced with properly compacted fill, as recommended by a soils
engineer.
MM-GEO-7 As recommended by the soils engineer, due to the hard nature of the bedrock on site,
overexcavation of building pads and street subgrade to a depth of future utilities would
be replaced with compacted fill to facilitate placement of future utilities.
MM-GEO-8 All required footing backfill and utility trench backfill are to be mechanically compacted.
MM-GEO-9 Exterior grades are to be sloped or drained in such a way that surface water would drain
away from buildings.
MM-GEO-10 Minimizing building pad size is proposed to reduce the required amount of grading
necessary.
MM-GEO-11 Realignment of the internal roadways will be required to allow for contoured grading.
MM-GEO-12 Implementation of contoured grading techniques outlined in the Planning Guidelines

Landform Grading Manual, adopted by the City Council June 1983.
MM-GEO-13 Ground wetting shall occur during grading operations to reduce impacts from dust.
MM-GEO-14 All mitigation measures from Geolabs-Westlake Village, Inc., Reconnaissance

Geotechnical Investigation, May 24, 2000, and Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation,
January 27, 2009, for site preparation, excavations, cut and fill slopes, and the correction
of potential geologic hazards shall be incorporated into final design and construction. All
such work and design shall be in conformance with local governmental regulations or
the recommendations contained in the Reconnaissance Geotechnical Investigation,
whichever is more restrictive.
MM-GEO-15 Prior to start of soil-disturbing activities at the site, a Notice of Intent (NOI) and
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with,
and in order to partially fulfill, the California State Water Resources Control Board Order
No. 99-08-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit No. CAS000002 (General Construction Permit) and Chapter 6 Article 4.4,
February 2010
II. Summary
Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control from the Los Angeles Municipal Code.
The SWPPP shall meet the applicable provisions of Sections 301 and 402 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and Chapter 6 Article 4.4, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution
Control from the Los Angeles Municipal Code, by requiring controls of pollutant
discharges that utilize best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) to reduce pollutants.
MM-GEO-16 Establishment of a property owners’ association to assure that commonly held slopes and
drainage facilities are properly maintained.
MM-GEO-17 The project shall conform to applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, including
Building Code (Division 23, Loads and General Design).
MM-GEO-18 The project shall conform to the intent and recommendations adopted in the Safety
Element of the General Plan.
MM-GEO-19 Any design features for site preparation and development recommended by a
geotechnical report prepared for the project site (e.g., removal of boulders) shall be
implemented.
Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project and other projects in the Southern California region would
cumulatively increase the number of structures and people exposed to geologic- and seismic-related
hazards. Compliance with the City’s requirements would ensure that both individual and cumulative
project impacts associated with the proposed project’s structures and grading would not be significant.
As long as project design and construction occurs consistent with proper engineering practices and to the
requirements of applicable portions of the Municipal Code as they apply to the proposed project, seismic
and regional geologic hazards would not be considered cumulatively considerable and would be less
than significant.
Adverse Effects
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-19,

project and cumulative impacts related to geological hazards would be less than significant.
February 2010
II. Summary
6. Water Resources
Surface Water Hydrology
According to public flood maps provided by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
project site is located within Zone D, which denotes an area of which is as an undetermined, but possible
50- or 100-year flood area. As such, the project applicant would be required to conduct detailed
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis as described in mitigation listed below. With implementation of
proposed mitigation measures, project impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Grading and earth-moving activities associated with project construction could potentially result in a
temporary increase in the volume of runoff, which could enter the four drainage ways. However, the
increase in runoff is not anticipated to substantially increase the amount of water within these streams
during construction; therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to
surface water hydrology during construction.
The proposed project would involve the development of 45 single-family residences and open space areas
on the project site. Impervious surfaces would be added with the implementation of the proposed project
and therefore would increase the quantity of surface water runoff, when compared to existing conditions.
As part of the proposed project, new storm drains and a paved swale, in addition to the mitigation
measures listed below, would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Surface Water Quality
Construction-related erosion and site contamination could result in a potentially significant impact to
surface water quality. However, through incorporation of the mitigation measures listed below, this
impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Compliance with NPDES permit requirements
and preparation of an SWPPP would reduce construction-related erosion, sedimentation, and
site-contamination driven water quality impacts to less than significant levels during construction.
Upon buildout of the proposed project, household runoff generated by the residential uses typically
contains high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers. If not treated, nitrogen and phosphorus
lead to eutrophication in receiving water bodies. However, through incorporation of the mitigation
measures listed below, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Groundwater Level
The project site is located within the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin (SFVGB), which has
sustained relatively stable water levels from 1979 to 2000. During site grading, removal of vegetation and
February 2010
II. Summary
other soil-stabilizing features presently on the site could result in a temporary increase in surface runoff.
This increase in runoff would coincide with a reduced opportunity for ground infiltration and
groundwater recharge in the immediate project area. However, the potential impact to groundwater
levels during construction would be temporary and would not be sufficient enough to reduce the ability
of a water utility to draw upon the SFVGB, reduce yields of adjacent wells or well fields, or adversely
change the flow of groundwater; therefore, based on the historical stability of the underlying aquifer and
temporary nature of construction activities, the impact to groundwater level would be less than
significant during project construction. Additionally, this increase in runoff would coincide with a
reduced opportunity for ground infiltration and groundwater recharge in the immediate project area.
However, the potential impact to groundwater recharge capacity during construction would be
temporary and would not be sufficient enough to result in a demonstrable or sustained reduction in
groundwater recharge capacity; therefore, based on the historical stability of the underlying aquifer and
the temporary nature of construction activities, the impact to groundwater recharge capacity would be
less than significant during project construction.
Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. The proposed project would rely upon City of Los
Angeles water supplies, as provided through the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
(LADWP). LADWP does rely upon groundwater to meet a portion of the water demand for the City;
however a majority of the City’s water supply is from sources other than local groundwater.
Additionally, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially interfere with
groundwater recharge. Development would occur on approximately 53 acres of the 91-acre project site;
the remaining land would remain undeveloped and be maintained as permanent open space. Therefore,
opportunities for groundwater recharge on the project site would continue after implementation of the
proposed project and would not reduce yields of adjacent wells or well fields. The opportunities for
groundwater recharge throughout the project site would also reduce the chance of change in rate or
direction of flow of groundwater. Therefore, the project’s impacts to the groundwater level would be less
than significant.
Groundwater Quality
Project construction could potentially result in a temporary increase in groundwater contamination

through spills and leaks associated with construction-related substances such as oils, lubricants, paints,
cleaning agents and other fluids on the project site. However, this impact would be reduced to a less than
significant level with incorporation of mitigation listed below, which would require a NPDES permit for
construction activity and preparation of an SWPPP prior to construction. The SWPPP would include
February 2010
II. Summary
measures to avoid spills and leaks of construction-related contaminants and procedures for remediation
in the event of accidental releases or contamination. Therefore, with incorporation of this mitigation, the
surface water percolating into the ground on the project site would not be contaminated and the present
rate of contamination into the groundwater would not substantially change. As such, impacts to the rate
and direction of contamination would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM-WR-1 The extension of the existing 36-inch collector drain along Andora Avenue.
MM-WR-2 The reduction of grading activity to limit drainage impacts.
MM-WR-3 Construction of permanent drainage facilities, as recommended by the project’s

geotechnical consultants, and as determined by the Bureau of Engineering, to control
surface runoff.
MM-WR-4 Compliance with applicable provisions of the Flood Hazard Management Specific Plan
Ordinance (No. 163,913) and requirements of the Bureau of Engineering.
MM-WR-5 Landscaping all graded slopes and installing an irrigation system that conforms to
Section 91.3007 of the Los Angeles Building Code.
MM-WR-6 Construction of any necessary permanent drainage facilities to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and Superintendent of Building and Safety.
MM-WR-7 Compliance with the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigation and
hydrology study and all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.
MM-WR-8 Installation of any necessary private and/or public storm drains as required by the City
Engineer.
MM-WR-9 Final surface water runoff/hydrology design would be approved by the City during the
final tract map, grading, and drainage plan approval process.
MM-WR-10 The applicant shall prepare a hydrology report and drainage plan which quantifies
runoff from site tributary areas, recommends appropriate drainage facilities, and
includes a maintenance and inspection program to ensure proper functioning of drainage
facilities. The hydrology report and drainage plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for review and approval prior to development of any drainage improvements.
February 2010
II. Summary
MM-WR-11 The project shall comply with the requirements of National Pollution Discharge
Elimination system permit for storm water discharge and with guidelines and policies of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and local agencies. A Notice of Intent will be filed to be covered under the State
Board’s “Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff
Associated with Construction Activity.”
MM-WR-12 Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the project applicant shall obtain a
NPDES stormwater discharge permit and prepare an SWPPP prior to the start of
construction. The SWPPP shall identify best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or
reduce the potential for erosion, sedimentation, and contamination on the project site
during construction. The BMPs shall also identify procedures for clean up in the event of
contamination from construction-related substances such as fuel, oil, grease, lubricants,
paint, and construction debris.
Cumulative Impacts
Surface Water Hydrology
Development of the proposed project in combination with related projects would not significantly impact
surface water hydrology in the four watersheds. Therefore, no related projects would interfere with the
surface water drainage associated with the proposed project. The related projects would likely connect to
existing stormwater drainage systems. It is expected that incremental modifications to the stormwater
drainage system to accommodate increased load would be implemented as needed. Therefore, the
proposed project and related projects would result in less than significant surface water hydrology
impacts.
Surface Water Quality
Development of the proposed project in combination with the list of related projects could result in the
violation of water quality and/or waste discharge requirements during construction and operation
without implementation of mitigation. However, each of the related projects would be subject to the same
requirements as the proposed project and, thus, would be required to prepare an SWPPP for construction
activities. As with the project, the SWPPPs prepared for projects would incorporate BMPs by requiring
controls of pollutant discharges that utilize BAT and BCT to reduce pollutants. In addition to an SWPPP,
the construction and operation of related projects within the City of Los Angeles are required, by Chapter
13.29, Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control and Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, to submit and then implement an SUSMP
February 2010
II. Summary
containing design features and BMPs appropriate and applicable to the project to reduce
post-construction pollutants in stormwater discharges. Potential water quality impacts of the related
projects in combination with the proposed project would be less than significant with preparation and
implementation of the SWPPP and SUSMP and the enforcement of these requirements by the City or
County.
Groundwater Level and Quality
Implementation of Citywide related projects would result in additional development that could indirectly
require an increased withdrawal of groundwater through the provision of potable water provided by
LADWP’s groundwater resources. However, the provision of water, including the increased utilization of
groundwater supplies, as a result of the cumulative development of the proposed project and identified
related projects is within the established demand projections of the LADWP (refer to Section IV.K.1,
Water, of this EIR for supplementary analysis of water supplies). Groundwater to be consumed by
cumulative development would be consumed according to current plans and projections by the LADWP
and would not, therefore, be substantially depleted as a result of the implementation of cumulative
development.
Recharge of the basin occurs from a variety of sources. Spreading of imported water and runoff occurs in
the Pacoima, Tujunga and Hansen Spreading Grounds. Water flowing in surface washes infiltrates the
basin, particularly in the eastern portion of the Basin. No related projects would be developed within
these recharge areas; therefore, cumulative impacts to groundwater recharge and water quality would be
less than significant
Adverse Effects
With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in any
significant and unavoidable impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality,
7. Land Use
Project Impacts
The proposed project of 45 units would be generally consistent and would not conflict with the
Community Plan’s policies related to provision of housing. However, portions of the project site may be
potentially inconsistent with the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan’s policies related to
minimizing grading in hillside areas. For example, the area around proposed Lots 21 through 30 requires
a large area of fill.
February 2010
II. Summary
The proposed project would have potentially adverse impacts related to the Community Plan’s policies to
minimize grading in hillside areas. Mitigation provided below requires that grading for the proposed
project be kept to a minimum. This mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts of the current
project related to potential conflicts with the policies in the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan
and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the project plans do not formally indicate trail
crossings at the point where the trail must cross Andora Avenue, which is not consistent with the Major
Equestrian and Hiking Trails plan. A mitigation measure has been recommended to addresses this issue.
The project site is undeveloped and situated on the south and east facing slopes of the Simi Hills.
Surrounding land uses include one single-family residence to the north of the site and one residence to
the west, and low-density residential uses immediately to the east and southwest. Chatsworth Oaks Park
is also located south of the site, with Chatsworth Reservoir located further south (across Valley Circle
Boulevard). Although no improvements are currently located on site, existing developments to the north
(one house), south, and east of the site have resulted in construction of roads, provision of gas, electricity,
drainage ways and other urban improvements in the immediate site vicinity. As the surrounding land
uses include low-density residential uses, implementation of the proposed project would complement
surrounding land uses and would not disrupt or divide the existing community. Additionally, due to the
low intensity of the proposed land uses, there is no potential for significant secondary impacts to
surrounding land uses. Therefore, no potential for significant land use impacts associated with disrupting
or affecting the surrounding community would occur.
Mitigation Measures
MM-LU-1 Existing on-site trees, major vegetation, and prominent rock formations will be protected
to the extent feasible in project design to reduce impacts of the proposed project on scenic
highways.
MM-LU-2 Grading for the proposed project will be kept to a minimum and contoured in project
design, reducing impacts of the site as viewed from Plummer Street, Valley Circle
Boulevard, and Chatsworth Oaks Park.
MM-LU-3 Project will comply with the applicable provisions of the Valley Circle
Boulevard-Plummer Street Scenic Corridor.
MM-LU-4 The tract map shall designate a crossing area(s) for the Equestrian Trail across Andora
Avenue where the trail switches sides of Andora Avenue. Adequate signage of the
crossing shall also be provided.
February 2010
II. Summary
Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project, on its own, would not result in land use incompatibilities or plan
inconsistencies with the incorporation of mitigation. In considering the proposed project’s cumulative
contribution, with those associated with other development occurring in the vicinity of the project site
would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, the City’s Municipal Ordinance for site zoning, and the
Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan. Implementation of the proposed project and identified
related projects within the City of Los Angeles and the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan Area
would further the goals and objectives of these plans, ultimately contributing to the buildout of the
Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan Area.
Moreover, the City of Los Angeles reviews all projects against City development and design guidelines
which regulate permitted uses, development density, building heights, site and building design,
transportation demand and neighborhood protection. In addition, all development is closely monitored
Citywide. All developments proposed and constructed within the City are recorded by City staff and
reviewed for consistency with Citywide land use controls, development standards, and applicable plans
and policies during the course of the project review and approval process. Given the land use controls
and development standards presently in place within the City, no significant cumulative land use
impacts are anticipated. Therefore, the proposed project would neither on its own, nor as a cumulative
contribution to development in the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan Area, result in a
significant cumulative impact.
Adverse Effects
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, MM-LU-1 through MM-LU-3, project
and cumulative impacts related to land use would be less than significant.
8. Noise
Project Impacts
Construction Impacts
Equipment estimates used for the analysis for grading, building construction, and asphalt paving noise
levels are representative of worse case conditions as it is unlikely that all pieces of equipment associated
with each phase would operate simultaneously at the property lines adjacent to the nearest sensitive land
uses. Based on this assessment, construction noise would exceed the ambient exterior noise levels by
5 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)) at a noise-sensitive land use. A significant impact would occur if
February 2010
II. Summary
construction activities lasting more than 10 days in a 3 -month period would exceed existing ambient
exterior noise levels by 5 dB(A) or more at a sensitive land use. Therefore, noise impacts associated with
the operation of construction equipment would be significant, absent mitigation measures.
In addition to the heavy-duty construction equipment noise, the movement of equipment and workers to
the project site during construction would generate temporary traffic noise along access routes to the
project site. In general, heavy-duty construction equipment would be moved to the project site once for
each construction phase. Since this would be a temporary occurrence, the movement of heavy-duty
construction equipment would result in a less than significant short-term effect on traffic noise levels. In
addition, daily transportation of construction workers during the building construction phase is expected
to cause increases in noise levels along roadways in the project vicinity. However, given that it takes a
doubling of average daily trips on roadways to increase noise by 3 dB(A) community noise equivalent
level (CNEL) and that the maximum amount of construction workers traveling to the project site would
not cause a doubling of average daily trips in the immediate area, the noise level increases along major
arterials surrounding the project site would be less than 3 dB(A). Since changes in a community noise
level of less than 3 dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human ear, construction-related traffic noise
would be less than significant.
Persons residing and working in the area surrounding the project could be exposed to the generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels related to construction activities. Typical
groundborne vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that can damage
structures; however, they can achieve the audible range and can be felt in buildings very close to the
project site. The primary and most intensive vibration source associated with the development of the
project would be the use of large bulldozers during construction. This and other types of equipment can
create intense noise that is disturbing and can result in ground vibrations.
Land uses surrounding the project site consist of residential land uses to the east and southwest. A
distance of 75 feet was used to determine construction equipment vibration impacts. Large bulldozers are
capable of producing approximately 73 vibration decibels (VdB) at 75 feet. As a result, ground vibrations
from project construction activities are anticipated to exceed the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
groundborne vibration threshold of 72 VdB for residential land uses. Consequently, vibration impacts
during construction are considered significant.
Operational Impacts
The proposed project would result in permanent ambient noise level increases of 1.7 dB(A) or less on
surrounding roadways during the weekday. The greatest project-related noise increase of 1.7 dB(A)
February 2010
II. Summary
would occur on Andora Street west of Valley Circle Boulevard-Baden Avenue due to the project trips. A
doubling of the traffic volume on a roadway is required in order to produce a 3 dB(A) increase in sound.
Given the projected future traffic volumes on roadways in the project vicinity, the project would not
double the number of average daily trips on any given roadway. Therefore, none of the roadway
segments included in the assessment would result in an increase in CNEL of 3 dB(A) within the
“normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” categories, or by 5 dB(A) within the “normally
acceptable” or “conditionally acceptable” categories. Therefore, the project’s roadway noise impacts
The project could introduce new stationary noise sources on the project site, including electrical and
mechanical air conditioning, most of which would be located on rooftops or in backyards. Compliance
with the Municipal Code would ensure that impacts resulting from stationary noise sources introduced
to the project site are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM-NOISE-1 All construction activity shall be conducted in accordance with applicable City of Los
Angeles Municipal Codes and Noise Ordinance.
MM-NOISE-2 The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the following
construction BMPs be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels:
 Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must be

provided to surrounding land uses within 300 feet of the project site disclosing the
construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be
occurring throughout the duration of the construction period;
 Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry

standards and in good working condition;
 Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas

away from sensitive uses, except when construction activity is required in areas near
sensitive land uses;
 Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM
to minimize disruption to sensitive uses;
 Implement noise attenuation measures, which may include, but are not limited to,
temporary noise barriers such as curtains around construction areas or noise blankets
around stationary construction noise sources;
February 2010
II. Summary
 Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles,

and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than
20 minutes; and
 Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job
superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for
surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City of
Los Angles or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall
investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the
reporting party. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project
construction documents, which shall be reviewed by City of Los Angeles,
Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a grading permit.
MM-NOISE-3 The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction staging
areas along with the operation of earthmoving equipment within the project area be
located far from noise-sensitive sites except when construction activity is required near
sensitive uses. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project
construction documents, which shall be reviewed by City of Los Angeles, Department of
Building and Safety prior to issuance of a grading permit.
MM-NOISE-4 The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that heavily loaded trucks
used during construction be routed away from residential streets unless no other route
exists. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction
documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Los Angeles, Department of Building
and Safety prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative noise impacts would occur as a result of additional construction activity taking place within
the project area, as well as increased vehicle traffic generated by cumulative development. A list of
related projects is provided in the traffic report for the project. The nearest related projects are located
over 1 mile away, which provides sufficient buffer to prohibit these project’s individual construction
noise and vibration levels from combining to create a cumulative effect. Therefore, cumulative
construction noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Future roadway noise levels would increase existing ambient noise levels by 0.2 dB(A) to 4.9 dB(A) CNEL
on surrounding roadways during the weekday. The greatest cumulative noise increases of 4.9 dB(A)
would occur on Valley Circle Boulevard north of Devonshire Street. None of the roadway segments
included in the assessment would result in an increase in CNEL of 3 dB(A) within the “normally
unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” categories, or in an increase of 5 dB(A) within the “normally
February 2010
II. Summary
acceptable” or “conditionally acceptable” categories. Therefore, cumulative roadway noise impacts

Adverse Effects
Noise and vibration impacts due to construction of the proposed project would remain significant and
unavoidable after incorporation of the above mitigation measures. Noise impacts due to traffic generated
by the proposed project and stationary noise sources introduced to the project site would be less than
significant. Cumulative noise and vibration impacts would less than significant.
9. Public Services
Police
Project Impacts
The development of the project would increase the project site’s population by approximately
119 persons that would be served by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Currently, the
Devonshire Community Police Station provides services for a total population of approximately
240,000 persons. With the introduction of 119 new residents, this would represent a 0.05 percent increase
in population over existing conditions. However, because the population increase due to the project
would be less than 1 percent of the total regional population, the project would have a less than
significant impact on police protection services.
Additionally, the proposed project would be designed to provide security lighting that would ensure a
secure environment for project residents. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No impacts to police services were identified and, therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would result in an increase in residential land uses within LAPD’s Devonshire
service area. Additional related projects are proposed and/or planned within the project vicinity. Both the
project and other planned and approved developments throughout the City could cumulatively increase
the need for services from the LAPD. This demand would be met by increases in law enforcement
staffing and equipment as needed, which would be funded by increased revenues from the increased tax
base and motor vehicle registration fees paid by project residents. Moreover, each project is subject to
February 2010
II. Summary
review by the LAPD to ensure that adequate access, visibility, and security are provided. Therefore, the
project would not contribute to any significant cumulative impacts to police services.
Adverse Effects
No impacts to police services would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
Fire
Project Impacts
The project’s location in a Hazardous Fire Zone would increase the homes and people that would require
the services of the local fire department as well as increase the risk of fire to the hazardous brush areas
surrounding the area by creating an opportunity of starting brush fires, therefore placing citizens at risk.
In contrast, the development of homes and roads would help stop the spread of brush fires from
neighboring areas by creating a line that a fire would not be able to cross. Additionally, the project
proposes a 20-foot-wide emergency access along the northern property line from Andora Avenue to the
western end of the proposed Rodgers Way, which would allow greater emergency access to the area
when necessary.
Because there are other developments that are close to the Brush Fire Hazard Zones, with the
incorporation of the mitigation measures listed below, impacts related to fire protection and emergency
services would be reduced to less than significant levels. Further, the City has developed additional
building codes and fire codes that reduce risk of fire. By complying with these codes and laws, there will
be a reduction of risk from fire both structural and brush fires.
Mitigation Measures
MM-FIRE-1 Adequate off-site public and on-site private fire hydrants may be required. Their number
and location is to be determined after the Fire Department’s review of the plot plan.
MM-FIRE-2 Private streets and entry gates would be built to City standards to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and the Fire Department.
MM-FIRE-3 Irrigated and managed greenbelts around the perimeter of all structures for a distance of
100 feet shall be considered as a buffer between the brush and the proposed project.
MM-FIRE-4 All landscaping shall use fire-resistant plants and materials.
MM-FIRE-5 All homes shall be constructed with noncombustible (non-wood) roofs.

February 2010
II. Summary
MM-FIRE-6 The brush in the area adjacent to the proposed development would be cleared or thinned
periodically by the homeowners’ association under supervision of the Los Angeles City
Fire Department in order to reduce the risk of brush fires spreading to the homes.
MM-FIRE-7 Plot plans would be submitted to show the access road and the turning area for Fire
Department approval.
MM-FIRE-8 Construction of public or private roadway in the proposed development would not
exceed 15 degrees in grade.
MM-FIRE-9 Entrance or exit of all units would not exceed 150 feet from the edge of a roadway of an
improved street, access road or designated fire lane.
MM-FIRE-10 All structures would be fully sprinklered.
MM-FIRE-11 The proposed project shall comply with all applicable state and local codes and
ordinances, and the guidelines found in the Fire Protection and Fire Prevention Plan, and
the Safety Element of the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles (C.P.C. 19708).
MM-FIRE-12 Definitive plans and specifications would be submitted to the Los Angeles City Fire
Department, and requirements for necessary permits satisfied prior to commencement of
any portion of the proposed project.
MM-FIRE-13 At least two different ingress/egress roads for each area of the proposed development
that will accommodate major fire apparatus and provide for major evacuation during
emergency situations shall be required.
MM-FIRE-14 In addition, it is recommended that, where required, fire lanes and dead-end streets
would be designed to terminate in a cul-de-sac or other approved turning area. No
dead-ending street or fire lane would be greater than 700 feet in length or secondary
access shall be required.
MM-FIRE-15 The Tentative Tract Map and Conceptual Fire Protection/Vegetation Management Plan
shall be submitted to the LAFD, Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, and to
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power for review and approval prior to
approval of the Final Map.
MM-FIRE-16 Adequate water system facilities shall be provided to meet the required fire-flow of
2,000 gallons per minute from three adjacent fire hydrants flowing simultaneously at any
February 2010
II. Summary
location within the tract, including hydrants which will serve residences located higher
than 1,180 feet above sea level.
MM-FIRE-17 All structures (except non-combustible outbuildings of 100 sf or less) within the
perimeter of the development area directly abutting wildland and natural open space
areas shall have walls protected on the exterior with at least 1-hour construction from
foundation to underside of roof sheathing per the Los Angeles Building Code;
1.75-inch-thick, solid-core doors; and non-combustible garage doors.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would result in an increase in residential land uses within the Chatsworth-Porter
Ranch Community Plan Area of Los Angeles. Additional related projects are proposed and/or planned
within the project site vicinity. The proposed project and other planned and approved developments
throughout the City would cumulatively increase the need for services from the LAFD. This demand
would be met by the increased tax base associated with the proposed project. Moreover, each project is
subject to review by LAFD to ensure that an adequate emergency response exists and that adequate
emergency site access is provided. Therefore, with the implementation of identified mitigation measures,
the proposed project would not individually or cumulatively result in significant impacts to fire
protection and emergency medical services.
Adverse Effects
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-17,

project and cumulative impacts related to fire protection and emergency services would be less than
significant.
Public Schools
Project Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would provide 45 new residential units in the Chatsworth-Porter
Ranch Community Plan Area of Los Angeles. Associated with the construction of 45 new residential units
would be a population increase of approximately 119 residents. As described above, children from these
new households would likely attend Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) schools in Local
District 1. Therefore, the proposed project could have both a direct and indirect impact on the schools
within the district boundary. In order to reduce potentially significant impacts to the LAUSD school
February 2010
II. Summary
system associated with the introduction of 21 new students, the applicant would pay a developer fee to
pay their fair share of any improvements necessary to reduce impacts to the LAUSD.
The construction of 45 residential units would generate approximately 21 students into the LAUSD. The
three schools serving the project have sufficient capacity to accommodate the new students generated by
the project, and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the applicant’s required payment of
developer fees to the LAUSD would further reduce impacts to public schools.
The proposed project would not include any features that would reduce the demand for school services.
Instead, implementation of the proposed project would generate approximately 21 additional students
and could result in a need to alter existing bus routes to accommodate transporting these new students.
Due to the project site’s location and proximity from existing LAUSD schools, neither construction nor
operation of the proposed project is expected to interfere with operations of existing schools. Therefore,
with the applicant’s required payment of developer fees to pay their fair share of any improvements
necessary to reduce impacts to the LAUSD, all potentially impacts associated with the implementation of
the proposed project can be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are proposed, as no significant impacts have been identified. As discussed above,
payment of required developer fees would adequately reduce potential impacts in regards to public
school to less than significant levels.
Cumulative Impacts
In the area immediately surrounding the project site, approximately 663 additional residential units are
either being constructed or proposed. As such, an associated student enrollment increase is likely. This
increase could be considered to be potentially significant.
Additionally, according to Government Code Section 65995, the payment of school impact fees
authorized by Senate Bill 50, and the fees required for residential and commercial development by the
LAUSD by each project, would mitigate the impact of the proposed project as well as the related projects
on local schools from cumulative development. Therefore, after payment of these fees, the cumulative
impact of the proposed project and related projects would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Adverse Effects
No impacts to public schools would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
February 2010
II. Summary
10. Transportation
Project Impacts
Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would involve grading activities at the project site. All earth
material would remain on the project site, as no dirt would be imported or exported as a result of project
construction or operation. Upon completion of site grading, project infrastructure would be installed
followed by construction of the 45 single-family residences. Access to the site during all construction
activity would be provided by Andora Avenue. It is anticipated that construction workers would arrive
and depart the site during off-peak hours and that construction-related traffic would be largely freeway
oriented. Construction workers would arrive and depart along the Ronald Reagan Freeway, Topanga
Canyon Boulevard, Lassen Street, and Andora Avenue. The most commonly used freeway ramp would
be nearest the project site, which is the westbound and eastbound on- and off-ramps at Topanga Canyon
Boulevard.
As per the provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, construction may commence at 7:00 AM. As
such, the majority of the construction workers are expected to arrive and depart the project site during
off-peak hours (i.e., arrive prior to 7:00 AM and depart between 3:00 and 4:00 PM), thereby avoiding
generating trips during the 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM peak traffic periods. Consequently, their
impact on peak hour traffic in the vicinity of the site would be negligible. Given the off-peak nature of
construction worker traffic, construction worker traffic would not substantially affect the volume to
capacity ratios of the surrounding intersections or street segments. As such, worker trips would have a
less than significant impact.
Operational Impacts
As discussed in Section IV.J, Transportation, the change in traffic conditions associated with the project
traffic would not significantly impact the traffic flow at any of the study intersections, and impacts would
be less than significant.
Access to the project area will be from internal roadways created by the project with connection to
Andora Avenue’s current terminus into the eastern portion of the project site. The necessary roadway
extensions would be constructed to comply with the standards followed by the City of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering as require by MM-TRAF-2. Therefore, extension of
this roadway would not result in design features that could be hazardous to drivers, pedestrians and
February 2010
II. Summary
other individuals using or recreating in the vicinity of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Public transportation in the study area is provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(Metro). The routes closest to this project are route 245, route 166, and route 364. These routes follow
along Topanga Canyon Boulevard and Devonshire Street. They provide access to the Warner Center area,
Northridge fashion district, and California State University Northridge. These bus routes also provide
access to the Chatsworth Metrolink station. Bus line 245 provides access to the Metro Orange Line.
In addition to regional bus transit available in the project vicinity, throughout the community are bicycle
lanes located along the streets and bicycle racks are provided in shopping centers and at public parks.
Therefore, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with adopted polices, plans
or programs supporting alternative transportation, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM-TRAF-1 The applicant shall contact the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) to determine the exact
applicable dedication and widening standards along with any other required
improvements specified by the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) and city
ordinances. Required improvements within existing or designated roadways shall be
guaranteed through the B-permit process of BOE before the issuance of any building
permit for this project, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and BOE prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
MM-TRAF-2 The project shall conform to DOT’s criteria for driveway designs as published in DOT
Manual of Policies and Procedures, Section 321 (1) and (2), and submit final parking
driveway plans to DOT
Cumulative Impacts
The September 2008 Traffic Impact Evaluation for a Single Family Home Development Located
Northwest of Andora Avenue & Plummer Street in the City of Los Angeles, discussed herein, analyzed
existing (2008) and future (2010) AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions at three intersections in the
vicinity of the project site. The cumulative traffic conditions attributable to 11 potential related projects in
the surrounding area were also analyzed in this traffic analysis. Based on the analysis, the project is not
expected to result in significant impacts to any of the three intersections on its own or in combination
with the 11 identified related projects; therefore, cumulative transportation impacts would be less than
significant.
February 2010
II. Summary
Adverse Effects
No impacts to transportation would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
11. Public Utilities
Water
Project Impacts
As described in Section IV.K.1, Water, implementation of the proposed project would increase the
demand for water over existing conditions and uses on the project site. Water consumption for the
proposed 45-unit project would be 17,820 gallons/day, based upon the average consumption of
150 gallons/day of water per person per single-family unit. As such, the project water demand would
result in a demand of approximately 20 acre-feet per year (afy). This represents a relatively small fraction
(approximately 0.003 percent) of the projected water demand of 683,000 acre-feet that LADWP plans to
meet by 2010 under average weather conditions. Therefore, the water demand generated by the proposed
project is accounted for in LADWP’s projections, and impacts related to water demand would be less
than significant.
The LADWP has indicated that water can be supplied to the site up to an elevation of 1,180 feet above sea
level (based upon a minimum water pressure of 45 pounds per square inch, or psi) from an extension of
the existing 12-inch water main in Andora Avenue. One residence along the western portion of the
project site is proposed at an elevation of 1,235 feet, meaning that the LADWP could not supply water to
this residence, and potentially significant impacts related to water pressure exist. Mitigation measures
listed below would address impacts related to water pressure and supply. With the incorporation of
mitigation, impacts related to water pressure and supply would be less than significant.
The proposed project is in area which would be served by an extension of an existing water main along
Andora Avenue, which would be routinely serviced by LADWP, thereby reducing water facilities
impacts. In addition, project design features for water conservation, as recommended by LADWP, would
reduce water service impacts. The project must comply with Section 12.41 of the Los Angeles Municipal
Code, which includes abiding by standards for water delivery systems to landscapes. Therefore, given
that water-conserving design features would be incorporated and that LADWP would provide routine
maintenance for all lines servicing the project, the impacts to water service would be less than significant.
February 2010
II. Summary
Mitigation Measures
MM-Water-1 Additional water conveyance facilities will be provided to service residences located
higher than 1,180 feet above sea level, such as a pump-tank system, if determined
necessary by the LADWP. The facilities must be designed to be satisfactory to the
LADWP.
MM-Water-2 Mitigation measures will be implemented as required by state law:
 Low-flush toilets (Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code).
 Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Park 6,
Article 1, T20-1406F).
 Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy

Commission regulations).
 The project will also comply with water conservation provisions of the appropriate
plumbing code.
MM-Water-3 Landscape with low-water consuming plants wherever feasible.
MM-Water-4 Use mulch extensively, where feasible, in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied to top soil
will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil
compaction.
MM-Water-5 Preserve and protect existing trees where feasible. Established plants are often adapted to
low water condition and their use saves water needed to establish replacement
vegetation.
MM-Water-6 Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize
the amount of water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture
sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation
efficiency.
MM-Water-7 The project shall comply with City Ordinances 163,532, 164,093, and 170,978 relating to
water conservation measures.
Cumulative Impacts
Development of the proposed project, in association with related projects, would cumulatively increase
water demand in the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan area and the Los Angeles Subregion.
February 2010
II. Summary
The Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportation Plan Growth
Forecast Report projects that the City of Los Angeles will add 118,622dwelling units between 2005 and
2015.2 The proposed project and the identified related projects would collectively add approximately
755 dwelling units, representing an approximately 3.5 percent (4,197 dwelling units of the projected
118,622 units) contribution towards the projected dwelling unit increase for the City of Los Angeles.
Using SCAG’s growth forecasts, LADWP has projected that there will be an adequate supply of water to
accommodate anticipated growth for the next several decades. Given that the Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP) plans for water supplies to serve existing and projected needs, it is anticipated that the
LADWP will be able to supply the demands of the proposed project and related projects through the
foreseeable future, and no significant cumulative impacts related to water demand are anticipated.
Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to result in potentially significant cumulative
impacts on water supply.
Adverse Effects
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, MM-Water-1 through MM-Water-7,

project and cumulative impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.
Wastewater
Project Impacts
During project construction, construction contractors for the project would provide portable, on-site
sanitation facilities for use by the construction crews that would be serviced at approved disposal
facilities and treatment plants. The amount of construction related wastewater that would be generated
would be minimal and would not have a significant impact on wastewater disposal and treatment
facilities due to the temporary nature of construction and expected low volumes of wastes. As a result,
construction impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would consist of 45 single-family residences, which would increase the site
population by approximately 119 people. Based on the year 2010 population estimate contained in the
Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan, the associated population increase would represent
approximately 0.09 percent of the projected area population of 134,960 persons. Implementation of the
proposed project would increase the demand for water over existing conditions and uses on the project
2 Southern California Association of Governments. 2008 Regional Transportation Plan/Integrated Resources Plan,
June 2004.
February 2010
II. Summary
site. The project is estimated to result in gross wastewater generation of approximately 14,850 gallons per
day (gpd), or 5.4 million gallons per year.
The Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant, which ultimately treats the City’s sewage, is operating at
110 million gpd below capacity. The projected 14,850 gpd of wastewater generated by the project
represents less than 0.1 percent of this excess capacity. Based on the results of the gauging described
above, the existing sewer system may be able to accommodate the project’s anticipated wastewater flow;
however, the local sewer line serving the project site would have to be extended at the terminus of
Andora Avenue to follow Rodgers Way, resulting in a potential significant impact. Therefore, mitigation
measures listed below have been proposed in order to accommodate the project’s wastewater flow as
deemed necessary by the Bureau of Sanitation.
As part of project implementation, the project applicant would be required by the City to pay sewage
connection fees based on the number of plumbing fixtures associated with the proposed project. In
addition, the applicant would be required by the City to pay sewage facility charges that allow the project
to pay its share of the cost of treatment facilities. The sewage facility charge is collected by the City from
owners and developers of new land uses within the City. Since the applicant would pay the above fees
and would upgrade any existing pipelines without sufficient flow capacity in order to ensure adequate
wastewater service for the project, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than
significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures described below.
Mitigation Measures
MM-WW-1 Install low-volume toilets and restricted flow water fixtures in all facilities.
MM-WW-2 The project would comply with Bureau of Sanitation recommendations for the proposed
development.
MM-WW-3 The project would provide for on- and off-site sewers and easements in accordance with
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the Bureau of
Sanitation and the City Engineer.
MM-WW-4 The Bureau of Engineering has indicated that, upon review of the preliminary tentative
tract map, the site may require a pump station to mitigate sewage drainage flows affected
by excessive slopes.
February 2010
II. Summary
Cumulative Impacts
Development of the proposed project as well as other related approved and pending projects within the
project area would increase wastewater generation. Several improvements to the Hyperion system have
recently been completed to allow the system to treat increased wastewater flows. In addition, each new
development within the City of Los Angeles is required to comply with the City’s water conservation
ordinances and other regulations pertaining to sewer collection and disposal. Therefore, cumulative
impacts on wastewater services would be less than significant.
Adverse Effects
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, MM-WW-1 through MM-WW-4, project
and cumulative impacts related to wastewater service would be less than significant.
J. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As stated above, the principal purpose of alternatives is to define specific strategies that would reduce the
magnitude of, or eliminate, potential project-related environmental impacts.
The State CEQA Guidelines stipulate that alternatives addressed in an EIR should be feasible and should
not be considered remote or speculative. The State CEQA Guidelines state that “among the factors that
may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic
viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, jurisdictional boundaries and whether
the applicant can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.”
In response to these significant impacts, the City developed and considered several alternatives to the
project. These alternatives include:
 Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development Alternative
 Alternative 2 – Lower Intensity Alternative
 Alternative 3 – Open Space Alternative
1. Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that a No Project Alternative be evaluated. As
described in the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of describing and analyzing the No Project
Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with
the impacts of not approving the proposed project.
February 2010
II. Summary
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the project site would not be developed and would
remain in its current state. None of the impacts associated with construction and operational activities
would occur if the No Project/No Development Alternative were selected. No short-term noise or
groundborne vibration impacts would occur during construction as a result of this alternative. This
alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project for these reasons.
2. Alternative 2 – Lower Intensity Alternative
Under the lower intensity alternative, only 36 residential units would be constructed under Al zoning (or
0.4 dwelling units per gross acre), as permitted under the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan,
versus the 45 units permitted under RE40-1-H - K zoning and slope ordinance allowance for the proposed
project. Under this alternative, essentially a similar amount of vacant land would be improved and
developed, compared to the proposed project, because roadway construction (the main source of
grading) would still be needed to serve the residences. Some of the environmental impacts that would
occur under this alternative would be reduced to a magnitude of approximately three-quarters of those
estimated for the proposed project since this alternative proposes three-fourths of the total dwelling units
of the proposed project. This alternative is expected to generate 7 fewer students, and 2,970 fewer gallons
of wastewater per day than anticipated under the proposed project. In addition, this alternative is
expected to consume 3,600 fewer gallons of water per day than expected to be consumed under the
proposed project.
When further compared to the proposed project, the lower-intensity alternative would result in
incrementally reduced impacts related to aesthetics and views, biology, air quality, cultural resources,
geology, water resources, land use, police and fire services, and transportation. However, the reduction in
residential units associated with Alternative 2 would not constitute a substantial reduction in these
impacts compared with the proposed project.
Development activities associated with the proposed project and Alternative 2 during construction such
as demolition, earthmoving, and construction of on-site infrastructure would involve the use of heavy
equipment, such as backhoe, dozer, loaders, concrete mixers, and forklifts. Under either the proposed
project or Alternative 2, these construction equipment sources would cause significant noise and
groundborne vibration impacts. These impacts could be reduced but not eliminated with either
development scenario through the implementation of mitigation measures recommended for the project.
In addition, the construction duration associated with Alternative 2 would be shorter when compared to
the proposed project due to the lower intensity of the alternative. However, construction duration would
not be shortened to the extent that noise and groundborne vibration impacts would be substantially
reduced. As a result, construction of the project under both scenarios would result in short-term
February 2010
II. Summary
significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen a
significant noise impact. Furthermore, the project goals would not be achieved by this alternative to the
same extent as they would under the proposed project.
3. Alternative 3 – Open Space Alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed project site would not be developed under residential uses. Instead,
the site would be developed into recreational open space for hiking and horseback riding. This alternative
leaves the site in a relatively undeveloped state except for provision and maintenance of 5- and
10-foot-wide trails (or combination 10-foot-wide trail) accessible to horseback riders, hikers and
maintenance personnel only.
Under this alternative, fewer or no adverse impacts would occur related to aesthetics and views, biology,
air quality, cultural resources, geology, water resources, land use, noise, public services, transportation,
and public utilities. These impacts would essentially be eliminated since no permanent population would
be located on site, and permanent construction (e.g., structures) would not occur or would occur at a
substantially lower intensity (e.g., picnic shelters). Alternative 3 would avoid significant short-term noise
and groundborne vibration.
Although the Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks and California Department of Parks
and Recreation could have a potential interest in the proposed project site for the development of this
alternative, no funds have currently been designated in preparation for site acquisition or development.
Additionally, none of the three project goals would be achieved under this alternative.
February 2010

Ii. Summary: Guidelines. The Process Begins by Determining Whether or Not The Project Is Subject To Environmental

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ii. Summary: Guidelines. The Process Begins by Determining Whether or Not The Project Is Subject To Environmental

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

II.

B. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

D. LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES

E. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

 To develop a high quality residential community;

 To enhance accessibility for emergency responders;

 To utilize landform and contour grading techniques to minimize grading on site;

 To preserve a substantial portion of the project site as permanent open space;

G. CITY ACTIONS REQUESTED

H. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. Aesthetics and Views

MM-AES-3 Protect viewsheds to ridgelines from adjacent residences.

 Exterior surfaces colored to blend with natural surroundings, including nonreflective

 Immediate landscaping of graded slopes and other cleared areas, as appropriate, in

 Application of landform or contour grading and landscaping techniques as

 Treatment of concrete drains with colored pigment to minimize their visual

 site preparation, transplantation, seeding and irrigation techniques;

 provisions for general maintenance of the mitigation area, including responsibility

 performance standards of the mitigation, including goals to be met for reproduction,

 monitoring protocols, including provisions for the evaluation of plant establishment

 monitoring report requirements, provisions for site protection, adaptive management

 the location of mitigation sites;

 the quantity and species of plants to be planted;

 procedures for creating additional vegetation communities with locally indigenous

 methods for the removal of non-native plants;

 a schedule and action plan to maintain and monitor the enhancement/restoration

 measures to exclude unauthorized entry into the creation/enhancement areas; and

Construction within or on properties contiguous to the designated butterfly groves shall

MM-BIO-9 No earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction activities, a

 vertical trenches or fence posts shall be hand dug; and

 Fuel modification zones A and B shall be combined to provide a 50-foot irrigated

(Linepithema humile) which are known competitors and predators of native

 The Home Owners Association (HOA) shall supply educational information to

 Invasive exotic species shall be prohibited and removed upon detection.

With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-15,

Global Climate Change Impacts

MM-CR-1 A qualified archaeologist/paleontologist should be present during grading operations to

With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure MM-CR-1, project related to

Local Geologic Setting and Earth Materials

Sedimentation and Erosion

MM-GEO-12 Implementation of contoured grading techniques outlined in the Planning Guidelines

MM-GEO-14 All mitigation measures from Geolabs-Westlake Village, Inc., Reconnaissance

With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-19,

Surface Water Hydrology

Surface Water Quality

Project construction could potentially result in a temporary increase in groundwater contamination

MM-WR-2 The reduction of grading activity to limit drainage impacts.

MM-WR-3 Construction of permanent drainage facilities, as recommended by the project’s

Surface Water Hydrology

Surface Water Quality

Groundwater Level and Quality

 Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must be

 Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry

 Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas

 Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles,

acceptable” or “conditionally acceptable” categories. Therefore, cumulative roadway noise impacts

MM-FIRE-4 All landscaping shall use fire-resistant plants and materials.

MM-FIRE-5 All homes shall be constructed with noncombustible (non-wood) roofs.

MM-FIRE-10 All structures would be fully sprinklered.

With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-17,

No impacts to transportation would occur with implementation of the proposed project.

11. Public Utilities